Post by Rob Caprio on Feb 22, 2021 22:04:17 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/journalnow.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/09/d09d73b8-5300-11e3-819d-001a4bcf6878/528e90d95a30b.image.jpg
www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02739/kennedy-oswold_2739142k.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) assassinated President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963, all by himself. The problem with this conclusion is that there is no supporting evidence for the claims made in the WCR that were the basis for their conclusion.
They were also bereft of any motive for LHO wanting to kill JFK. So they made one up – LHO wanted to be famous.
The problem with this conclusion is that at every chance LHO denied that he shot JFK or anyone else. This post will look at this issue in greater detail.
******************************************
At no time did LHO ever deny his innocence. His actions in the Texas Theater (TT) when the police arrested him show this.
Mr. BELIN - Did you hear Oswald say anything?
Mr. BREWER - As they were taking him out, he stopped and turned around and hollered, "I am not resisting arrest," about twice. "I am not resisting arrest." And they took him on outside.
If LHO was the actual assassin, why would he be worried about people realizing he was not resisting arrest? That would be a minuscule issue compared to gunning down the president.
Furthermore, if LHO was the actual assassin, why would he have allowed the police to approach him at all? What did he have to lose by opening fire first?
If we look at Detective Bob Carroll's report on the arrest we will see that he confirms that LHO was shouting that he was not resisting arrest. This report also points out a few other things too.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0127a.gif
We heard the police radio report that a suspect had entered the Texas Theater…When we entered the theater, we were told by a white female that the suspect was in the balcony. (Commission Exhibit (CE) 2003, p.81)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0127a.htm
Quote off
Notice how he first states that they were told “a suspect” was in the TT. This would mean that there could have been more than one suspect. Moreover, what would have made LHO a suspect in any crime? As we have seen previously in this series there was no witness from the murder scene of Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit (JDT) at TT, so what made LHO a suspect? There was no arrest warrant or All-Points Bulletin (A.P.B.) either.
The next point is very important. Carroll says when they entered the TT they were told by a “white female” that the suspect was in the BALCONY. Who was this white female? Some may say that it was Julia Postal, but a report of this nature should leave no ambiguity. Why doesn't it state for sure who this woman was?
Notice too how “a suspect” has become “the suspect.” What changed in the few minutes that it took to get to the TT to upgrade him to THE suspect?
Finally, the unknown white female said that the suspect was in the balcony. At no time was LHO ever in the balcony, so who was the person in the balcony? Why was he believed to be the suspect by the unknown white woman? Whatever happened to this man? Was he the person taken out of the rear of the TT?
Carroll states that LHO was resisting “vigorously”, but then goes on to say that he and FOUR other police officers converged on him at one time. I would think even the Incredible Hulk would have trouble fighting off FIVE trained police officers at one time. Even if LHO did resist, and there is no firm evidence for this, how is that inappropriate? As I have said there was no legitimate reason, and no arrest warrant, for them to attack LHO like this. Why couldn't this be simple self-defense?
Despite five police officers converging on him at one time we are asked to believe that LHO was still able to pull a gun. If LHO did this, and again there is no clear-cut evidence showing that he did beyond biased police statements, the simple question of why didn't he do this right away could be asked. If he intended to use force as claimed, why would he wait until the police officers were all over him?
Carroll then writes something that disagrees with the official claim. “At this time I observed a pistol with the muzzle pointed in my direction.” (Ibid.) The official claim is that LHO pointed the pistol at officer M.N. McDonald. What gives?
He then says he just grabbed the gun and stuck it his belt, but would you be able to do this if LHO was a cold-blooded killer as claimed? I doubt it.
The we get to the confirmation of Johnny Brewer's testimony.
Quote on
When we were removing Oswald from the theater, he was hollering that he had not resisted arrest and that he wanted to complain of police brutality. (Ibid.)
Quote off
Of course LHO was not resisting arrest as there was NO reason for the police to be arresting him at 1:51 p.m. on November 22, 1963. They had no arrest warrant and even the official narrative admits that the supposed murder weapons were NOT tied to LHO via an alleged alias until the late afternoon of November 23, 1963. What possible reason could the Dallas Police Department (DPD) have had to arrest LHO at that point? None.
Despite this truth someone had alerted the crowd out front of the TT that LHO was the murderer of not just JDT, but JFK as well as Carroll writes that the crowd out front was yelling, “Kill the dirty ‘Sob'.” (Ibid.) Beyond the police, who could've riled up the crowd against LHO like this?
Patrolman K.E. Lyon would give some of the same details. He too stated that they were told that the suspect was in the balcony. He wrote the following in regards to resisting arrest.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0129b.gif
…Lee Harvey Oswald kept yelling, “I am not resisting arrest. I am not resisting arrest. I want to complain of police brutality. (CE 2003, p. 191)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0129b.htm
Quote off
Further behavior that supports LHO's claim of Innocence comes via Sergeant Gerald Hill's testimony.
Mr. HILL. …We got the suspect to the city hall as rapidly as possible...and we explained to him this—I did, before we got into the basement, that there would probably be some reporters and photographers and cameramen waiting...and that if he so desired...he could hide his face...As we pulled into the basement...(I)told the suspect again he could hide his face if he wanted to. And he said, "Why should I hide my face. I haven't done anything to be ashamed of.
Now, WC defenders can say that he wasn't ashamed of killing JFK or JDT, but if this is so why didn't he come right out and say this then?
Confirmation of Hill's testimony can be found in Philadelphia reporter John McCullough's testimony.
Mr. POLLACK ...that vein, did you hear any insinuations being made that the Dallas Police Department might have been mistreating Oswald?
Mr. McCULLOUGH. Only from Oswald. He at one time, when he was walking along the corridor...Oswald himself, the first time I saw him, in the lineup room--there, again, at the basement level---he held his hands high so that the handcuffs he was wearing would be seen on camera. And this struck me as a little unusual, because having had many, many years as a police reporter, I have seen people who were charged with crimes try to cover their face. He made no such movement. He was just trying to display the handcuffs, which struck me as odd.
This seems to be odd behavior for a fulfilled killer. If you believe that he was the killer that the WC said he was, why did he never admit it. Especially when he had been shot already?
Mr. HUBERT. Did you hear Oswald say anything?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir. He--I didn't hear him say a word hardly, after he had been shot. He was moaning at the time Jimmy Leavelle, Graves, and I laid him down on the floor and removed the handcuffs that he had on him.
Mr. HUBERT. That was in the jail office?
Mr. COMBEST. Yes, sir. At the time I asked him and talked to him trying to get him to make a statement to me at the time. Especially, after I realized how serious the wound was. When we first asked him he appeared to comprehend what I was saying.
Mr. HUBERT. What did you ask him?
Mr. COMBEST. Well, I told him was there anything that he wanted me to tell anybody or was there anything he wanted to say right now before it was too late, and I don't remember my--exactly the words that I did say to him, but after I realized the seriousness of the wound, of course, trying to let him know if he was ever going to say anything he was going to have to say it then.
Mr. HUBERT. You thought he was dying?
Mr. COMBEST. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. HUBERT. And do you think you used language to him to convey to him your idea that he was dying?
Mr. COMBEST. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. But he didn't say anything?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir; just shook his head and I said, "Do you have anything you want to tell us now," and he shook his head.
Mr. HUBERT. He did not say the word "No"?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir; he did not say anything at all.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you indicate to him that if he had any accomplices or wanted to clarify the shooting of the President, that he had better do it right quick?
Mr. COMBEST. Not in those words. I didn't mention "accomplice," or anything. I was real excited at the time but I kept talking to him as long as I thought that he would try to answer me, hoping that he would give a dying declaration on the shooting.
Even dying LHO didn't say he had killed JFK and/or JDT. What would he have had to lose at that time? Why not claim his immortality of fame as was claimed by the WC?
I can hear the WC defenders saying, “But he didn't name any accomplices either.” True, but LHO may not have known any of the people directly involved. Or maybe he was protecting his family from harm that could've come to them if he squealed. We will never know for sure, but the point is he NEVER admitted to committing the crimes.
The other point here is that the WC never mentioned this testimony in their Report. Why not? The WC had a duty to evaluate this testimony in terms of what it could have meant, but they just ignored it. That severely weakens their conclusion.
All through the interrogations and lineups LHO maintained his innocence. JFK was not a popular president in Dallas so LHO may have actually been treated better by admitting his guilt (a la Jack Ruby) if he was guilty, but he wasn't.
Perhaps the final proof of his innocence comes from his brother Robert's diary in which he wrote the following.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0463a.jpg
All the time we were talking I searched his eyes for any sign of guilt or whatever you call it. There was nothing there—no guilt, no shame, no nothing. Lee finally aware of my looking into his eyes, he stated, “You will not find anything there.” (CE 323, p. 13)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0463a.htm
Quote off
This says it all to me. The WC’s claim that LHO's motive for killing JFK was fame flies in the face of the actual evidence. This is nothing new as the vast majority of their claims did. The WC gave us nothing but a fairytale narrative.
We again see evidence in this post that does not support the claims found in the WCR, thus, the WC's conclusion is sunk again.
bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/journalnow.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/09/d09d73b8-5300-11e3-819d-001a4bcf6878/528e90d95a30b.image.jpg
www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02739/kennedy-oswold_2739142k.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) assassinated President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963, all by himself. The problem with this conclusion is that there is no supporting evidence for the claims made in the WCR that were the basis for their conclusion.
They were also bereft of any motive for LHO wanting to kill JFK. So they made one up – LHO wanted to be famous.
The problem with this conclusion is that at every chance LHO denied that he shot JFK or anyone else. This post will look at this issue in greater detail.
******************************************
At no time did LHO ever deny his innocence. His actions in the Texas Theater (TT) when the police arrested him show this.
Mr. BELIN - Did you hear Oswald say anything?
Mr. BREWER - As they were taking him out, he stopped and turned around and hollered, "I am not resisting arrest," about twice. "I am not resisting arrest." And they took him on outside.
If LHO was the actual assassin, why would he be worried about people realizing he was not resisting arrest? That would be a minuscule issue compared to gunning down the president.
Furthermore, if LHO was the actual assassin, why would he have allowed the police to approach him at all? What did he have to lose by opening fire first?
If we look at Detective Bob Carroll's report on the arrest we will see that he confirms that LHO was shouting that he was not resisting arrest. This report also points out a few other things too.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0127a.gif
We heard the police radio report that a suspect had entered the Texas Theater…When we entered the theater, we were told by a white female that the suspect was in the balcony. (Commission Exhibit (CE) 2003, p.81)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0127a.htm
Quote off
Notice how he first states that they were told “a suspect” was in the TT. This would mean that there could have been more than one suspect. Moreover, what would have made LHO a suspect in any crime? As we have seen previously in this series there was no witness from the murder scene of Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit (JDT) at TT, so what made LHO a suspect? There was no arrest warrant or All-Points Bulletin (A.P.B.) either.
The next point is very important. Carroll says when they entered the TT they were told by a “white female” that the suspect was in the BALCONY. Who was this white female? Some may say that it was Julia Postal, but a report of this nature should leave no ambiguity. Why doesn't it state for sure who this woman was?
Notice too how “a suspect” has become “the suspect.” What changed in the few minutes that it took to get to the TT to upgrade him to THE suspect?
Finally, the unknown white female said that the suspect was in the balcony. At no time was LHO ever in the balcony, so who was the person in the balcony? Why was he believed to be the suspect by the unknown white woman? Whatever happened to this man? Was he the person taken out of the rear of the TT?
Carroll states that LHO was resisting “vigorously”, but then goes on to say that he and FOUR other police officers converged on him at one time. I would think even the Incredible Hulk would have trouble fighting off FIVE trained police officers at one time. Even if LHO did resist, and there is no firm evidence for this, how is that inappropriate? As I have said there was no legitimate reason, and no arrest warrant, for them to attack LHO like this. Why couldn't this be simple self-defense?
Despite five police officers converging on him at one time we are asked to believe that LHO was still able to pull a gun. If LHO did this, and again there is no clear-cut evidence showing that he did beyond biased police statements, the simple question of why didn't he do this right away could be asked. If he intended to use force as claimed, why would he wait until the police officers were all over him?
Carroll then writes something that disagrees with the official claim. “At this time I observed a pistol with the muzzle pointed in my direction.” (Ibid.) The official claim is that LHO pointed the pistol at officer M.N. McDonald. What gives?
He then says he just grabbed the gun and stuck it his belt, but would you be able to do this if LHO was a cold-blooded killer as claimed? I doubt it.
The we get to the confirmation of Johnny Brewer's testimony.
Quote on
When we were removing Oswald from the theater, he was hollering that he had not resisted arrest and that he wanted to complain of police brutality. (Ibid.)
Quote off
Of course LHO was not resisting arrest as there was NO reason for the police to be arresting him at 1:51 p.m. on November 22, 1963. They had no arrest warrant and even the official narrative admits that the supposed murder weapons were NOT tied to LHO via an alleged alias until the late afternoon of November 23, 1963. What possible reason could the Dallas Police Department (DPD) have had to arrest LHO at that point? None.
Despite this truth someone had alerted the crowd out front of the TT that LHO was the murderer of not just JDT, but JFK as well as Carroll writes that the crowd out front was yelling, “Kill the dirty ‘Sob'.” (Ibid.) Beyond the police, who could've riled up the crowd against LHO like this?
Patrolman K.E. Lyon would give some of the same details. He too stated that they were told that the suspect was in the balcony. He wrote the following in regards to resisting arrest.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0129b.gif
…Lee Harvey Oswald kept yelling, “I am not resisting arrest. I am not resisting arrest. I want to complain of police brutality. (CE 2003, p. 191)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0129b.htm
Quote off
Further behavior that supports LHO's claim of Innocence comes via Sergeant Gerald Hill's testimony.
Mr. HILL. …We got the suspect to the city hall as rapidly as possible...and we explained to him this—I did, before we got into the basement, that there would probably be some reporters and photographers and cameramen waiting...and that if he so desired...he could hide his face...As we pulled into the basement...(I)told the suspect again he could hide his face if he wanted to. And he said, "Why should I hide my face. I haven't done anything to be ashamed of.
Now, WC defenders can say that he wasn't ashamed of killing JFK or JDT, but if this is so why didn't he come right out and say this then?
Confirmation of Hill's testimony can be found in Philadelphia reporter John McCullough's testimony.
Mr. POLLACK ...that vein, did you hear any insinuations being made that the Dallas Police Department might have been mistreating Oswald?
Mr. McCULLOUGH. Only from Oswald. He at one time, when he was walking along the corridor...Oswald himself, the first time I saw him, in the lineup room--there, again, at the basement level---he held his hands high so that the handcuffs he was wearing would be seen on camera. And this struck me as a little unusual, because having had many, many years as a police reporter, I have seen people who were charged with crimes try to cover their face. He made no such movement. He was just trying to display the handcuffs, which struck me as odd.
This seems to be odd behavior for a fulfilled killer. If you believe that he was the killer that the WC said he was, why did he never admit it. Especially when he had been shot already?
Mr. HUBERT. Did you hear Oswald say anything?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir. He--I didn't hear him say a word hardly, after he had been shot. He was moaning at the time Jimmy Leavelle, Graves, and I laid him down on the floor and removed the handcuffs that he had on him.
Mr. HUBERT. That was in the jail office?
Mr. COMBEST. Yes, sir. At the time I asked him and talked to him trying to get him to make a statement to me at the time. Especially, after I realized how serious the wound was. When we first asked him he appeared to comprehend what I was saying.
Mr. HUBERT. What did you ask him?
Mr. COMBEST. Well, I told him was there anything that he wanted me to tell anybody or was there anything he wanted to say right now before it was too late, and I don't remember my--exactly the words that I did say to him, but after I realized the seriousness of the wound, of course, trying to let him know if he was ever going to say anything he was going to have to say it then.
Mr. HUBERT. You thought he was dying?
Mr. COMBEST. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. HUBERT. And do you think you used language to him to convey to him your idea that he was dying?
Mr. COMBEST. Yes, sir.
Mr. HUBERT. But he didn't say anything?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir; just shook his head and I said, "Do you have anything you want to tell us now," and he shook his head.
Mr. HUBERT. He did not say the word "No"?
Mr. COMBEST. No, sir; he did not say anything at all.
Mr. HUBERT. Did you indicate to him that if he had any accomplices or wanted to clarify the shooting of the President, that he had better do it right quick?
Mr. COMBEST. Not in those words. I didn't mention "accomplice," or anything. I was real excited at the time but I kept talking to him as long as I thought that he would try to answer me, hoping that he would give a dying declaration on the shooting.
Even dying LHO didn't say he had killed JFK and/or JDT. What would he have had to lose at that time? Why not claim his immortality of fame as was claimed by the WC?
I can hear the WC defenders saying, “But he didn't name any accomplices either.” True, but LHO may not have known any of the people directly involved. Or maybe he was protecting his family from harm that could've come to them if he squealed. We will never know for sure, but the point is he NEVER admitted to committing the crimes.
The other point here is that the WC never mentioned this testimony in their Report. Why not? The WC had a duty to evaluate this testimony in terms of what it could have meant, but they just ignored it. That severely weakens their conclusion.
All through the interrogations and lineups LHO maintained his innocence. JFK was not a popular president in Dallas so LHO may have actually been treated better by admitting his guilt (a la Jack Ruby) if he was guilty, but he wasn't.
Perhaps the final proof of his innocence comes from his brother Robert's diary in which he wrote the following.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0463a.jpg
All the time we were talking I searched his eyes for any sign of guilt or whatever you call it. There was nothing there—no guilt, no shame, no nothing. Lee finally aware of my looking into his eyes, he stated, “You will not find anything there.” (CE 323, p. 13)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0463a.htm
Quote off
This says it all to me. The WC’s claim that LHO's motive for killing JFK was fame flies in the face of the actual evidence. This is nothing new as the vast majority of their claims did. The WC gave us nothing but a fairytale narrative.
We again see evidence in this post that does not support the claims found in the WCR, thus, the WC's conclusion is sunk again.