Post by Rob Caprio on Mar 13, 2021 16:21:05 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.bobrowen.com/walkermedia/clip_image010.jpg
IF Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot at General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) as the Warren Commission (WC), and its defenders, claim, why is there NO mention of him in the Dallas Police Department’s (DPD) case file?
The whole investigative file they prepared on the matter was turned in to the WC and it was labeled with CE 2001. In this file you will NOT see LHO mentioned but once, and then it is HEARSAY by Marina that makes it sound like he shot at EAW. The only mention of LHO is on page 39 of CE 2001 and it reads as follows:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0029a.jpg
Forrest Sorrells…forwarded to this Department [DPD] of December 26, 1963 an excerpt of an interview with Mrs. Marina Oswald in which SHE STATED her husband, Lee Harvey Oswald, returned home on the night of April 10, 1963, very late and was extremely nervous. He finally told her that he had shot General Walker with his rifle. (CE 2001, p. 39) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0029a.htm
Quote off
There is so much wrong with this that is NOT funny. First of all, they are relying ON HEARSAY given by Marina who was under “protection” from the Secret Service (SS) at that point in time. Secondly, this HEARSAY would have been protected under the spousal privilege laws as it was shared between a husband and wife with NO one else present. Here is the outline of the spousal privilege law.
Quote on
§ 39.01 Introduction [573]
There are two spousal privileges. The spousal testimonial privilege provides that a spouse may not be compelled to testify against a defendant-spouse in a criminal prosecution. A second privilege involves confidential communications between spouses and applies in both civil and criminal cases. Some jurisdictions have both privileges, while others have one or the other.
§ 39.02 Spousal Testimonial Privilege [573-77]
The spousal testimonial privilege is sometimes known as the anti-marital fact privilege. “The modern justification for this privilege against adverse spousal testimony is its perceived role in fostering the harmony and sanctity of the marriage relationship.” Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 44 (1980).
Type of Case
Unlike the confidential communication privilege, the testimonial privilege applies only in criminal cases.
Scope & Duration of Privilege
The testimonial privilege is determined as of the time of trial. If there is a valid marriage, the privilege applies and all testimony, including testimony concerning events that predated the marriage, is excluded.
§ 39.03 Spousal Communication Privilege [577-81]
The second spousal privilege concerns confidential communications. The purpose of this rule is to promote marital discourse, an instrumental rationale.
Type of Case
Unlike the testimonial privilege which applies only in criminal prosecutions, the confidential communication privilege applies in both civil and criminal cases.
(B) Scope & Duration of Privilege
The privilege applies only to communications made during coverture.
[C] Holder
It could be argued that only the communicating spouse should be able to assert the privilege. Nevertheless, the privilege often is held to extend to both spouses
[D] Communications
The privilege applies to confidential communications and includes acts intended as communications. Whether the privilege extends to conduct in addition to communications depends on the jurisdiction
[E] Confidentiality
The spousal privilege applies only to communications that are intended to be confidential.
www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/evid/evid39.htm
Quote off
We clearly see that the comment Marina claims LHO allegedly said to her would have been barred from a court of law, thus, we cannot hold that against him since it is worthless and one-sided. LHO was DEAD by the time of this comment and could NOT defend himself. Also, if LHO really did say this, and they certainly wanted to believe he did, why was Marina not charged with aiding and abeting a criminal? Can any WC defender explain this? Ditto the de Mohrenschildts.
Finally, we see this statement on the same page regarding LHO and the shooting.
Quote on
Although definitive and absolute proof has NOT been obtained, there is a strong probability that the shot fired at General Walker at 9:00 p.m. on April 10, 1963, was fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. (Emphasis mine)
Quote off
This is ridiculous to the extreme! All they had was Marina’s CLAIM he told her something and a note that was allegedly written by LHO and does NOT mention Walker at all! The vast majority of CE-2001 does NOT even mention LHO as the suspect! So once again, the DPD and the WC reached a conclusion their OWN EVIDENCE did NOT support!
What we do see throughout CE-2001 is the fact a man by the name of William Duff (he is named as the likely culprit by EAW himself in his WC testimony) was arrested, interrogated and given a polygraph test in connection with this crime. According to the polygraph operator, R.D. Lewis, he did not commit the shooting. EAW hired his own investigators and they too named William Duff as a likely person to be involved.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0031b.gif
Duff told the investigators that “he would kill Walker if the price was right.” What else is interesting and shows EAW had many people who did not like him, and a few who would go to the extreme is also found in CE-2001. On December 20, 1963, (after LHO was DEAD) EAW received a threatening phone call before 8:55 p.m. It was traced back to Lafayette, LA, and to a person by the name of Gerald Crawford Vincent. Vincent said he “was going to kill him [Walker]” and called him vile names.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0031b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0032a.htm
What is really interesting is this comment found on page 46 (left-hand document):
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0032b.gif
The Federal District Attorney at New Orleans REFUSED to take a complaint on this person [Vincent].
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0032b.htm
Quote off
Why would he refuse to do this? What kind of pull or connections did Vincent have? What we see in CE-2001 is certainly cause to doubt the claim that LHO fired at EAW, and it also contains information that shows the authorities knew they COULD NEVER PROVE he did, but they continued to blame him anyway. Why?
bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/journalnow.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/d/09/d09d73b8-5300-11e3-819d-001a4bcf6878/528e90d95a30b.image.jpg
www.bobrowen.com/walkermedia/clip_image010.jpg
IF Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot at General Edwin A. Walker (EAW) as the Warren Commission (WC), and its defenders, claim, why is there NO mention of him in the Dallas Police Department’s (DPD) case file?
The whole investigative file they prepared on the matter was turned in to the WC and it was labeled with CE 2001. In this file you will NOT see LHO mentioned but once, and then it is HEARSAY by Marina that makes it sound like he shot at EAW. The only mention of LHO is on page 39 of CE 2001 and it reads as follows:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0029a.jpg
Forrest Sorrells…forwarded to this Department [DPD] of December 26, 1963 an excerpt of an interview with Mrs. Marina Oswald in which SHE STATED her husband, Lee Harvey Oswald, returned home on the night of April 10, 1963, very late and was extremely nervous. He finally told her that he had shot General Walker with his rifle. (CE 2001, p. 39) (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0029a.htm
Quote off
There is so much wrong with this that is NOT funny. First of all, they are relying ON HEARSAY given by Marina who was under “protection” from the Secret Service (SS) at that point in time. Secondly, this HEARSAY would have been protected under the spousal privilege laws as it was shared between a husband and wife with NO one else present. Here is the outline of the spousal privilege law.
Quote on
§ 39.01 Introduction [573]
There are two spousal privileges. The spousal testimonial privilege provides that a spouse may not be compelled to testify against a defendant-spouse in a criminal prosecution. A second privilege involves confidential communications between spouses and applies in both civil and criminal cases. Some jurisdictions have both privileges, while others have one or the other.
§ 39.02 Spousal Testimonial Privilege [573-77]
The spousal testimonial privilege is sometimes known as the anti-marital fact privilege. “The modern justification for this privilege against adverse spousal testimony is its perceived role in fostering the harmony and sanctity of the marriage relationship.” Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 44 (1980).
Type of Case
Unlike the confidential communication privilege, the testimonial privilege applies only in criminal cases.
Scope & Duration of Privilege
The testimonial privilege is determined as of the time of trial. If there is a valid marriage, the privilege applies and all testimony, including testimony concerning events that predated the marriage, is excluded.
§ 39.03 Spousal Communication Privilege [577-81]
The second spousal privilege concerns confidential communications. The purpose of this rule is to promote marital discourse, an instrumental rationale.
Type of Case
Unlike the testimonial privilege which applies only in criminal prosecutions, the confidential communication privilege applies in both civil and criminal cases.
(B) Scope & Duration of Privilege
The privilege applies only to communications made during coverture.
[C] Holder
It could be argued that only the communicating spouse should be able to assert the privilege. Nevertheless, the privilege often is held to extend to both spouses
[D] Communications
The privilege applies to confidential communications and includes acts intended as communications. Whether the privilege extends to conduct in addition to communications depends on the jurisdiction
[E] Confidentiality
The spousal privilege applies only to communications that are intended to be confidential.
www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/evid/evid39.htm
Quote off
We clearly see that the comment Marina claims LHO allegedly said to her would have been barred from a court of law, thus, we cannot hold that against him since it is worthless and one-sided. LHO was DEAD by the time of this comment and could NOT defend himself. Also, if LHO really did say this, and they certainly wanted to believe he did, why was Marina not charged with aiding and abeting a criminal? Can any WC defender explain this? Ditto the de Mohrenschildts.
Finally, we see this statement on the same page regarding LHO and the shooting.
Quote on
Although definitive and absolute proof has NOT been obtained, there is a strong probability that the shot fired at General Walker at 9:00 p.m. on April 10, 1963, was fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. (Emphasis mine)
Quote off
This is ridiculous to the extreme! All they had was Marina’s CLAIM he told her something and a note that was allegedly written by LHO and does NOT mention Walker at all! The vast majority of CE-2001 does NOT even mention LHO as the suspect! So once again, the DPD and the WC reached a conclusion their OWN EVIDENCE did NOT support!
What we do see throughout CE-2001 is the fact a man by the name of William Duff (he is named as the likely culprit by EAW himself in his WC testimony) was arrested, interrogated and given a polygraph test in connection with this crime. According to the polygraph operator, R.D. Lewis, he did not commit the shooting. EAW hired his own investigators and they too named William Duff as a likely person to be involved.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0031b.gif
Duff told the investigators that “he would kill Walker if the price was right.” What else is interesting and shows EAW had many people who did not like him, and a few who would go to the extreme is also found in CE-2001. On December 20, 1963, (after LHO was DEAD) EAW received a threatening phone call before 8:55 p.m. It was traced back to Lafayette, LA, and to a person by the name of Gerald Crawford Vincent. Vincent said he “was going to kill him [Walker]” and called him vile names.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0031b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0032a.htm
What is really interesting is this comment found on page 46 (left-hand document):
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0032b.gif
The Federal District Attorney at New Orleans REFUSED to take a complaint on this person [Vincent].
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0032b.htm
Quote off
Why would he refuse to do this? What kind of pull or connections did Vincent have? What we see in CE-2001 is certainly cause to doubt the claim that LHO fired at EAW, and it also contains information that shows the authorities knew they COULD NEVER PROVE he did, but they continued to blame him anyway. Why?