Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 23, 2023 20:14:28 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/wpid-jim-garrison.jpg
i.pinimg.com/originals/3d/fc/18/3dfc18eb9ba900d6301b932c971ff905.jpg
i.pinimg.com/474x/4f/2b/85/4f2b859e56096db5dc14b532cd0307cb--save-my-marriage-marriage-problems.jpg
In the mid-1960s New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison began the first, and only, investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK). One would think that he received a lot of assistance from the federal government and the intelligence agencies, but nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, he was blocked by these groups at every turn. Why?
Even IF the official conclusion of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) acting all alone was correct, and it isn't, shouldn't they have had confidence that Garrison would find the same thing? Their actions show that they know the official conclusion is false and that is why Garrison had to be stopped at all costs.
The great benefit these series provide me with is the ability to see some of the evidence as it progressed through the funnel of denial that existed from the Warren Commission's (WC) "investigation" in 1964 to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the late 1990s (the Garrison investigation, the Church Committee (CC) look into the assassination and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) "investigation" were in between).
Part of this evidence is witnesses and one witness that appeared before multiple inquiries was Marina Oswald Porter. She would appear before the WC, the Clay Shaw trial and the HSCA. I have covered her extensively in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series on the WC and I covered her appearance before the HSCA, so now it is time to cover her appearance at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969.
It should be noted that Marina Oswald Porter was NOT a witness for the prosecution (Garrison) but was rather called by the defense. Why would she be called to defend Clay Shaw? We shall see. Her appearance took place on Friday, February 21, 1969, in New Orleans, Louisiana.
After verifying that she is Marina Oswald Porter and that she is the widow of LHO they go into her present marital situation. Marina had married a carpenter named Kenneth Porter in 1965 and it should be noted that he was an employee of Collins Radio at one point. He was not divorced when they met, but he would quickly seek one to marry her. Some researchers have found this odd since it could seem like he was put in place to be her handler.
After much questioning about their time in New Orleans the defense comes to an interesting question about LHO's ability to drive an automobile.
Q. To your knowledge, while you were living here in New Orleans, was he able to drive an automobile?
A. No, he wasn't, no. I don't know, I have never seen him drive an automobile.
Q. You have never seen him drive an automobile?
A. Not as far as I know. (Marina Oswald Porter, Clay Shaw Trial, February 21, 1969, p. 15)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=15
This exchange shows why the HSCA would say that Marina was so untrustworthy as a witness as she is all over the place. It is a simple question -- could LHO drive an automobile or not? First, she says no, but then it is altered immediately to she didn't know. Then it was that she had never seen him drive one as "far as she knew." What? Either you have seen him drive one or you haven't. Why was this so complicated? Only someone with something to hide uses tactics like this.
This is an important issue too as the WC claimed that LHO could not drive, but there are numerous sightings of either LHO or someone who looked just like him driving an automobile. One or the other has to be true, but as usual Marina was no help in determining which one was correct.
She is asked if LHO ever had a beard while they lived in New Orleans and she said no. (Ibid.) This too was important because barber Clifton Shasteen said that he cut LHO's hair and that he had a beard. How do we balance these two things? Of course, the defense, like the WC, was just intent on showing that these witnesses like Shasteen were incorrect but they gave no thought to LHO being impersonated which was perhaps even more serious. The person that comes to mind is Kerry Thornley.
They then asked her about Clinton, Louisiana, and whether LHO had ever gone there, and she said no. (Ibid., p. 20) This is a silly question as Marina didn't know a lot of things that LHO did since he lived elsewhere much of the time. It got even sillier as he kept asking if she ever took her baby up there and again this was to counter a prosecution witness as Edwin McGeehee was another barber who said that he had cut LHO's hair. McGeehee was located in Jackson which was about 14 miles from Clinton, and he said that LHO came to his barbershop to get a haircut. What was different from the other sighting was this time LHO arrived in an old possibly dark green automobile that had a woman sitting in the front seat with what appeared to be a baby bassinet to McGeehee. There would be other sightings of LHO involving a car, a woman and children too.
Marina said no to all of this but that did not preclude it being another woman and/or it being an imposter. Like the WC, the defense for Clay Shaw didn't want to comprehend that imposters were just as bad as it being LHO. He was supposedly a loner so, why would anyone want to present themselves as him?
She mentions that they were visited by a friend of Ruth Paine's while they were in New Orleans a number of times, but this was not pursued to find out why. (Ibid., p. 26) This had come up during her WC testimony and she said the woman's name was also Ruth but could not remember her last name. She said the woman had written Ruth Paine asking if she knew of anyone in New Orleans who was Russian. This seems odd to me as most Americans were leery of Russians in 1963, but when it came to Marina no one had any of those inclinations supposedly. Was this some kind of check or update visit? It just seems like this could be something to me.
She would say that she had never heard of Clay Shaw until this trial had begun. Ditto David Ferrie. She would not say that LHO did NOT know Ferrie however as she said, "I don't know that", when she was asked. Remember, this was a trial and carried a real penalty of perjury unlike the WC so her answer had to be more truthful.
She would deny knowing Perry Russo as well. (Ibid., p. 30) She would claim that LHO had a rifle while they were in New Orleans (Ibid., p. 33) despite there being no evidence for this claim. As seen in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series the WC put forth a false claim that LHO ordered the alleged murder weapon, received it, owned it, posed with it and used it on November 22, 1963. There is no evidence that supports any of these claims.
We then move into the topic of when Ruth Paine came to pick Marina up and take her back to her residence in Irving, Texas. Ruth Paine did not just come and get her, but instead stayed for several days first.
Q: Now, when you left New Orleans, how did you leave?
A: With Ruth Paine.
Q: Now, where did Ruth Paine come from to get you?
A: She came from Irving, Texas.
Q: Did you and she leave right after she got here, or did she stay here any length of time before you all left?
A: She stayed with us for maybe two or three, two days or so, and then -- (Ibid., pp. 37-38)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=37
Why did Ruth Paine stay for several days? Perhaps it was to give her children a rest before starting again, but the defense never asked her this question. She will then describe the vehicle Ruth Paine used.
Q: Now, what type of automobile did she come from Dallas in?
A: She had a station wagon.
Q: A station wagon. Do you recall what color it was?
A: Some kind of light color.
Q: A light color?
A: Yes, sir. (Ibid., pp. 38-39)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=38
This is odd since Ruth Paine testified before the WC to something different. Here is her testimony about her automobile.
Mr. JENNER - Describe your automobile, will you please?
Mrs. PAINE - It is a 1955 Chevrolet station wagon, green, needing paint, which we bought secondhand. It is in my name.
The only way a green station wagon could be taken for a light color was IF he totally had no paint at all. Why does Marina's testimony differ with Ruth Paine's in terms of the color of her automobile? We have also seen in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series that there was a witness for this pickup and departure and he described a totally different color for the car.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0111b.gif
Mr. Rogers stated that he was at home on the occasion when Mrs. Oswald and her child left in a LIGHT BROWN Ford or Chevrolet station wagon with a MAN and a woman. He said the man was about in his 40’s and was SHORT AND STOCKY. In reply to questioning, Mr. Rogers stated that he is certain there was a man present on this occasion. (CE 1154, p. 192) (Emphasis added)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0111b.htm
Quote off
Eric Rogers told the New Orleans Secret Service (SS) that the car was a "light brown" color. What is going on here? Why can't we get a consensus on the color of the automobile Ruth Paine used to pick Marina up with? Eric Rogers also brought up another issue -- there was a man with them in his 40's and was short and stocky. And yet, Marina did not mention him under oath at the Clay Shaw trial.
Q: Now, when you and Ruth Paine left to go to Dallas, who left with you in this station wagon, that is, who all went in it?
A: It was Ruth and her two children, and me and the baby, June, that is all. (Ibid., p. 39)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=39
There is no mention of this man. Who was being untruthful here? It seems unlikely that Eric Rogers would lie to the SS so the doubt sits with Marina in my mind since she was untruthful in a lot of areas. Who was this man? Was it Jack Ruby? Was it the man who killed Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT) and seen by Helen Markham? One can imagine why Marina wouldn't want to mention either of these possibilities. Another reason I believe what Rogers told the SS is that by the time he testified before the WC he too deleted the man!
Mr. ROGERS. That was the time he left town.
Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about that.
Mr. ROGERS. The station wagon was visible. I called my wife. I said, "Well, he must be leaving." They were packing all the things. Probably left the next night or sometime like I told you, the following night after.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see what license plates the station wagon had on it?
Mr. ROGERS. No, Mr. Liebeler, I couldn't tell you on that. Kind of a gray station wagon.He was putting the packing, everything in that himself.
Mr. LIEBELER. Who was in the station wagon? Was there another lady?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. So it is clear to you that Oswald did not leave with the ladies in the station wagon?
Mr. ROGERS. No; he didn't leave with them in the station wagon. It was the following evening he left on the bus with these two handbags.
IF the man was no big deal, why did he have to disappear? You will have to decide for yourself but I think it is clear that they were covering something up.
She would repeat the claim that LHO told her that he had gone to Mexico when there is zero evidence to support this assertion at all. The unsupported claims kept coming as she said LHO had a rifle in New Orleans, that she saw him cleaning it and that he had it on the porch with him. (Ibid., p. 42) Again, there is zero evidence that supports any of these claims. The WC even said there were no cleaning supplies found among LHO's possessions after the assassination.
She would say that he kept it in the closet with his clothes in New Orleans and this could lead one to ask, why didn't he do this at the Paine residence instead of allegedly leaving it in the garage? One would have to assume that their bedroom was the only place LHO would have some privacy in the Paine house so, why not didn't he do this IF you believe the official narrative?
She could not say how the rifle supposedly traveled from New Orleans to Irving, Texas, as she didn't see it packed. Of course, the WC never showed how the rifle supposedly got from Dallas to New Orleans either so at least they were consistent. Ruth Paine did NOT see any rifle when she took Marina back to her home either and told the WC so.
Mr. JENNER - Was there a rifle packed in the back of the car?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - You didn't see any kind of weapon?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Firearm, rifle, pistol, or otherwise?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I saw nothing of that nature.
It would seem as if the rifle was as invisible as the bag it was supposedly in on November 22, 1963, when LHO allegedly brought his alleged rifle to work to kill JFK. Perhaps that is why the paper bag was invisible since the rifle was invisible? Both items must have been flown in from Wonder Woman's Paradise Island in her invisible plane!
The WC NEVER proved anything. This is just one example of their ridiculousness when it came to framing LHO.
She then said something really odd about the rifle.
Q: Do you know how the rifle got to Texas if it got there?
A: Lee was -- I expecting baby, so Lee was packing all the clothes, you know, so I don't know what he packed, you know. So later on after we stayed in Ruth's house -- no, I don't know about the rifle -- anyhow, I think first time I saw rifle was police arrived.
Q: When the police arrived?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was that before or after the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: After.
Q: After?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever see the rifle between the time that you saw it in New Orleans and after the assassination when the police arrived?
A: I don't remember right now, sir. I might have, you know, because I was looking for the guns. I don't remember right now. (Ibid., pp. 43-44)
So according to Marina the Dallas Police Department (DPD) brought the rifle to the Paine's residence AFTER the assassination! That was the first time that she claimed to see it since New Orleans, but this runs counter to what DPD Lieutenant Carl Day testified to.
Mr. BELIN. What else did you do, or what was the next thing you did after you completed photographing and inspecting the rifle on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building for whatever prints you could find, what did you do next?
Mr. DAY. I took the gun at the time to the office and locked it up in a box in my office at Captain Fritz' direction.
How could a rifle LOCKED UP be taken to Irving? And why would they take it to Irving? This is just another example of how unreliable Marina's testimony really is. What did she mean by "I was looking for guns" too? Why would she be looking for guns?
She reiterates how the police showed up shortly after the assassination.
Q: Did the automobile leave the house any time shortly after the assassination?
A: No. We have been called to -- I mean shortly after that the police came, but after this I don't remember what happened, who go where, you know.
Q: You say shortly after the assassination the police came?
A: Yes. (Ibid., p. 48)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=48
How did the police know that LHO spent time at the Paine residence so fast? He never listed this address on his Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) application, so this seems like miraculous police work to me. Supposedly some officer knew it but it was never explained how he knew this when no one else could have known the address.
The prosecution took over and asked if she had seen LHO in the garage on the night of November 21, 1963, and she said yes.
Q: You saw him actually go into the garage?
A: Yes.
Q: How was entrance gained to the garage, by going outside or through the house?
A: Through the house.
Q: And what door would lead to the garage from the house?
A: I think one door from the outside and one from the den.
Q: From the den?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What door did Lee use when you saw him going into the garage?
A: From the den. (Ibid., p. 57-58)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=57
Once again Ruth Paine disagreed with her as she told the WC this regarding the garage.
Mr. JENNER - Did you hear any activity out in the garage on that evening
Mrs. PAINE - No; I did not.
Mr. JENNER - Any persons moving about?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
The Paine residence was very small so IF LHO, or anyone, had gone out there it is most likely that she would have heard them. She would recant a number of things she had testified to once the prosecution took over and the DPD bringing the rifle to the Paine's was one of these things. She blamed this on confusion. How could she be confused when this was over five years after the events. She should have had plenty of time to get her story straight.
She couldn't remember ever seeing him with a pistol until she was reminded that she supposedly took photographs of him wearing one and then she remembered. Her memory is horrible IF we believe that. I don't. Like all people who were not telling the truth she used this to avoid being caught lying. She says she doesn't remember constantly and that is just not believable.
She was asked about the coffee company that LHO worked at while they were in New Orleans and she said she could not remember the name of it, but in front of the WC she said this.
Mr. RANKIN. At New Orleans, who did your husband work for?
Mrs. OSWALD. He worked for the Louisiana Coffee Co. But I don't know in what capacity. I don't think that this was very good job, or perhaps more correctly, he did not---I know that he didn't like this job.
The WC lead counsel, J. Lee Rankin, never corrected her as the business was actually called the Reilly Coffee Company and NOT the Louisiana Coffee Company. She said that she went to the coffee company to find him once.
Q: Did you ever attempt to go to the coffee company where you thought Lee was working?
A: Yes, I did once.
Q: And did you find him there?
A: No.
Q: Do you know whether or not you went to the right coffee company?
A: Maybe I didn't.
Q: Did he tell you what coffee company he was working at?
A: No. (Ibid., p. 76)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=76
If this is true, why was LHO so secretive with where he worked and where he was living? His wife was pregnant and may have needed him? IF he was just a loner this could mean he was a very bad husband, but IF he was working sensitive intelligence operations this would make a lot of sense as people undercover are not allowed to share this information with even their spouse. Perhaps she did go to the Louisiana Coffee Company and that is why she couldn't find him, but who knows for sure when it comes to Marina. The point is that LHO told her nothing about where he was working, living or anything that he was doing. He even didn't give her a telephone number for place of work in case she needed him. Does this sound like normal behavior for a married man? Marina claimed that she could not speak English at this time either so she would have been in total isolation without LHO too.
She would testify to not considering LHO to be a communist. (Ibid., p. 95) She reiterated that LHO told her that he shot at retired General Edwin A. Walker (EAW), but of course couldn't remember when he told her or if he brought his alleged rifle home. Nearly every answer has "I don't know" or "I don't remember" in it. After a little pressure she said that he didn't have his alleged rifle with him but went to get it in the next day or so. (Ibid., pp.. 96, 98) She is then asked a very important question.
Q: Did you report this incident to anybody before the assassination?
A: No. (Ibid., p. 98)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=98
IF LHO shot at EAW as she claimed he did, that is a crime. By not reporting it she was as guilty as he was but nothing happened to her. Why? In the eyes of the law she was just as guilty. She then tells how the DPD might have known LHO's address so fast when he never listed it for his job at the TSBD.
Q: When the agent came to you, that is, the FBI agent came to you in Dallas, did you give that agent the address where Lee was staying?
A: Ruth Paine gave it.
Q: In your presence?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you present then?
A: Yes. (Ibid., p. 101)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=101
She said that Ruth Paine gave FBI Agent James Hosty LHO's address when he came to visit, but once again this is at odds to what Ruth Paine testified to before the WC.
Mr. JENNER - There was a subsequent incident in which you did learn that he used an assumed name, was there not?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes, a week later.
Mr. JENNER - We will get to that in a moment. But was this—
Mrs. PAINE - ...I regret, and I would like to put this on the record, particularly two things in my own actions prior to the time of the assassination. One, that I didn't make the connection between this phone number that I had of where he lived and that of course this would produce for the FBI agent who was asking the address of where he lived.
Mr. JENNER - Did you give him the telephone number and the address of the Texas School Book Depository on the occasion when you talked to him, this is the 14th?
Mrs. PAINE - The address, I don't think so. I probably gave the phone number. I don't recall that I gave him an address.
Mr. JENNER - Did he on that occasion say anything about where the apartment or room was?
Mrs. PAINE - No; he did not.
Mr. JENNER - He did not give you an address?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
We again have a lie by Marina as Ruth Paine did NOT know where LHO was staying in Dallas so there is NO way that she could have given the address to the FBI as Marina said. If you or I lied under oath like this we would be charged with perjury, but nothing ever happened to Marina.
She was asked if she knew about LHO visiting an attorney while in New Orleans and of course she didn't know. (Ibid., p. 111) This was in reference to what attorney Dean Andrews had testified to. For more information on that you can go here.
jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1044/garrison-chronicles-dean-andrews
To me Marina was no better of a witness in 1969 than she was in 1963. Twice she was under oath and still told falsehoods with no repercussions for it. This is an important part of the record, so it was necessary to cover her Clay Shaw trial testimony, but its only value was to show how unreliable and dishonest she was. Certainly, she was being protected as nothing happened to her for all this false testimony. The rest of us would have been charged with perjury but not her.
i0.wp.com/www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/wpid-jim-garrison.jpg
i.pinimg.com/originals/3d/fc/18/3dfc18eb9ba900d6301b932c971ff905.jpg
i.pinimg.com/474x/4f/2b/85/4f2b859e56096db5dc14b532cd0307cb--save-my-marriage-marriage-problems.jpg
In the mid-1960s New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison began the first, and only, investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK). One would think that he received a lot of assistance from the federal government and the intelligence agencies, but nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, he was blocked by these groups at every turn. Why?
Even IF the official conclusion of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) acting all alone was correct, and it isn't, shouldn't they have had confidence that Garrison would find the same thing? Their actions show that they know the official conclusion is false and that is why Garrison had to be stopped at all costs.
The great benefit these series provide me with is the ability to see some of the evidence as it progressed through the funnel of denial that existed from the Warren Commission's (WC) "investigation" in 1964 to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the late 1990s (the Garrison investigation, the Church Committee (CC) look into the assassination and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) "investigation" were in between).
Part of this evidence is witnesses and one witness that appeared before multiple inquiries was Marina Oswald Porter. She would appear before the WC, the Clay Shaw trial and the HSCA. I have covered her extensively in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series on the WC and I covered her appearance before the HSCA, so now it is time to cover her appearance at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969.
It should be noted that Marina Oswald Porter was NOT a witness for the prosecution (Garrison) but was rather called by the defense. Why would she be called to defend Clay Shaw? We shall see. Her appearance took place on Friday, February 21, 1969, in New Orleans, Louisiana.
After verifying that she is Marina Oswald Porter and that she is the widow of LHO they go into her present marital situation. Marina had married a carpenter named Kenneth Porter in 1965 and it should be noted that he was an employee of Collins Radio at one point. He was not divorced when they met, but he would quickly seek one to marry her. Some researchers have found this odd since it could seem like he was put in place to be her handler.
After much questioning about their time in New Orleans the defense comes to an interesting question about LHO's ability to drive an automobile.
Q. To your knowledge, while you were living here in New Orleans, was he able to drive an automobile?
A. No, he wasn't, no. I don't know, I have never seen him drive an automobile.
Q. You have never seen him drive an automobile?
A. Not as far as I know. (Marina Oswald Porter, Clay Shaw Trial, February 21, 1969, p. 15)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=15
This exchange shows why the HSCA would say that Marina was so untrustworthy as a witness as she is all over the place. It is a simple question -- could LHO drive an automobile or not? First, she says no, but then it is altered immediately to she didn't know. Then it was that she had never seen him drive one as "far as she knew." What? Either you have seen him drive one or you haven't. Why was this so complicated? Only someone with something to hide uses tactics like this.
This is an important issue too as the WC claimed that LHO could not drive, but there are numerous sightings of either LHO or someone who looked just like him driving an automobile. One or the other has to be true, but as usual Marina was no help in determining which one was correct.
She is asked if LHO ever had a beard while they lived in New Orleans and she said no. (Ibid.) This too was important because barber Clifton Shasteen said that he cut LHO's hair and that he had a beard. How do we balance these two things? Of course, the defense, like the WC, was just intent on showing that these witnesses like Shasteen were incorrect but they gave no thought to LHO being impersonated which was perhaps even more serious. The person that comes to mind is Kerry Thornley.
They then asked her about Clinton, Louisiana, and whether LHO had ever gone there, and she said no. (Ibid., p. 20) This is a silly question as Marina didn't know a lot of things that LHO did since he lived elsewhere much of the time. It got even sillier as he kept asking if she ever took her baby up there and again this was to counter a prosecution witness as Edwin McGeehee was another barber who said that he had cut LHO's hair. McGeehee was located in Jackson which was about 14 miles from Clinton, and he said that LHO came to his barbershop to get a haircut. What was different from the other sighting was this time LHO arrived in an old possibly dark green automobile that had a woman sitting in the front seat with what appeared to be a baby bassinet to McGeehee. There would be other sightings of LHO involving a car, a woman and children too.
Marina said no to all of this but that did not preclude it being another woman and/or it being an imposter. Like the WC, the defense for Clay Shaw didn't want to comprehend that imposters were just as bad as it being LHO. He was supposedly a loner so, why would anyone want to present themselves as him?
She mentions that they were visited by a friend of Ruth Paine's while they were in New Orleans a number of times, but this was not pursued to find out why. (Ibid., p. 26) This had come up during her WC testimony and she said the woman's name was also Ruth but could not remember her last name. She said the woman had written Ruth Paine asking if she knew of anyone in New Orleans who was Russian. This seems odd to me as most Americans were leery of Russians in 1963, but when it came to Marina no one had any of those inclinations supposedly. Was this some kind of check or update visit? It just seems like this could be something to me.
She would say that she had never heard of Clay Shaw until this trial had begun. Ditto David Ferrie. She would not say that LHO did NOT know Ferrie however as she said, "I don't know that", when she was asked. Remember, this was a trial and carried a real penalty of perjury unlike the WC so her answer had to be more truthful.
She would deny knowing Perry Russo as well. (Ibid., p. 30) She would claim that LHO had a rifle while they were in New Orleans (Ibid., p. 33) despite there being no evidence for this claim. As seen in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series the WC put forth a false claim that LHO ordered the alleged murder weapon, received it, owned it, posed with it and used it on November 22, 1963. There is no evidence that supports any of these claims.
We then move into the topic of when Ruth Paine came to pick Marina up and take her back to her residence in Irving, Texas. Ruth Paine did not just come and get her, but instead stayed for several days first.
Q: Now, when you left New Orleans, how did you leave?
A: With Ruth Paine.
Q: Now, where did Ruth Paine come from to get you?
A: She came from Irving, Texas.
Q: Did you and she leave right after she got here, or did she stay here any length of time before you all left?
A: She stayed with us for maybe two or three, two days or so, and then -- (Ibid., pp. 37-38)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=37
Why did Ruth Paine stay for several days? Perhaps it was to give her children a rest before starting again, but the defense never asked her this question. She will then describe the vehicle Ruth Paine used.
Q: Now, what type of automobile did she come from Dallas in?
A: She had a station wagon.
Q: A station wagon. Do you recall what color it was?
A: Some kind of light color.
Q: A light color?
A: Yes, sir. (Ibid., pp. 38-39)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=38
This is odd since Ruth Paine testified before the WC to something different. Here is her testimony about her automobile.
Mr. JENNER - Describe your automobile, will you please?
Mrs. PAINE - It is a 1955 Chevrolet station wagon, green, needing paint, which we bought secondhand. It is in my name.
The only way a green station wagon could be taken for a light color was IF he totally had no paint at all. Why does Marina's testimony differ with Ruth Paine's in terms of the color of her automobile? We have also seen in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series that there was a witness for this pickup and departure and he described a totally different color for the car.
Quote on
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0111b.gif
Mr. Rogers stated that he was at home on the occasion when Mrs. Oswald and her child left in a LIGHT BROWN Ford or Chevrolet station wagon with a MAN and a woman. He said the man was about in his 40’s and was SHORT AND STOCKY. In reply to questioning, Mr. Rogers stated that he is certain there was a man present on this occasion. (CE 1154, p. 192) (Emphasis added)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0111b.htm
Quote off
Eric Rogers told the New Orleans Secret Service (SS) that the car was a "light brown" color. What is going on here? Why can't we get a consensus on the color of the automobile Ruth Paine used to pick Marina up with? Eric Rogers also brought up another issue -- there was a man with them in his 40's and was short and stocky. And yet, Marina did not mention him under oath at the Clay Shaw trial.
Q: Now, when you and Ruth Paine left to go to Dallas, who left with you in this station wagon, that is, who all went in it?
A: It was Ruth and her two children, and me and the baby, June, that is all. (Ibid., p. 39)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=39
There is no mention of this man. Who was being untruthful here? It seems unlikely that Eric Rogers would lie to the SS so the doubt sits with Marina in my mind since she was untruthful in a lot of areas. Who was this man? Was it Jack Ruby? Was it the man who killed Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT) and seen by Helen Markham? One can imagine why Marina wouldn't want to mention either of these possibilities. Another reason I believe what Rogers told the SS is that by the time he testified before the WC he too deleted the man!
Mr. ROGERS. That was the time he left town.
Mr. LIEBELER. Tell us about that.
Mr. ROGERS. The station wagon was visible. I called my wife. I said, "Well, he must be leaving." They were packing all the things. Probably left the next night or sometime like I told you, the following night after.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see what license plates the station wagon had on it?
Mr. ROGERS. No, Mr. Liebeler, I couldn't tell you on that. Kind of a gray station wagon.He was putting the packing, everything in that himself.
Mr. LIEBELER. Who was in the station wagon? Was there another lady?
Mr. ROGERS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. So it is clear to you that Oswald did not leave with the ladies in the station wagon?
Mr. ROGERS. No; he didn't leave with them in the station wagon. It was the following evening he left on the bus with these two handbags.
IF the man was no big deal, why did he have to disappear? You will have to decide for yourself but I think it is clear that they were covering something up.
She would repeat the claim that LHO told her that he had gone to Mexico when there is zero evidence to support this assertion at all. The unsupported claims kept coming as she said LHO had a rifle in New Orleans, that she saw him cleaning it and that he had it on the porch with him. (Ibid., p. 42) Again, there is zero evidence that supports any of these claims. The WC even said there were no cleaning supplies found among LHO's possessions after the assassination.
She would say that he kept it in the closet with his clothes in New Orleans and this could lead one to ask, why didn't he do this at the Paine residence instead of allegedly leaving it in the garage? One would have to assume that their bedroom was the only place LHO would have some privacy in the Paine house so, why not didn't he do this IF you believe the official narrative?
She could not say how the rifle supposedly traveled from New Orleans to Irving, Texas, as she didn't see it packed. Of course, the WC never showed how the rifle supposedly got from Dallas to New Orleans either so at least they were consistent. Ruth Paine did NOT see any rifle when she took Marina back to her home either and told the WC so.
Mr. JENNER - Was there a rifle packed in the back of the car?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - You didn't see any kind of weapon?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Firearm, rifle, pistol, or otherwise?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I saw nothing of that nature.
It would seem as if the rifle was as invisible as the bag it was supposedly in on November 22, 1963, when LHO allegedly brought his alleged rifle to work to kill JFK. Perhaps that is why the paper bag was invisible since the rifle was invisible? Both items must have been flown in from Wonder Woman's Paradise Island in her invisible plane!
The WC NEVER proved anything. This is just one example of their ridiculousness when it came to framing LHO.
She then said something really odd about the rifle.
Q: Do you know how the rifle got to Texas if it got there?
A: Lee was -- I expecting baby, so Lee was packing all the clothes, you know, so I don't know what he packed, you know. So later on after we stayed in Ruth's house -- no, I don't know about the rifle -- anyhow, I think first time I saw rifle was police arrived.
Q: When the police arrived?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Was that before or after the assassination of President Kennedy?
A: After.
Q: After?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever see the rifle between the time that you saw it in New Orleans and after the assassination when the police arrived?
A: I don't remember right now, sir. I might have, you know, because I was looking for the guns. I don't remember right now. (Ibid., pp. 43-44)
So according to Marina the Dallas Police Department (DPD) brought the rifle to the Paine's residence AFTER the assassination! That was the first time that she claimed to see it since New Orleans, but this runs counter to what DPD Lieutenant Carl Day testified to.
Mr. BELIN. What else did you do, or what was the next thing you did after you completed photographing and inspecting the rifle on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building for whatever prints you could find, what did you do next?
Mr. DAY. I took the gun at the time to the office and locked it up in a box in my office at Captain Fritz' direction.
How could a rifle LOCKED UP be taken to Irving? And why would they take it to Irving? This is just another example of how unreliable Marina's testimony really is. What did she mean by "I was looking for guns" too? Why would she be looking for guns?
She reiterates how the police showed up shortly after the assassination.
Q: Did the automobile leave the house any time shortly after the assassination?
A: No. We have been called to -- I mean shortly after that the police came, but after this I don't remember what happened, who go where, you know.
Q: You say shortly after the assassination the police came?
A: Yes. (Ibid., p. 48)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=48
How did the police know that LHO spent time at the Paine residence so fast? He never listed this address on his Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) application, so this seems like miraculous police work to me. Supposedly some officer knew it but it was never explained how he knew this when no one else could have known the address.
The prosecution took over and asked if she had seen LHO in the garage on the night of November 21, 1963, and she said yes.
Q: You saw him actually go into the garage?
A: Yes.
Q: How was entrance gained to the garage, by going outside or through the house?
A: Through the house.
Q: And what door would lead to the garage from the house?
A: I think one door from the outside and one from the den.
Q: From the den?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What door did Lee use when you saw him going into the garage?
A: From the den. (Ibid., p. 57-58)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=57
Once again Ruth Paine disagreed with her as she told the WC this regarding the garage.
Mr. JENNER - Did you hear any activity out in the garage on that evening
Mrs. PAINE - No; I did not.
Mr. JENNER - Any persons moving about?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
The Paine residence was very small so IF LHO, or anyone, had gone out there it is most likely that she would have heard them. She would recant a number of things she had testified to once the prosecution took over and the DPD bringing the rifle to the Paine's was one of these things. She blamed this on confusion. How could she be confused when this was over five years after the events. She should have had plenty of time to get her story straight.
She couldn't remember ever seeing him with a pistol until she was reminded that she supposedly took photographs of him wearing one and then she remembered. Her memory is horrible IF we believe that. I don't. Like all people who were not telling the truth she used this to avoid being caught lying. She says she doesn't remember constantly and that is just not believable.
She was asked about the coffee company that LHO worked at while they were in New Orleans and she said she could not remember the name of it, but in front of the WC she said this.
Mr. RANKIN. At New Orleans, who did your husband work for?
Mrs. OSWALD. He worked for the Louisiana Coffee Co. But I don't know in what capacity. I don't think that this was very good job, or perhaps more correctly, he did not---I know that he didn't like this job.
The WC lead counsel, J. Lee Rankin, never corrected her as the business was actually called the Reilly Coffee Company and NOT the Louisiana Coffee Company. She said that she went to the coffee company to find him once.
Q: Did you ever attempt to go to the coffee company where you thought Lee was working?
A: Yes, I did once.
Q: And did you find him there?
A: No.
Q: Do you know whether or not you went to the right coffee company?
A: Maybe I didn't.
Q: Did he tell you what coffee company he was working at?
A: No. (Ibid., p. 76)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=76
If this is true, why was LHO so secretive with where he worked and where he was living? His wife was pregnant and may have needed him? IF he was just a loner this could mean he was a very bad husband, but IF he was working sensitive intelligence operations this would make a lot of sense as people undercover are not allowed to share this information with even their spouse. Perhaps she did go to the Louisiana Coffee Company and that is why she couldn't find him, but who knows for sure when it comes to Marina. The point is that LHO told her nothing about where he was working, living or anything that he was doing. He even didn't give her a telephone number for place of work in case she needed him. Does this sound like normal behavior for a married man? Marina claimed that she could not speak English at this time either so she would have been in total isolation without LHO too.
She would testify to not considering LHO to be a communist. (Ibid., p. 95) She reiterated that LHO told her that he shot at retired General Edwin A. Walker (EAW), but of course couldn't remember when he told her or if he brought his alleged rifle home. Nearly every answer has "I don't know" or "I don't remember" in it. After a little pressure she said that he didn't have his alleged rifle with him but went to get it in the next day or so. (Ibid., pp.. 96, 98) She is then asked a very important question.
Q: Did you report this incident to anybody before the assassination?
A: No. (Ibid., p. 98)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=98
IF LHO shot at EAW as she claimed he did, that is a crime. By not reporting it she was as guilty as he was but nothing happened to her. Why? In the eyes of the law she was just as guilty. She then tells how the DPD might have known LHO's address so fast when he never listed it for his job at the TSBD.
Q: When the agent came to you, that is, the FBI agent came to you in Dallas, did you give that agent the address where Lee was staying?
A: Ruth Paine gave it.
Q: In your presence?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you present then?
A: Yes. (Ibid., p. 101)
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1295#relPageId=101
She said that Ruth Paine gave FBI Agent James Hosty LHO's address when he came to visit, but once again this is at odds to what Ruth Paine testified to before the WC.
Mr. JENNER - There was a subsequent incident in which you did learn that he used an assumed name, was there not?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes, a week later.
Mr. JENNER - We will get to that in a moment. But was this—
Mrs. PAINE - ...I regret, and I would like to put this on the record, particularly two things in my own actions prior to the time of the assassination. One, that I didn't make the connection between this phone number that I had of where he lived and that of course this would produce for the FBI agent who was asking the address of where he lived.
Mr. JENNER - Did you give him the telephone number and the address of the Texas School Book Depository on the occasion when you talked to him, this is the 14th?
Mrs. PAINE - The address, I don't think so. I probably gave the phone number. I don't recall that I gave him an address.
Mr. JENNER - Did he on that occasion say anything about where the apartment or room was?
Mrs. PAINE - No; he did not.
Mr. JENNER - He did not give you an address?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
We again have a lie by Marina as Ruth Paine did NOT know where LHO was staying in Dallas so there is NO way that she could have given the address to the FBI as Marina said. If you or I lied under oath like this we would be charged with perjury, but nothing ever happened to Marina.
She was asked if she knew about LHO visiting an attorney while in New Orleans and of course she didn't know. (Ibid., p. 111) This was in reference to what attorney Dean Andrews had testified to. For more information on that you can go here.
jfkconspiracyforum.freeforums.net/thread/1044/garrison-chronicles-dean-andrews
To me Marina was no better of a witness in 1969 than she was in 1963. Twice she was under oath and still told falsehoods with no repercussions for it. This is an important part of the record, so it was necessary to cover her Clay Shaw trial testimony, but its only value was to show how unreliable and dishonest she was. Certainly, she was being protected as nothing happened to her for all this false testimony. The rest of us would have been charged with perjury but not her.