Post by Rob Caprio on Nov 12, 2018 10:03:04 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
3.bp.blogspot.com/_I4lZU0BrRsg/TPXTI3y8v1I/AAAAAAAAAE4/Hot_KJ7VKdY/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/warren.jpg
s.hdnux.com/photos/33/52/13/7250630/5/1200x0.jpg
It is time for more questions the Warren Commission (WC) defenders CAN’T answer.
************************************
1) Why did the WC, via their investigative agencies (FBI, CIA, Dallas Police Department (DPD), and Secret Service (SS)), spend time and money on Lee Harvey Oswald’s (LHO) landlords in New Orleans, but NOT on calling key witnesses to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK)?
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0110b.gif
In Commission Exhibit (CE) 1154 we will see the Garners were interviewed by the SS in early 1964. Mr. and Mrs. Jesse Garner said LHO rented a room, a FURNISHED room, for $65.00 a month for FOUR months from them. They claimed he left owing rent for 15 days too. In addition to the $65.00 rent fee LHO had to pay for utilities as well as they were NOT included. Where did LHO get this kind of money? They said he paid them a total of $260.00 for the room over the four months.
Why were they NOT staying at a cheaper place? I thought LHO was perpetually broke and unemployed according to the WC. Of course the Garners described LHO as “anti-social and had very little to say to anyone; that he maintained an arrogant attitude with everyone with whom he came in contact with.” How would they know this from the little interaction they would have had with him? Stressed out can appear as arrogant too! I love how at the height of the COLD WAR they liked the RUSSIAN wife who could speak barely any English MORE than LHO too! They said “Mrs. Oswald never had anything to say, apparently for the reason that she could only speak Russian; that she APPEARED FRIENDLY enough and would smile and let them know that she was aware of their presence but would never speak.” How can someone “appear friendly” when you don’t have a clue what they are thinking? I guess a smile does mislead you very easily.
Back to the cost of the room. In the report of the interview it says, “Mr. and Mrs. Garner stated that Oswald did NOT APPEAR to be employed about ONE-HALF the time during which he occupied the apartment at 4907 Magazine St. or for about the LAST TWO MONTHS he was there.” So again, how in the world could LHO afford this type of apartment then? Earlier in the report it said, “Mr. Garner stated that Oswald ALWAYS paid his rent in cash and he was usually tardy in paying his rent. On one occasion Oswald told him he was EXPECTING some money in couple of days and would pay his rent then, not mentioning the source from which he expected to receive the money.” Where was this money coming from? How could he afford a FURNISHED apartment for $65.00 a month, plus utilities, IF he was out of work for at least half the time he lived there?
The report also mentioned that he hung up “Pro-Castro” signs in the screened porch before Mr. Garner asked him to take them down. I thought LHO was anti-Castro at times too? After saying LHO would use buses for transportation and accusing the Oswalds of leaving the apartment in a bad condition the SS buried the key point of the Garners NEVER seeing LHO carrying ANY PACKAGE that could contain a rifle in it. Where was his alleged rife during this time then?
The Garners also observed the Oswalds on “at least two occasions in a nearby super market buying fairly good supplies of groceries.” Where did they get the money for this? They also mentioned that a FBI agent was investigating LHO at this time. Why? Why were the FBI investigating a “LONER” like LHO? Mrs. Garner leaped to the conclusion that he was being investigated for being a “Communist” with NO reason to assume this. Surely the FBI were NOT telling her any details as to why they wanted to speak with LHO or why they were investigating him. As we have seen in numerous posts in this series—there is NO EVIDENCE showing LHO was ever a communist or ever joined the Communist party. This is more nonsense designed to distract us.
Another key statement by them is that in their time with LHO “he NEVER gave NO indication that he may have been violent.” So despite the disparaging remarks about his attitude and his living habits we see NO confirmation that he was carrying a rifle or that he was violent! They also stated that they had very few visitors, but should a “loner” have any visitors? I would think not. She mentioned on one occasion that a young man who appeared to be Latin and spoke with a Spanish accent came to her door looking for LHO. He appeared to have “pro-Castro” circulars in his hand too. On three other occasions LHO was visited by a man late in the evening who was middle-aged, had a gray hair line, very fair complexion and a neat dresser. Two men come to mind here—Guy Banister and Clay Shaw. Since Shaw was known to be a dapper dresser it could have been him. This is very revealing, but again, the WC saw NOTHING in this obviously (if they were told about it) as they did NOT call, interview or have the Garners do an affidavit. Who was this man visiting the Oswalds?
Also, neighbors of the Oswalds said a women with a two-tone blue STATION WAGON visited them on several occasions. The Garners were quick to point out the car the middle-aged man came in was NOT a station wagon, but we all know who was known to drive one, don’t we? Mrs. Ruth Paine. This woman stayed for two to three days on each visit, but did have two small children with her, so this would seem to eliminate Ruth Paine unless she was babysitting nieces and nephews at those times.
Can any WC defender answer the questions I have posted here? For the full report on the Garners go here (pp.190-191):
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0110b.gif
2) What happened to the raincoat?
In CE-994 (a translation of Marina’s story) we see a bland mention of the Walker incident and what LHO did following it. On page 629 we see the following:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0322a.gif
I asked Lee where his rifle was, where he had left it, since someone might find it. He answered that he had buried it. Several days later he brought it home.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0322a.htm
Quote off
This is cut and dried as no details are given. Earlier on page 627 & 628 she said this:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0321a.gif
It happened like this: I knew that Lee had a rifle but did not pay any particular attention to it. Many men have rifles. How could I have known what this rifle was meant for?
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0321a.htm
Quote off
The problem for me is this is just a claim. No discussion of HOW she knew he had a rifle is mentioned at all. Where did LHO keep it in the small apartment? If he took this alleged rifle to New Orleans with him shortly after this incident, why did the Garners NOT see him carrying any package that could contain a rifle if he was prone to doing this as she hints at?
If we go to CE-1403 (FBI report 12/13/63) we will get a little more detail on this issue. On page 777 we will see this statement.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0404a.gif
Marina said she had asked Oswald when he returned home on the night of the attempted assassination what he had done with the rifle because she was worried lest he had left it somewhere where it could be found. Oswald said he had BURIED the rifle in the ground FAR FROM the actual spot of the shooting. He then mentioned a field and the fact the field was near a railroad track. She said Oswald had remarked that there had been a number of people around on the evening of the shooting. Oswald did not say and she did not ask him what he had done with the rifle after the first evening when he went to shoot at Walker but had CHANGED his mind.
She recalls he returned to the Neely Sreet home with the rifle wrapped in a raincoat on the Sunday following the night of the assassination attempt. (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0404a.htm
Quote off
This is an interesting summary as it reveals many things. First off, how did LHO get “far from” the actual shooting site of Walker to bury his rifle in the field? If he took a bus to do this he might has well taken a bus home then, right? We also have to think he took a bus TO the Walker house and again, once you did that you might has well just take the rifle home with you as you have witnesses that saw you with a rifle heading near the place of the shooting. Ditto leaving the scene with the rifle.
Secondly, what does she mean by “he went to shoot at Walker but had CHANGED his mind?” Doesn’t it sound like she is admitting he did NOT shoot at Walker as claimed? It sure does to me. Finally, we get to the story of him bringing the rifle home on the Sunday following the shooting (which was a Wednesday) in a raincoat. What happened to this raincoat? What time did he do this? This is important because the De Mohrenschildts came over on Easter Sunday to visit the Oswalds. George de Mohrenschildt said the following in his testimony about the event.
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. On Neely I think one block from the previous place they used to live.
Mr. JENNER. Yes.
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And Jeanne told me that day, "Let's go and take a rabbit for Oswald's baby."
Mr. JENNER. This was on Easter Sunday?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Easter day. I don't remember it was Easter Sunday.
Mr. JENNER. Easter is always on Sunday.
Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. Mr. Reporter, Jeanne is spelled J-e-a-n-n-e.
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And I think Oswald and I were standing near the window looking outside and I was asking him "How is your job" or "Are you making any money? Are you happy," some question of that type. All of a sudden Jeanne who was with Marina in the other room told me "Look, George, they have a gun here." And Marina opened the closet and showed it to Jeanne, a gun that belonged obviously to Oswald.
Mr. JENNER. This was a weapon? Did you go in and look?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No; I didn't look at the gun. I was still standing. The closet was open. Jeanne was looking at it, at the gun, and I think she asked Marina "what is that" you see. That was the sight on the gun. "What is that? That looks like a telescopic sight." And Marina said "That crazy :cop: is target shooting all the time." So frankly I thought it was ridiculous to shoot target shooting in Dallas, you see, right in town. I asked him "Why do you do that?"
Here is what Jeanne de Mohrenschildt said before the WC about this incident.
Mr. JENNER. Then, go on. Tell me about it.
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there?
Mr. JENNER. You say---
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. A rifle.
Mr. JENNER. A rifle, in the closet?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. In the closet, right in the beginning. It wasn't hidden or anything.
Mr. JENNER. Standing up on its butt?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Nowhere did she mention it being dirty or looking like it had been buried in dirt. LHO had NO cleaning supplies so even IF he got it home on Easter Sunday BEFORE the de Mohrenschildts came, how do you explain this? Mrs. De Mohrenschildt would say it had a scope on it too.
Mr. JENNER. It was this rifle?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I don't know. It looks very much like it, because something was dangling over it, and I didn't know what it was. This telescopic sight. Like we had a rifle with us on the road, we just had a smooth thing, nothing attached to it. And I saw something here.
Mr. JENNER. And then other things that arrested your attention, as I gather from what you said, is that you saw a telescopic sight?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; but I didn't know what it was.
George’s testimony mentions him overhearing them discussing the sight on the rifle (see above), but when Marina testified she said LHO kept the rifle OUT IN THE OPEN and it had NO scope on it!
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the first time that you observed the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. That was on Neely Street. I think that was in February.
NOTE: LHO did NOT even allegedly order the rifle until March so how could she see it in February?
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it? Did you see it some place in the apartment?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of time, where he read---where he kept his things, and that is where the rifle was.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open. At first I think---I saw some package up on the top shelf, and I think that that was the rifle. But I didn't know. And apparently later he assembled it and had it in the room.
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle later placed in a closet in the apartment at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it was always either in a corner, standing up in a corner or on a shelf.
So how did Mrs. De Mohrenschildt see it in a closet with a scope on it again? Does this make any sense to you? This would have been torn apart on cross by the defense team. Something does NOT add up here. Back to the raincoat, where was it on 11/22/63? Why was NO attempt made to find this coat or the field where LHO allegedly buried the rifle in? Why was NONE of this story checked out to see if it really happened? Why was the time LHO allegedly brought the rifle back to Neely Street never looked into to see if it was BEFORE the visit by the de Mohrenschildts? Or how he cleaned the weapon with NO cleaning supplies?
Marina would be asked about him taking the rifle out of the apartment and whether she had seen him clean it or not, and this is what she said.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall your husband taking the rifle away from the apartment on Neely Street at any time?
Mrs. OSWALD. You must know that the rifle it isn't as if it was out in the open. He would hang a coat or something to mask its presence in the room. And sometimes when he walked out, when he went out in the evening I didn't know, because I didn't go into that room very often. I don't know whether he took it with him or not.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him clean the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I said before I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will not be charged with anything.
First of all, she said she was NOT sure if he took it out, but remember she asked him as soon as he got home on the night of April 10th what he did with the rifle! If she really didn't know if it was gone or not how did she know to ask him this as we saw in CE-1403? Does this make any sense to you?
Secondly, what does she mean by I want to help you, and that there is NO reason to conceal anything and she will NOT be charged with anything? Is this an answer to the question? I don't think so. Her following answer is very dubious after this exchange.
Mr. GOPADZE. She says she was not sworn in before. But now inasmuch as she is sworn in, she is going to tell the truth.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you see him clean the rifle a number of times?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Could you help us by giving some estimate of the times as you remember it?
Mrs. OSWALD. About four times---about four or five times, I think.
Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband ever tell you why he was cleaning the--that is, that he had been using it and needed to be cleaned after use?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, I did not ask him, because I thought it was quite normal that when you have a rifle you must clean it from time to time.
What did they mean that NOW that she was sworn-in she would tell the truth? Did that mean if she was NOT sworn-in she would lie? Or was it the other WAY AROUND? She would also do an about face on him taking it from Neely St. too! She just said she did NOT know, but after this highly unusual exchange she would say this.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever observe your husband taking the rifle away from the apartment on Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. Now, I think that he probably did sometimes, but I never did see it. You must understand that sometimes I would be in the kitchen and he would be in his room downstairs, and he would say bye-bye, I will be hack soon, and he may have taken it. He probably did. Perhaps he purely waited for an occasion when he could take it away without my seeing it.
IF you didn't see it and he kept the rifle hidden (per herself), how did she know he did take it out all of a sudden? Does any of this make any sense to you? It seems contrived and full of baloney to me. Again, NO cleaning supplies were ever found among LHO's possessions, so if he was cleaning his alleged rife, what was he using? She would also DENY the incident the de Mohrenschildts mentioned BEFORE her curious exchange with the WC.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever show that rifle to the De Mohrenschildts?
Mrs. OSWALD. I know that De Mohrenschildts had said that the rifle had been shown to him, but I don't remember that.
Here is a great look at the year 1963—CE-401—and how all this fit by virtue of Mrs. Paine’s calendar. Can any WC defender explain this stuff?
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0041b.jpg
3) Why were photographs of possible dangerous people NOT given out for the motorcade route?
In CE-762 we see an outline of all plans for the motocade by the SS. On page 605 we see the following written:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0318a.gif
Informante (sic) of the Right Wing Movement were interviewed by SA Howlett, Dallas Office, to identify any possible trouble makers. Motion-picture films of the assault on Ambassador Stevenson which occurred in Dallas were viewed with members of the Criminal Intelligence Division of the Dallas Police Department at Station KLRD TV-Radio. STILL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE OBTAINED OF THE PERSON INVOLVED IN THIS INCIDENT. SA Howlett was on duty at check point entrance at Trade Mart with COPIES OF THESE PICTURES. Detectives in the lobby and luncheon area were also furnished copies of these PHOTOGRAPHS and were screening for these individuals. A number of individuals who resembled those in these photographs were placed under surveillance at the Trade Mart. (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0318a.htm
Quote off
No such attempt was made for the Dealey Plaza (DP) area where the motorcade would be slowing to a near stop (some said it did stop) with a ton of buildings around it. Why not? Why were these photographs not passed out to the SS and DPD forces in place in DP? Why were these individuals not investigated and found BEFORE the motorcade to make sure they posed no issue to JFK? Remember, a “Wanted for Treason” ad hit the papers on 11/22/63 and there were strong anti-Kennedy leaflets being passed out along the motorcade route, so why was the effort so lax there as compared to the Trade Mart area?
Can any WC defender answer any of these questions?
If NOT, then again the WC own evidence sinks its conclusion.
3.bp.blogspot.com/_I4lZU0BrRsg/TPXTI3y8v1I/AAAAAAAAAE4/Hot_KJ7VKdY/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/warren.jpg
s.hdnux.com/photos/33/52/13/7250630/5/1200x0.jpg
It is time for more questions the Warren Commission (WC) defenders CAN’T answer.
************************************
1) Why did the WC, via their investigative agencies (FBI, CIA, Dallas Police Department (DPD), and Secret Service (SS)), spend time and money on Lee Harvey Oswald’s (LHO) landlords in New Orleans, but NOT on calling key witnesses to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK)?
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0110b.gif
In Commission Exhibit (CE) 1154 we will see the Garners were interviewed by the SS in early 1964. Mr. and Mrs. Jesse Garner said LHO rented a room, a FURNISHED room, for $65.00 a month for FOUR months from them. They claimed he left owing rent for 15 days too. In addition to the $65.00 rent fee LHO had to pay for utilities as well as they were NOT included. Where did LHO get this kind of money? They said he paid them a total of $260.00 for the room over the four months.
Why were they NOT staying at a cheaper place? I thought LHO was perpetually broke and unemployed according to the WC. Of course the Garners described LHO as “anti-social and had very little to say to anyone; that he maintained an arrogant attitude with everyone with whom he came in contact with.” How would they know this from the little interaction they would have had with him? Stressed out can appear as arrogant too! I love how at the height of the COLD WAR they liked the RUSSIAN wife who could speak barely any English MORE than LHO too! They said “Mrs. Oswald never had anything to say, apparently for the reason that she could only speak Russian; that she APPEARED FRIENDLY enough and would smile and let them know that she was aware of their presence but would never speak.” How can someone “appear friendly” when you don’t have a clue what they are thinking? I guess a smile does mislead you very easily.
Back to the cost of the room. In the report of the interview it says, “Mr. and Mrs. Garner stated that Oswald did NOT APPEAR to be employed about ONE-HALF the time during which he occupied the apartment at 4907 Magazine St. or for about the LAST TWO MONTHS he was there.” So again, how in the world could LHO afford this type of apartment then? Earlier in the report it said, “Mr. Garner stated that Oswald ALWAYS paid his rent in cash and he was usually tardy in paying his rent. On one occasion Oswald told him he was EXPECTING some money in couple of days and would pay his rent then, not mentioning the source from which he expected to receive the money.” Where was this money coming from? How could he afford a FURNISHED apartment for $65.00 a month, plus utilities, IF he was out of work for at least half the time he lived there?
The report also mentioned that he hung up “Pro-Castro” signs in the screened porch before Mr. Garner asked him to take them down. I thought LHO was anti-Castro at times too? After saying LHO would use buses for transportation and accusing the Oswalds of leaving the apartment in a bad condition the SS buried the key point of the Garners NEVER seeing LHO carrying ANY PACKAGE that could contain a rifle in it. Where was his alleged rife during this time then?
The Garners also observed the Oswalds on “at least two occasions in a nearby super market buying fairly good supplies of groceries.” Where did they get the money for this? They also mentioned that a FBI agent was investigating LHO at this time. Why? Why were the FBI investigating a “LONER” like LHO? Mrs. Garner leaped to the conclusion that he was being investigated for being a “Communist” with NO reason to assume this. Surely the FBI were NOT telling her any details as to why they wanted to speak with LHO or why they were investigating him. As we have seen in numerous posts in this series—there is NO EVIDENCE showing LHO was ever a communist or ever joined the Communist party. This is more nonsense designed to distract us.
Another key statement by them is that in their time with LHO “he NEVER gave NO indication that he may have been violent.” So despite the disparaging remarks about his attitude and his living habits we see NO confirmation that he was carrying a rifle or that he was violent! They also stated that they had very few visitors, but should a “loner” have any visitors? I would think not. She mentioned on one occasion that a young man who appeared to be Latin and spoke with a Spanish accent came to her door looking for LHO. He appeared to have “pro-Castro” circulars in his hand too. On three other occasions LHO was visited by a man late in the evening who was middle-aged, had a gray hair line, very fair complexion and a neat dresser. Two men come to mind here—Guy Banister and Clay Shaw. Since Shaw was known to be a dapper dresser it could have been him. This is very revealing, but again, the WC saw NOTHING in this obviously (if they were told about it) as they did NOT call, interview or have the Garners do an affidavit. Who was this man visiting the Oswalds?
Also, neighbors of the Oswalds said a women with a two-tone blue STATION WAGON visited them on several occasions. The Garners were quick to point out the car the middle-aged man came in was NOT a station wagon, but we all know who was known to drive one, don’t we? Mrs. Ruth Paine. This woman stayed for two to three days on each visit, but did have two small children with her, so this would seem to eliminate Ruth Paine unless she was babysitting nieces and nephews at those times.
Can any WC defender answer the questions I have posted here? For the full report on the Garners go here (pp.190-191):
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0110b.gif
2) What happened to the raincoat?
In CE-994 (a translation of Marina’s story) we see a bland mention of the Walker incident and what LHO did following it. On page 629 we see the following:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0322a.gif
I asked Lee where his rifle was, where he had left it, since someone might find it. He answered that he had buried it. Several days later he brought it home.
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0322a.htm
Quote off
This is cut and dried as no details are given. Earlier on page 627 & 628 she said this:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/pages/WH_Vol18_0321a.gif
It happened like this: I knew that Lee had a rifle but did not pay any particular attention to it. Many men have rifles. How could I have known what this rifle was meant for?
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0321a.htm
Quote off
The problem for me is this is just a claim. No discussion of HOW she knew he had a rifle is mentioned at all. Where did LHO keep it in the small apartment? If he took this alleged rifle to New Orleans with him shortly after this incident, why did the Garners NOT see him carrying any package that could contain a rifle if he was prone to doing this as she hints at?
If we go to CE-1403 (FBI report 12/13/63) we will get a little more detail on this issue. On page 777 we will see this statement.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pages/WH_Vol22_0404a.gif
Marina said she had asked Oswald when he returned home on the night of the attempted assassination what he had done with the rifle because she was worried lest he had left it somewhere where it could be found. Oswald said he had BURIED the rifle in the ground FAR FROM the actual spot of the shooting. He then mentioned a field and the fact the field was near a railroad track. She said Oswald had remarked that there had been a number of people around on the evening of the shooting. Oswald did not say and she did not ask him what he had done with the rifle after the first evening when he went to shoot at Walker but had CHANGED his mind.
She recalls he returned to the Neely Sreet home with the rifle wrapped in a raincoat on the Sunday following the night of the assassination attempt. (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0404a.htm
Quote off
This is an interesting summary as it reveals many things. First off, how did LHO get “far from” the actual shooting site of Walker to bury his rifle in the field? If he took a bus to do this he might has well taken a bus home then, right? We also have to think he took a bus TO the Walker house and again, once you did that you might has well just take the rifle home with you as you have witnesses that saw you with a rifle heading near the place of the shooting. Ditto leaving the scene with the rifle.
Secondly, what does she mean by “he went to shoot at Walker but had CHANGED his mind?” Doesn’t it sound like she is admitting he did NOT shoot at Walker as claimed? It sure does to me. Finally, we get to the story of him bringing the rifle home on the Sunday following the shooting (which was a Wednesday) in a raincoat. What happened to this raincoat? What time did he do this? This is important because the De Mohrenschildts came over on Easter Sunday to visit the Oswalds. George de Mohrenschildt said the following in his testimony about the event.
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. On Neely I think one block from the previous place they used to live.
Mr. JENNER. Yes.
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And Jeanne told me that day, "Let's go and take a rabbit for Oswald's baby."
Mr. JENNER. This was on Easter Sunday?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Easter day. I don't remember it was Easter Sunday.
Mr. JENNER. Easter is always on Sunday.
Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. Mr. Reporter, Jeanne is spelled J-e-a-n-n-e.
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And I think Oswald and I were standing near the window looking outside and I was asking him "How is your job" or "Are you making any money? Are you happy," some question of that type. All of a sudden Jeanne who was with Marina in the other room told me "Look, George, they have a gun here." And Marina opened the closet and showed it to Jeanne, a gun that belonged obviously to Oswald.
Mr. JENNER. This was a weapon? Did you go in and look?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No; I didn't look at the gun. I was still standing. The closet was open. Jeanne was looking at it, at the gun, and I think she asked Marina "what is that" you see. That was the sight on the gun. "What is that? That looks like a telescopic sight." And Marina said "That crazy :cop: is target shooting all the time." So frankly I thought it was ridiculous to shoot target shooting in Dallas, you see, right in town. I asked him "Why do you do that?"
Here is what Jeanne de Mohrenschildt said before the WC about this incident.
Mr. JENNER. Then, go on. Tell me about it.
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there?
Mr. JENNER. You say---
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. A rifle.
Mr. JENNER. A rifle, in the closet?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. In the closet, right in the beginning. It wasn't hidden or anything.
Mr. JENNER. Standing up on its butt?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Nowhere did she mention it being dirty or looking like it had been buried in dirt. LHO had NO cleaning supplies so even IF he got it home on Easter Sunday BEFORE the de Mohrenschildts came, how do you explain this? Mrs. De Mohrenschildt would say it had a scope on it too.
Mr. JENNER. It was this rifle?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I don't know. It looks very much like it, because something was dangling over it, and I didn't know what it was. This telescopic sight. Like we had a rifle with us on the road, we just had a smooth thing, nothing attached to it. And I saw something here.
Mr. JENNER. And then other things that arrested your attention, as I gather from what you said, is that you saw a telescopic sight?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; but I didn't know what it was.
George’s testimony mentions him overhearing them discussing the sight on the rifle (see above), but when Marina testified she said LHO kept the rifle OUT IN THE OPEN and it had NO scope on it!
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the first time that you observed the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. That was on Neely Street. I think that was in February.
NOTE: LHO did NOT even allegedly order the rifle until March so how could she see it in February?
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it? Did you see it some place in the apartment?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of time, where he read---where he kept his things, and that is where the rifle was.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open. At first I think---I saw some package up on the top shelf, and I think that that was the rifle. But I didn't know. And apparently later he assembled it and had it in the room.
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.
Mr. RANKIN. Was the rifle later placed in a closet in the apartment at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it was always either in a corner, standing up in a corner or on a shelf.
So how did Mrs. De Mohrenschildt see it in a closet with a scope on it again? Does this make any sense to you? This would have been torn apart on cross by the defense team. Something does NOT add up here. Back to the raincoat, where was it on 11/22/63? Why was NO attempt made to find this coat or the field where LHO allegedly buried the rifle in? Why was NONE of this story checked out to see if it really happened? Why was the time LHO allegedly brought the rifle back to Neely Street never looked into to see if it was BEFORE the visit by the de Mohrenschildts? Or how he cleaned the weapon with NO cleaning supplies?
Marina would be asked about him taking the rifle out of the apartment and whether she had seen him clean it or not, and this is what she said.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall your husband taking the rifle away from the apartment on Neely Street at any time?
Mrs. OSWALD. You must know that the rifle it isn't as if it was out in the open. He would hang a coat or something to mask its presence in the room. And sometimes when he walked out, when he went out in the evening I didn't know, because I didn't go into that room very often. I don't know whether he took it with him or not.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him clean the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I said before I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will not be charged with anything.
First of all, she said she was NOT sure if he took it out, but remember she asked him as soon as he got home on the night of April 10th what he did with the rifle! If she really didn't know if it was gone or not how did she know to ask him this as we saw in CE-1403? Does this make any sense to you?
Secondly, what does she mean by I want to help you, and that there is NO reason to conceal anything and she will NOT be charged with anything? Is this an answer to the question? I don't think so. Her following answer is very dubious after this exchange.
Mr. GOPADZE. She says she was not sworn in before. But now inasmuch as she is sworn in, she is going to tell the truth.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you see him clean the rifle a number of times?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Could you help us by giving some estimate of the times as you remember it?
Mrs. OSWALD. About four times---about four or five times, I think.
Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband ever tell you why he was cleaning the--that is, that he had been using it and needed to be cleaned after use?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, I did not ask him, because I thought it was quite normal that when you have a rifle you must clean it from time to time.
What did they mean that NOW that she was sworn-in she would tell the truth? Did that mean if she was NOT sworn-in she would lie? Or was it the other WAY AROUND? She would also do an about face on him taking it from Neely St. too! She just said she did NOT know, but after this highly unusual exchange she would say this.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever observe your husband taking the rifle away from the apartment on Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. Now, I think that he probably did sometimes, but I never did see it. You must understand that sometimes I would be in the kitchen and he would be in his room downstairs, and he would say bye-bye, I will be hack soon, and he may have taken it. He probably did. Perhaps he purely waited for an occasion when he could take it away without my seeing it.
IF you didn't see it and he kept the rifle hidden (per herself), how did she know he did take it out all of a sudden? Does any of this make any sense to you? It seems contrived and full of baloney to me. Again, NO cleaning supplies were ever found among LHO's possessions, so if he was cleaning his alleged rife, what was he using? She would also DENY the incident the de Mohrenschildts mentioned BEFORE her curious exchange with the WC.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever show that rifle to the De Mohrenschildts?
Mrs. OSWALD. I know that De Mohrenschildts had said that the rifle had been shown to him, but I don't remember that.
Here is a great look at the year 1963—CE-401—and how all this fit by virtue of Mrs. Paine’s calendar. Can any WC defender explain this stuff?
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0041b.jpg
3) Why were photographs of possible dangerous people NOT given out for the motorcade route?
In CE-762 we see an outline of all plans for the motocade by the SS. On page 605 we see the following written:
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0318a.gif
Informante (sic) of the Right Wing Movement were interviewed by SA Howlett, Dallas Office, to identify any possible trouble makers. Motion-picture films of the assault on Ambassador Stevenson which occurred in Dallas were viewed with members of the Criminal Intelligence Division of the Dallas Police Department at Station KLRD TV-Radio. STILL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE OBTAINED OF THE PERSON INVOLVED IN THIS INCIDENT. SA Howlett was on duty at check point entrance at Trade Mart with COPIES OF THESE PICTURES. Detectives in the lobby and luncheon area were also furnished copies of these PHOTOGRAPHS and were screening for these individuals. A number of individuals who resembled those in these photographs were placed under surveillance at the Trade Mart. (Emphasis mine)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0318a.htm
Quote off
No such attempt was made for the Dealey Plaza (DP) area where the motorcade would be slowing to a near stop (some said it did stop) with a ton of buildings around it. Why not? Why were these photographs not passed out to the SS and DPD forces in place in DP? Why were these individuals not investigated and found BEFORE the motorcade to make sure they posed no issue to JFK? Remember, a “Wanted for Treason” ad hit the papers on 11/22/63 and there were strong anti-Kennedy leaflets being passed out along the motorcade route, so why was the effort so lax there as compared to the Trade Mart area?
Can any WC defender answer any of these questions?
If NOT, then again the WC own evidence sinks its conclusion.