Post by Rob Caprio on Dec 11, 2018 12:36:40 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.newhistorian.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Earl-Warren.jpg
Of course you can write a book on their lies, and many have, but I am just re-reading some of Margueritte Oswald’s statements and Chief Justice (CJ) Earl Warren's replies that were quickly shown to be lies of the highest type.
Mrs. Oswald had been going on about a defense lawyer for her son since she and Marina were entitled to one. The CJ cut her off and said:
The CHAIRMAN. Before you leave that, Mrs. Oswald, may I say to you, first, that the Commission is not here to prosecute your dead son. It is not here and it was not established to prosecute anyone.
Is this one a real hoot or what? NOT there to prosecute LHO, then why did they only mention LHO in the assassination? Why did they only present a prosecutor's version of events against LHO?
It is the purpose and the province of the Commission to obtain all the facts that it can obtain, and then make an impartial report—not as a prosecutor, but as an impartial Commission--on the manner in which the
President came to his death.
Another lie.
We are trying to recognize the individual rights of all persons who are called before the Commission, to let them have their lawyers, and let their lawyers have an opportunity to examine them, as well as the Commission.
Except for the sole accused - LHO - he was NOT entitled to a lawyer.
You may be sure that if Mr. Lane has any evidence of his own knowledge, or has any accumulation of affidavits from others, to the effect--to any effect, concerning this trial, that he will have an opportunity to come here, just as you are here, in order to present those to the Commission.
But so far as his being here at all times before the Commission to cross-examine or to be present when all witnesses are testifying—that is not in accordance with the procedures of the Commission.
God forbid, we (The WC) just want to blame your son and get out of here!
But I assure you that if Mr. Lane has any evidence of any kind bearing upon the assassination of the President, he will be accorded the same opportunity that you have to come here and present them, and we will give him an opportunity in his own way to tell his story, and present his own evidence. And should he want counsel, he may have counsel, also.
Sure, that is why they accused him of lying about Ms. Helen Markham's comments concerning the "short, heavy, dark haired man" who was seen at the J.D. Tippit (JDT) shooting, right?
I like this exchange and it is a shame she did NOT stick to her statement about testifying being a waste of time.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mrs. Oswald, of course you have no power of subpoena, and we have no power to give you the power of subpoena. But you may be sure that if your evidence produces anything that is critical to this investigation, that we will pursue it to the end, in order to determine the weight of the testimony for our final report. You may be sure of that.
Mrs. OSWALD. I appreciate that.
The CHAIRMAN. But as to how we do it, or when we do it, you will just have to leave that to the Commission.
Mrs. OSWALD. You will give me the assurance that these people I name, regardless of title I am liable to name some very important people----
The CHAIRMAN. No, we cannot give you any assurance, because we don't know----
Mrs. OSWALD. I see no reason, then, for my testimony.
I wonder who these "people" where she was going to name?
The CJ was so nervous he acted like she was going to make them do something they weren't willing to do.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mrs. Oswald—you cannot commit us to subpoenaing anybody. We don't know. You are talking to us, and we are in the dark. You cannot commit this Commission to doing something that might be improper, it might not even be helpful in any way, shape, or form.
The Commission will be reasonable in every respect. We have no desire to protect anyone. We have no desire to injure you or anyone else in this matter. And certainly you ought to have some confidence in a commission that is appointed by the President, and not try to tie our hands in a way that would be contrary to the manner in which commissions normally proceed.
I thought this guy said this just a moment before:
"It is the purpose and the province of the Commission to obtain all the facts that it can obtain, and then make an impartial report—not as a prosecutor, but as an impartial Commission--on the manner in which the President came to his death."
Now he is tap-dancing all over the place about calling people who might know what happened to the President. Why? If they have no "desire to protect anyone" why is he so adamant about NOT committing to calling who she names? Of course in 2018 the line about having confidence in a "Commission appointed by the President" is a laughingstock, but in 1964 this kind of junk worked on most average people.
Here is ANOTHER LIE when she asked him point blank about her son being the focal point of their investigation.
Mrs. OSWALD. Now, Mr. Warren, you made a statement that you in no way-- I cannot quote your words--intimidate me. But you did not include my son. My son is being accused of the murder of President Kennedy. And I think that my son should be considered in this. He is dead. But we can show cause that my son is not the assassin of President Kennedy. And so I would like my son--he is the main object of the Presidential Commission, is he not, sir?
The CHAIRMAN. No, no, he is not, Mrs. Oswald. The purpose of this Commission is to determine what the facts are in the assassination of President Kennedy.
It is not an accusation against your son. There was an accusation against your son in the Texas courts. That is an entirely different proceeding.
Notice how he is dumping off the blame to the Texas courts when in fact the state Attorney General wanted a full investigation into the cause of the assassination and who was responsible. This action by Waggoner Carr is what made Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) act with the WC in the first place to silence and control the outcome.
We are here to do justice and be fair to everyone concerned in this matter. And I assure you that that is our main and our only purpose in serving on this Commission. None of us cherish this responsibility.
Sure, that is why all but one section of the report dealt with LHO's guilt, and the other one dealt with how no one else was guilty BUT LHO!
Boy this guy should have done "stand-up" for a living, he is hilarious! When did they ever find out the "facts" of the JFK assassination again?
How about this "zinger"?
The CHAIRMAN. And the only satisfaction we can derive from it is to be fair to all concerned. And I assure you that is our objective in the matter.
LOL!! When were they "fair" to the American public again? Or to JFK? Or to LHO?
Every statement that the CJ made turned out to be a falsehood.
www.newhistorian.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Earl-Warren.jpg
Of course you can write a book on their lies, and many have, but I am just re-reading some of Margueritte Oswald’s statements and Chief Justice (CJ) Earl Warren's replies that were quickly shown to be lies of the highest type.
Mrs. Oswald had been going on about a defense lawyer for her son since she and Marina were entitled to one. The CJ cut her off and said:
The CHAIRMAN. Before you leave that, Mrs. Oswald, may I say to you, first, that the Commission is not here to prosecute your dead son. It is not here and it was not established to prosecute anyone.
Is this one a real hoot or what? NOT there to prosecute LHO, then why did they only mention LHO in the assassination? Why did they only present a prosecutor's version of events against LHO?
It is the purpose and the province of the Commission to obtain all the facts that it can obtain, and then make an impartial report—not as a prosecutor, but as an impartial Commission--on the manner in which the
President came to his death.
Another lie.
We are trying to recognize the individual rights of all persons who are called before the Commission, to let them have their lawyers, and let their lawyers have an opportunity to examine them, as well as the Commission.
Except for the sole accused - LHO - he was NOT entitled to a lawyer.
You may be sure that if Mr. Lane has any evidence of his own knowledge, or has any accumulation of affidavits from others, to the effect--to any effect, concerning this trial, that he will have an opportunity to come here, just as you are here, in order to present those to the Commission.
But so far as his being here at all times before the Commission to cross-examine or to be present when all witnesses are testifying—that is not in accordance with the procedures of the Commission.
God forbid, we (The WC) just want to blame your son and get out of here!
But I assure you that if Mr. Lane has any evidence of any kind bearing upon the assassination of the President, he will be accorded the same opportunity that you have to come here and present them, and we will give him an opportunity in his own way to tell his story, and present his own evidence. And should he want counsel, he may have counsel, also.
Sure, that is why they accused him of lying about Ms. Helen Markham's comments concerning the "short, heavy, dark haired man" who was seen at the J.D. Tippit (JDT) shooting, right?
I like this exchange and it is a shame she did NOT stick to her statement about testifying being a waste of time.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mrs. Oswald, of course you have no power of subpoena, and we have no power to give you the power of subpoena. But you may be sure that if your evidence produces anything that is critical to this investigation, that we will pursue it to the end, in order to determine the weight of the testimony for our final report. You may be sure of that.
Mrs. OSWALD. I appreciate that.
The CHAIRMAN. But as to how we do it, or when we do it, you will just have to leave that to the Commission.
Mrs. OSWALD. You will give me the assurance that these people I name, regardless of title I am liable to name some very important people----
The CHAIRMAN. No, we cannot give you any assurance, because we don't know----
Mrs. OSWALD. I see no reason, then, for my testimony.
I wonder who these "people" where she was going to name?
The CJ was so nervous he acted like she was going to make them do something they weren't willing to do.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, Mrs. Oswald—you cannot commit us to subpoenaing anybody. We don't know. You are talking to us, and we are in the dark. You cannot commit this Commission to doing something that might be improper, it might not even be helpful in any way, shape, or form.
The Commission will be reasonable in every respect. We have no desire to protect anyone. We have no desire to injure you or anyone else in this matter. And certainly you ought to have some confidence in a commission that is appointed by the President, and not try to tie our hands in a way that would be contrary to the manner in which commissions normally proceed.
I thought this guy said this just a moment before:
"It is the purpose and the province of the Commission to obtain all the facts that it can obtain, and then make an impartial report—not as a prosecutor, but as an impartial Commission--on the manner in which the President came to his death."
Now he is tap-dancing all over the place about calling people who might know what happened to the President. Why? If they have no "desire to protect anyone" why is he so adamant about NOT committing to calling who she names? Of course in 2018 the line about having confidence in a "Commission appointed by the President" is a laughingstock, but in 1964 this kind of junk worked on most average people.
Here is ANOTHER LIE when she asked him point blank about her son being the focal point of their investigation.
Mrs. OSWALD. Now, Mr. Warren, you made a statement that you in no way-- I cannot quote your words--intimidate me. But you did not include my son. My son is being accused of the murder of President Kennedy. And I think that my son should be considered in this. He is dead. But we can show cause that my son is not the assassin of President Kennedy. And so I would like my son--he is the main object of the Presidential Commission, is he not, sir?
The CHAIRMAN. No, no, he is not, Mrs. Oswald. The purpose of this Commission is to determine what the facts are in the assassination of President Kennedy.
It is not an accusation against your son. There was an accusation against your son in the Texas courts. That is an entirely different proceeding.
Notice how he is dumping off the blame to the Texas courts when in fact the state Attorney General wanted a full investigation into the cause of the assassination and who was responsible. This action by Waggoner Carr is what made Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) act with the WC in the first place to silence and control the outcome.
We are here to do justice and be fair to everyone concerned in this matter. And I assure you that that is our main and our only purpose in serving on this Commission. None of us cherish this responsibility.
Sure, that is why all but one section of the report dealt with LHO's guilt, and the other one dealt with how no one else was guilty BUT LHO!
Boy this guy should have done "stand-up" for a living, he is hilarious! When did they ever find out the "facts" of the JFK assassination again?
How about this "zinger"?
The CHAIRMAN. And the only satisfaction we can derive from it is to be fair to all concerned. And I assure you that is our objective in the matter.
LOL!! When were they "fair" to the American public again? Or to JFK? Or to LHO?
Every statement that the CJ made turned out to be a falsehood.