Post by Rob Caprio on Jul 17, 2019 20:44:31 GMT -5
All portions ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.yurtopic.com/society/people/images/john-f-kennedy-facts/house-committee.jpg
i0.wp.com/schoolhistory.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Marina-Oswald_1.jpg
i.pinimg.com/736x/a5/dd/b2/a5ddb2633b7d580f96d9793971469e5f.jpg
Overwhelmingly the Warren Commission (WC) used one person to make their case — Lee Harvey Oswald's (LHO) wife Marina Oswald. IF you remove her testimony (much of which would have been barred in a trial due to spousal privilege) there is really nothing left to show LHO fired a shot at anyone (or fired a shot at all) on November 22, 1963. WC defenders will say you can’t remove her testimony and they claim this is evidence, but is it? Really in a legal technical sense NONE of the testimony is evidence since it did NOT pass the rules of evidence a court of law applies and the testimony itself was NOT subject to cross-examination or perjury charges. Furthermore, the vast majority of witness had NO legal representation present when they gave the testimony and quite a few witnesses have said what they said has been CHANGED.
Here are some definitions of the word “testimony”.
From the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary:
Quote on
Something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth
Proof or evidence that something exists or is true
Quote off
The second one is key and the WC did NOT back up anything Marina said regarding the claims of LHO shooting anyone with proof or evidence that showed what she claimed was true.
The Free Dictionary says this:
Quote on
1. A declaration by a witness under oath, as that given before a court or deliberative body.
2. All such declarations, spoken or written, offered in a legal case or deliberative hearing.
3. Evidence in support of a fact or assertion; proof.
Quote off
Again, we see that it needs to be evidence in support of a fact or assertion and it must provide proof of that claim or assertion.
We don’t need to remove it however, as we just need to read what the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) said about Marina and her testimony.
One of the key pieces of evidence the WC used to tie physical evidence and Marina’s testimony (minus cross-examination of course) together was the Backyard photographs (BYPs) that allegedly displayed LHO with the alleged murder rifle and alleged murder pistol. The HSCA said this about these photographs on pages 54 and 55 of their report.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0042b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0043a.gif
(2) The backyard photographs.—The photographs of Oswald holding the rifle with a pistol strapped to his waist and also holding copies of the “The Militant” and “The Worker”, were taken by his wife in the backyard of Oswald’s home on Neeley Street in Dallas in March or April 1963, according to the TESTIMONY of Oswald’s widow, Marina, given to the Warren Commission and the committee. (HSCAR, pp. 54-55) (Emphasis added)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0042b.htm
Quote off
Before we get into the comment of the HSCA that I want to stress for this post, let’s look at what Marina Oswald told the WC about these photographs.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures. I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know.
She clearly says she took the pictures towards the end of February or possibly the beginning of March 1963. Either of these times would have been BEFORE LHO received the weapons allegedly in the mail, so how could he have posed with weapons he did NOT have? Furthermore, why was the HSCA saying she said March OR APRIL in her testimony when she said February or March?
We were told too by the WC that he allegedly received both weapons at the same time (of course we were NOT given any evidence to support this claim), so why did Marina say he received the rifle first?
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall when he first had the pistol, that you remember?
Mrs. OSWALD. He had that on Neely Street, but I think that he acquired the rifle before he acquired the pistol. The pistol I saw twice once in his room, and the second time when I took these photographs.
Notice she says the second time she saw the pistol was when she took these photographs (BYPs), but as we saw in #4 of this series she would say this in later testimony.
Mrs. Oswald: Now in regard to Mr. Nixon, he got dressed up in his suit and put a gun in his belt.
Sen Russell: You testified in his belt--I was going to ask about that, because that was a very unusual place to carry a gun. Usually, he would carry it in his coat. Did you EVER SEE HIM have a gun in his belt before?
Mrs. Oswald: NO; I would have NOTICED it if he did.
Sen. Russell: I see--you would have NOTICED it.
Mrs. Oswald: And so--I HAVE NEVER BEFORE SEEN HIM WITH THE PISTOL.
The alleged “gunning for Nixon” incident would have taken place on APRIL 23, 1963, so how in the world could she NOT have seen the pistol before when she said she saw it when she took the BYPs? These are but a few examples of her testimony that do not add up, but there are so many more.
Now, here is what he HSCA said about her testimony and her role in the WC’s case.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0043a.gif
Marina Oswald, because of her TESTIMONY, played a central but TROUBLING role in the investigation of the Warren Commission. A great deal of what the Commission sought to show about Oswald rested on HER TESTIMONY, yet she gave INCOMPLETE AND INCONSISTENT statements at times to the Secret Service, FBI and the Commission. (HSCAR, p. 55, note 11) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0043a.htm
Quote off
This says it all. Her testimony was also not put to cross-examination, it was not held to the penalty of perjury, a good bit of it violated spousal privilege and much of it was inconsistent and ever changing.
Furthermore, it was done through a translator who could have told the WC whatever they wanted to hear whether she had actually said it or not. Remember, she supposedly didn't speak or understand English so how would she know what he said? She wouldn't. It could have been that simple.
Thus, the WC’s main witness was really NOT a source of support for any of their claims.
www.yurtopic.com/society/people/images/john-f-kennedy-facts/house-committee.jpg
i0.wp.com/schoolhistory.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Marina-Oswald_1.jpg
i.pinimg.com/736x/a5/dd/b2/a5ddb2633b7d580f96d9793971469e5f.jpg
Overwhelmingly the Warren Commission (WC) used one person to make their case — Lee Harvey Oswald's (LHO) wife Marina Oswald. IF you remove her testimony (much of which would have been barred in a trial due to spousal privilege) there is really nothing left to show LHO fired a shot at anyone (or fired a shot at all) on November 22, 1963. WC defenders will say you can’t remove her testimony and they claim this is evidence, but is it? Really in a legal technical sense NONE of the testimony is evidence since it did NOT pass the rules of evidence a court of law applies and the testimony itself was NOT subject to cross-examination or perjury charges. Furthermore, the vast majority of witness had NO legal representation present when they gave the testimony and quite a few witnesses have said what they said has been CHANGED.
Here are some definitions of the word “testimony”.
From the Mirriam-Webster online dictionary:
Quote on
Something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth
Proof or evidence that something exists or is true
Quote off
The second one is key and the WC did NOT back up anything Marina said regarding the claims of LHO shooting anyone with proof or evidence that showed what she claimed was true.
The Free Dictionary says this:
Quote on
1. A declaration by a witness under oath, as that given before a court or deliberative body.
2. All such declarations, spoken or written, offered in a legal case or deliberative hearing.
3. Evidence in support of a fact or assertion; proof.
Quote off
Again, we see that it needs to be evidence in support of a fact or assertion and it must provide proof of that claim or assertion.
We don’t need to remove it however, as we just need to read what the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) said about Marina and her testimony.
One of the key pieces of evidence the WC used to tie physical evidence and Marina’s testimony (minus cross-examination of course) together was the Backyard photographs (BYPs) that allegedly displayed LHO with the alleged murder rifle and alleged murder pistol. The HSCA said this about these photographs on pages 54 and 55 of their report.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0042b.gif
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0043a.gif
(2) The backyard photographs.—The photographs of Oswald holding the rifle with a pistol strapped to his waist and also holding copies of the “The Militant” and “The Worker”, were taken by his wife in the backyard of Oswald’s home on Neeley Street in Dallas in March or April 1963, according to the TESTIMONY of Oswald’s widow, Marina, given to the Warren Commission and the committee. (HSCAR, pp. 54-55) (Emphasis added)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0042b.htm
Quote off
Before we get into the comment of the HSCA that I want to stress for this post, let’s look at what Marina Oswald told the WC about these photographs.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?
Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures. I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know.
She clearly says she took the pictures towards the end of February or possibly the beginning of March 1963. Either of these times would have been BEFORE LHO received the weapons allegedly in the mail, so how could he have posed with weapons he did NOT have? Furthermore, why was the HSCA saying she said March OR APRIL in her testimony when she said February or March?
We were told too by the WC that he allegedly received both weapons at the same time (of course we were NOT given any evidence to support this claim), so why did Marina say he received the rifle first?
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall when he first had the pistol, that you remember?
Mrs. OSWALD. He had that on Neely Street, but I think that he acquired the rifle before he acquired the pistol. The pistol I saw twice once in his room, and the second time when I took these photographs.
Notice she says the second time she saw the pistol was when she took these photographs (BYPs), but as we saw in #4 of this series she would say this in later testimony.
Mrs. Oswald: Now in regard to Mr. Nixon, he got dressed up in his suit and put a gun in his belt.
Sen Russell: You testified in his belt--I was going to ask about that, because that was a very unusual place to carry a gun. Usually, he would carry it in his coat. Did you EVER SEE HIM have a gun in his belt before?
Mrs. Oswald: NO; I would have NOTICED it if he did.
Sen. Russell: I see--you would have NOTICED it.
Mrs. Oswald: And so--I HAVE NEVER BEFORE SEEN HIM WITH THE PISTOL.
The alleged “gunning for Nixon” incident would have taken place on APRIL 23, 1963, so how in the world could she NOT have seen the pistol before when she said she saw it when she took the BYPs? These are but a few examples of her testimony that do not add up, but there are so many more.
Now, here is what he HSCA said about her testimony and her role in the WC’s case.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/pages/HSCA_Report_0043a.gif
Marina Oswald, because of her TESTIMONY, played a central but TROUBLING role in the investigation of the Warren Commission. A great deal of what the Commission sought to show about Oswald rested on HER TESTIMONY, yet she gave INCOMPLETE AND INCONSISTENT statements at times to the Secret Service, FBI and the Commission. (HSCAR, p. 55, note 11) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0043a.htm
Quote off
This says it all. Her testimony was also not put to cross-examination, it was not held to the penalty of perjury, a good bit of it violated spousal privilege and much of it was inconsistent and ever changing.
Furthermore, it was done through a translator who could have told the WC whatever they wanted to hear whether she had actually said it or not. Remember, she supposedly didn't speak or understand English so how would she know what he said? She wouldn't. It could have been that simple.
Thus, the WC’s main witness was really NOT a source of support for any of their claims.