Post by Rob Caprio on Mar 22, 2020 18:40:42 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1632/0*NpKXc0y6LXoNu6wC.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) would claim that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK), Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT), wounded Texas Governor John B. Connally (JBC), and shot at retired General Edwin A. Walker (EAW). If these claims were true it would illustrate that LHO was a very violent person.
The problem with this is that the WC did not find any evidence of him being violent until he was dead and his wife, Marina Oswald, claimed that he had taken a shot at EAW. If LHO was really violent as claimed, why is there no evidence of this before the assassination?
We have looked at comments by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) before in this series, and now it is time to look at some more.
****************************************
JEH is asked about this issue during his testimony before the WC.
Representative BOGGS. The FBI interviewed practically everybody who ever associated with Oswald?
Mr. HOOVER. It did.
Representative BOGGS. You didn't find any indication of why anyone should even suspect that Oswald would do this, did you?
Mr. HOOVER. We found no indication at all that Oswald was a man addicted to violence. The first indication of an act of violence came after he, Oswald, had been killed, and Mrs. Oswald told us about the attempt on General Walker's life by Oswald. No one had known a thing about that.. I think in the Enquirer article there is reference to the fact that the Dallas Police knew or suspected Oswald of possibly being a party to the shooting into the house of General Walker. Chief Curry specifically denies that. There was no connection of that kind and there was no evidence that Oswald had any streak of violence.
At no time, other than the so called street disturbance in New Orleans, was there any indication that he might be a fighter…. There was no evidence in the place where he was employed in Dallas of acts of violence or temper or anything of that kind on his part. (V, pp. 103-104)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0057a.htm
JEH said that LHO was “not addicted to violence” and that he had no acts of violence or temper on his part in Dallas. The notion that the Dallas Police Department (DPD) suspected LHO of being the one to shoot at EAW is not supported by the evidence as JEH points out. LHO was never considered for the EAW shooting, and that is simply the truth.
JEH went on to clarify that LHO did not even get into a fight in New Orleans as the police moved in before there could be an altercation. JEH told the WC that “immediately the police moved in and arrested him” when the anti-Castro Cubans began to move in on him. This very quick action by the police could indicate that this was a staged event as some researchers have suggested over the years.
The next question went to motive since the WC couldn’t find one for LHO they were curious to know JEH’s opinion on this subject.
Representative BOGGS. You have spent your life studying criminology and violence and subversion. Would you care to speculate on what may have motivated the man? I know it would be just speculation.
Mr. HOOVER. My speculation, Mr. Boggs, is that this man was no doubt a dedicated Communist. He prefers to call himself a Marxist, but there you get into the field of semantics. He was a Communist, he sympathized thoroughly with the Communist cause. (V, p. 104)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0057b.htm
If LHO was such a dedicated Communist, why did he not join the Communist Party? The WC would never find any evidence of LHO being affiliated with the party in any way. The constant claim that was made was that he was a Communist, but no evidence was ever produced to show that he was.
JEH would then make another interesting comment.
Mr. HOOVER. …I don't believe now, as I look back on it, that he ever changed his views when he asked to come back to this country. I personally feel that when he went to the American Embassy in Moscow originally to renounce his citizenship he should have been able right then and there to sign the renouncement. He never could have gotten back here. I think that should apply to almost all defectors who want to defect and become a part of a system of government that is entirely foreign to ours. If they have that desire, they have that right, but if they indicate a desire for it, let them renounce their citizenship at once.
That was not done. He stayed in Moscow awhile and he went to Minsk where he worked. There was no indication of any difficulty, personally on his part there, but I haven't the slightest doubt that he was a dedicated Communist. (V, p. 104)
I have looked at the issue of LHO renouncing his citizenship in several posts of this series already, and it showed LHO had a legal right to do this. Why was he not allowed to sign the proper documents to make this happen? As JEH points out, he was a defector so this should have been allowed to happen so the defector could not return to the U.S., but this did not happen with LHO. Why?
Could it be that he was not a real defector, but rather on a mission instead? That would explain why he was not permitted to renounce his citizenship, wouldn’t it? Furthermore, when you see all the regulations that were overlooked or outright disobeyed to bring LHO back to the U.S. this again supports the notion of him being important to someone or some group.
Then JEH drops a bomb on the idea of knowing LHO’s motive.
Mr. HOOVER. …There has been some question raised which cannot be resolved, because Oswald is dead, as to whether he was trying to kill the President or trying to kill the Governor. (V, p. 104)
No wonder the WC couldn’t give us a motive as the question of whether LHO was shooting at JFK or JBC was never even firmly answered. How do you claim that he killed JFK for immortal fame when you are not even sure that he was firing at JFK and not JBC?
We then see that JEH gets into the question of where the shots originated from.
Mr. HOOVER. …Now, first, it was thought that the President had been shot through the throat that is what the doctors at the Parkland Hospital felt when he was brought in.
If that had been true, the shot would have had to come from the overpass. But as soon as the body arrived in Washington, the doctors at Bethesda Hospital performed the autopsy and it was then determined definitely from their point of view that he had been shot from the rear, and that portions of the skull had been practically shot off. There was no question but that the gun and the telescopic lens could pinpoint the President perfectly. The car was moving slowly. It wasn't going at a high rate of speed, so that he had perfect opportunity to do it. (V, p. 104)
Yes, the highly trained personnel at Parkland Hospital (PH) thought that the tiny wound in JFK’s throat was one of entrance. They also said that it did not traverse the body. He then said that the very inexperienced autopsy doctors corrected this “mistake” and said that the shots that hit JFK came from the rear. How they determined this in a medical way is unknown since the prosectors never probed the throat wound to determine the path. All things being equal, and they were, the experienced doctors’ observations at PH would carry more weight in a courtroom.
JEH then makes the ludicrous statement that the telescopic “lens” (i.e. scope) could pinpoint JFK perfectly. Really? Was this the same scope that needed to have shims added so that it could be used properly?
Representative BOGGS - One other question, then. It is possible, is it not, to so adjust the telescopic sight to compensate for that change in the target?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes. You can accomplish that merely by putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alinement.
Representative BOGGS - So an accomplished person, accustomed to using that weapon, anticipating a shot of that type, might very well have made such an adjustment prior to using the rifle; isn't that so?
Mr. FRAZIER - If it were necessary; yes. There were no shims in the weapon, either under the mount, where it screws to the weapon, or in the two mounting rings, when we received it in the laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do you have any shims with you, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. When we received the weapon yesterday, there were shims mounted in the rifle. The one under the front end of the mount is in this envelope.
Representative BOGGS – But they were not there when you received it originally?
Mr. FRAZIER – No, sir. These were placed there by some other individual.
Mr. EISENBERG - For the record, these were placed by the ballistics laboratory of the Army, a representative of which will testify later.
This shows that the shims needed to adjust the scope for a target moving were NOT there on 11/22/63, so how could LHO “pinpoint the President perfectly” again?
Finally, JEH admits that the limousine was moving slowly, and that is unusual since the area JFK was shot at was not very populated. Moreover, once the first shot was heard the normal protocol was to increase speed at any sign of danger. Why did the driver, Secret Service Agent William Greer, not speed up until after the fatal headshot? Is this just another coincidence?
JEH kept talking, and this brings us to the next point.
Mr. HOOVER. …Now, some people have raised the question: Why didn't he shoot the President as the car came toward the storehouse where he was working?
The reason for that is, I think, the fact there were some trees between his window on the sixth floor and the cars as they turned and went through the park. So he waited until the car got out from under the trees, and the limbs, and then he had a perfectly clear view of the occupants of the car, and I think he took aim, either on the President or Connally, and I personally believe it was the President in view of the twisted mentality the man had. (V, p. 105)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0058a.htm
JEH’s response to the question quite a few people have raised, why didn’t LHO shoot at JFK as he approached him on Houston Street (if he was the assassin as claimed), instead of waiting until the limousine was moving away from him is a total lie. There were “no trees” blocking the view of the limousine while it was on Houston Street. That is why people were asking why he didn’t fire at that point in the first place. Who would ask this question IF there were trees in the way?
He then compounds the lie with another lie by acting like once the limousine turned onto Elm Street that it was clear of any trees when in fact that is exactly where the tree blocking the view from the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN) was located! This again shows the audacity of the authorities as they assumed that only a small group of people would ever look into this so they felt comfortable telling lies.
Then we see him state again that it was only his belief that LHO took aim at JFK as he also could have been aiming at JBC and JFK got in the way. This clearly shows that JEH’s conclusion of LHO being the assassin was also built on opinion as there was no evidence for that too.
Then he says one final lie by saying that LHO had a “twisted mentality” when there is no evidence for that either. Try as they might, the WC never could find any evidence of LHO being mentally disturbed.
Then during another long answer to the question of whether LHO had been working for a government agency he made another ludicrous statement.
Mr. HOOVER. …I think his wife was a far more reliable person in statements that she made, so far as we were able to ascertain, than his mother.I think the mother had in mind, naturally, the fact she wanted to clear her son's name, which was a natural instinct, but more importantly she was going to see how much money she could make, and I believe she has made a substantial sum. (V, p.105)
Did he just say that Marina Oswald was reliable in her statements? I don’t think so as she changed her story constantly. If LHO’s mother, Marguerite, was interested in clearing her son’s name then it can equally be said that Marina was helping to make LHO look guilty.
As we have seen in this series before Marina also made a lot of money telling her story, and I would venture a guess that it was much more than what LHO’s mother received as very few sources were interested in hearing about LHO’s innocence.
This comment is interesting as well.
Senator COOPER. …In the course of this investigation, as you know so well, there have been a number identified who were very close, at least to Mrs. Oswald, and a few, I can't say that were close to Oswald yet they had association with him, such as the man who drove him back and forth, Mrs. Paine, with whom Mrs. Oswald lived, and others, has there been any credible, I won't say credible because if you had you would have presented it to us in your report, has there been any claims by persons that these people are in any way related to the Communist Party?
Mr. HOOVER. We have had no credible evidence that they have been related to the Communist Party in this country. (V, p. 110)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0060b.htm
Why is this interesting? Because it clearly shows the bias that JEH (and by extension the FBI) and the WC exhibited towards LHO because there was no evidence, credible or otherwise, showing that LHO was affiliated with the Communist Party either, but that didn’t stop them from claiming that he was one. Why did no credible evidence showing that these other people were members of the Communist Party clear them, but NOT LHO?
JEH would again state that there was no indication that LHO was a danger to anyone.
Mr. HOOVER. …There was nothing up to the time of the assassination that gave any indication that this man was a dangerous character who might do harm to the President or to the Vice President. Up to that time, as has been indicated.
… Now, as I say, up to that time, there had been no information that would have warranted our reporting him as a potential danger or hazard to the security or the safety of the President or the Vice President, so his name was not furnished at the time to Secret Service. (V, pp. 112-113)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0061b.htm
This is an important point for several reasons. Firstly, this is being said after the FBI had been keeping tabs on him. If he displayed any characteristics of violence or insanity this would have been duly noted, but clearly it was not observed. Secondly, this again shows that the motive put forth by official narrative supporters (the WC never provided a firm motive) is false as LHO was not violent or a “nut”. The proof is in the pudding, the FBI never gave his name to the Secret Service (SS) as a potential threat to the President, therefore, LHO was either a great actor or was not a dangerous or violent person.
This is why a motive is paramount in this case, but the WC was unable to provide us with one. How does a normal, peaceful person suddenly decide to kill the President? That needed to be answered, but it wasn’t.
The comments in this post by JEH show that the conclusion that the FBI and the WC reached was based on a biased opinion, and not evidence. It also shows that it was full of falsehoods that are sunk by both the evidence and the truth.
miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1632/0*NpKXc0y6LXoNu6wC.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) would claim that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK), Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT), wounded Texas Governor John B. Connally (JBC), and shot at retired General Edwin A. Walker (EAW). If these claims were true it would illustrate that LHO was a very violent person.
The problem with this is that the WC did not find any evidence of him being violent until he was dead and his wife, Marina Oswald, claimed that he had taken a shot at EAW. If LHO was really violent as claimed, why is there no evidence of this before the assassination?
We have looked at comments by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) before in this series, and now it is time to look at some more.
****************************************
JEH is asked about this issue during his testimony before the WC.
Representative BOGGS. The FBI interviewed practically everybody who ever associated with Oswald?
Mr. HOOVER. It did.
Representative BOGGS. You didn't find any indication of why anyone should even suspect that Oswald would do this, did you?
Mr. HOOVER. We found no indication at all that Oswald was a man addicted to violence. The first indication of an act of violence came after he, Oswald, had been killed, and Mrs. Oswald told us about the attempt on General Walker's life by Oswald. No one had known a thing about that.. I think in the Enquirer article there is reference to the fact that the Dallas Police knew or suspected Oswald of possibly being a party to the shooting into the house of General Walker. Chief Curry specifically denies that. There was no connection of that kind and there was no evidence that Oswald had any streak of violence.
At no time, other than the so called street disturbance in New Orleans, was there any indication that he might be a fighter…. There was no evidence in the place where he was employed in Dallas of acts of violence or temper or anything of that kind on his part. (V, pp. 103-104)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0057a.htm
JEH said that LHO was “not addicted to violence” and that he had no acts of violence or temper on his part in Dallas. The notion that the Dallas Police Department (DPD) suspected LHO of being the one to shoot at EAW is not supported by the evidence as JEH points out. LHO was never considered for the EAW shooting, and that is simply the truth.
JEH went on to clarify that LHO did not even get into a fight in New Orleans as the police moved in before there could be an altercation. JEH told the WC that “immediately the police moved in and arrested him” when the anti-Castro Cubans began to move in on him. This very quick action by the police could indicate that this was a staged event as some researchers have suggested over the years.
The next question went to motive since the WC couldn’t find one for LHO they were curious to know JEH’s opinion on this subject.
Representative BOGGS. You have spent your life studying criminology and violence and subversion. Would you care to speculate on what may have motivated the man? I know it would be just speculation.
Mr. HOOVER. My speculation, Mr. Boggs, is that this man was no doubt a dedicated Communist. He prefers to call himself a Marxist, but there you get into the field of semantics. He was a Communist, he sympathized thoroughly with the Communist cause. (V, p. 104)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0057b.htm
If LHO was such a dedicated Communist, why did he not join the Communist Party? The WC would never find any evidence of LHO being affiliated with the party in any way. The constant claim that was made was that he was a Communist, but no evidence was ever produced to show that he was.
JEH would then make another interesting comment.
Mr. HOOVER. …I don't believe now, as I look back on it, that he ever changed his views when he asked to come back to this country. I personally feel that when he went to the American Embassy in Moscow originally to renounce his citizenship he should have been able right then and there to sign the renouncement. He never could have gotten back here. I think that should apply to almost all defectors who want to defect and become a part of a system of government that is entirely foreign to ours. If they have that desire, they have that right, but if they indicate a desire for it, let them renounce their citizenship at once.
That was not done. He stayed in Moscow awhile and he went to Minsk where he worked. There was no indication of any difficulty, personally on his part there, but I haven't the slightest doubt that he was a dedicated Communist. (V, p. 104)
I have looked at the issue of LHO renouncing his citizenship in several posts of this series already, and it showed LHO had a legal right to do this. Why was he not allowed to sign the proper documents to make this happen? As JEH points out, he was a defector so this should have been allowed to happen so the defector could not return to the U.S., but this did not happen with LHO. Why?
Could it be that he was not a real defector, but rather on a mission instead? That would explain why he was not permitted to renounce his citizenship, wouldn’t it? Furthermore, when you see all the regulations that were overlooked or outright disobeyed to bring LHO back to the U.S. this again supports the notion of him being important to someone or some group.
Then JEH drops a bomb on the idea of knowing LHO’s motive.
Mr. HOOVER. …There has been some question raised which cannot be resolved, because Oswald is dead, as to whether he was trying to kill the President or trying to kill the Governor. (V, p. 104)
No wonder the WC couldn’t give us a motive as the question of whether LHO was shooting at JFK or JBC was never even firmly answered. How do you claim that he killed JFK for immortal fame when you are not even sure that he was firing at JFK and not JBC?
We then see that JEH gets into the question of where the shots originated from.
Mr. HOOVER. …Now, first, it was thought that the President had been shot through the throat that is what the doctors at the Parkland Hospital felt when he was brought in.
If that had been true, the shot would have had to come from the overpass. But as soon as the body arrived in Washington, the doctors at Bethesda Hospital performed the autopsy and it was then determined definitely from their point of view that he had been shot from the rear, and that portions of the skull had been practically shot off. There was no question but that the gun and the telescopic lens could pinpoint the President perfectly. The car was moving slowly. It wasn't going at a high rate of speed, so that he had perfect opportunity to do it. (V, p. 104)
Yes, the highly trained personnel at Parkland Hospital (PH) thought that the tiny wound in JFK’s throat was one of entrance. They also said that it did not traverse the body. He then said that the very inexperienced autopsy doctors corrected this “mistake” and said that the shots that hit JFK came from the rear. How they determined this in a medical way is unknown since the prosectors never probed the throat wound to determine the path. All things being equal, and they were, the experienced doctors’ observations at PH would carry more weight in a courtroom.
JEH then makes the ludicrous statement that the telescopic “lens” (i.e. scope) could pinpoint JFK perfectly. Really? Was this the same scope that needed to have shims added so that it could be used properly?
Representative BOGGS - One other question, then. It is possible, is it not, to so adjust the telescopic sight to compensate for that change in the target?
Mr. FRAZIER - Oh, yes. You can accomplish that merely by putting shims under the front of the scope and over the back of the scope to tip the scope in the mount itself, to bring it into alinement.
Representative BOGGS - So an accomplished person, accustomed to using that weapon, anticipating a shot of that type, might very well have made such an adjustment prior to using the rifle; isn't that so?
Mr. FRAZIER - If it were necessary; yes. There were no shims in the weapon, either under the mount, where it screws to the weapon, or in the two mounting rings, when we received it in the laboratory.
Mr. EISENBERG - Do you have any shims with you, Mr. Frazier?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes. When we received the weapon yesterday, there were shims mounted in the rifle. The one under the front end of the mount is in this envelope.
Representative BOGGS – But they were not there when you received it originally?
Mr. FRAZIER – No, sir. These were placed there by some other individual.
Mr. EISENBERG - For the record, these were placed by the ballistics laboratory of the Army, a representative of which will testify later.
This shows that the shims needed to adjust the scope for a target moving were NOT there on 11/22/63, so how could LHO “pinpoint the President perfectly” again?
Finally, JEH admits that the limousine was moving slowly, and that is unusual since the area JFK was shot at was not very populated. Moreover, once the first shot was heard the normal protocol was to increase speed at any sign of danger. Why did the driver, Secret Service Agent William Greer, not speed up until after the fatal headshot? Is this just another coincidence?
JEH kept talking, and this brings us to the next point.
Mr. HOOVER. …Now, some people have raised the question: Why didn't he shoot the President as the car came toward the storehouse where he was working?
The reason for that is, I think, the fact there were some trees between his window on the sixth floor and the cars as they turned and went through the park. So he waited until the car got out from under the trees, and the limbs, and then he had a perfectly clear view of the occupants of the car, and I think he took aim, either on the President or Connally, and I personally believe it was the President in view of the twisted mentality the man had. (V, p. 105)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0058a.htm
JEH’s response to the question quite a few people have raised, why didn’t LHO shoot at JFK as he approached him on Houston Street (if he was the assassin as claimed), instead of waiting until the limousine was moving away from him is a total lie. There were “no trees” blocking the view of the limousine while it was on Houston Street. That is why people were asking why he didn’t fire at that point in the first place. Who would ask this question IF there were trees in the way?
He then compounds the lie with another lie by acting like once the limousine turned onto Elm Street that it was clear of any trees when in fact that is exactly where the tree blocking the view from the alleged Sniper’s Nest (SN) was located! This again shows the audacity of the authorities as they assumed that only a small group of people would ever look into this so they felt comfortable telling lies.
Then we see him state again that it was only his belief that LHO took aim at JFK as he also could have been aiming at JBC and JFK got in the way. This clearly shows that JEH’s conclusion of LHO being the assassin was also built on opinion as there was no evidence for that too.
Then he says one final lie by saying that LHO had a “twisted mentality” when there is no evidence for that either. Try as they might, the WC never could find any evidence of LHO being mentally disturbed.
Then during another long answer to the question of whether LHO had been working for a government agency he made another ludicrous statement.
Mr. HOOVER. …I think his wife was a far more reliable person in statements that she made, so far as we were able to ascertain, than his mother.I think the mother had in mind, naturally, the fact she wanted to clear her son's name, which was a natural instinct, but more importantly she was going to see how much money she could make, and I believe she has made a substantial sum. (V, p.105)
Did he just say that Marina Oswald was reliable in her statements? I don’t think so as she changed her story constantly. If LHO’s mother, Marguerite, was interested in clearing her son’s name then it can equally be said that Marina was helping to make LHO look guilty.
As we have seen in this series before Marina also made a lot of money telling her story, and I would venture a guess that it was much more than what LHO’s mother received as very few sources were interested in hearing about LHO’s innocence.
This comment is interesting as well.
Senator COOPER. …In the course of this investigation, as you know so well, there have been a number identified who were very close, at least to Mrs. Oswald, and a few, I can't say that were close to Oswald yet they had association with him, such as the man who drove him back and forth, Mrs. Paine, with whom Mrs. Oswald lived, and others, has there been any credible, I won't say credible because if you had you would have presented it to us in your report, has there been any claims by persons that these people are in any way related to the Communist Party?
Mr. HOOVER. We have had no credible evidence that they have been related to the Communist Party in this country. (V, p. 110)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0060b.htm
Why is this interesting? Because it clearly shows the bias that JEH (and by extension the FBI) and the WC exhibited towards LHO because there was no evidence, credible or otherwise, showing that LHO was affiliated with the Communist Party either, but that didn’t stop them from claiming that he was one. Why did no credible evidence showing that these other people were members of the Communist Party clear them, but NOT LHO?
JEH would again state that there was no indication that LHO was a danger to anyone.
Mr. HOOVER. …There was nothing up to the time of the assassination that gave any indication that this man was a dangerous character who might do harm to the President or to the Vice President. Up to that time, as has been indicated.
… Now, as I say, up to that time, there had been no information that would have warranted our reporting him as a potential danger or hazard to the security or the safety of the President or the Vice President, so his name was not furnished at the time to Secret Service. (V, pp. 112-113)
www.historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0061b.htm
This is an important point for several reasons. Firstly, this is being said after the FBI had been keeping tabs on him. If he displayed any characteristics of violence or insanity this would have been duly noted, but clearly it was not observed. Secondly, this again shows that the motive put forth by official narrative supporters (the WC never provided a firm motive) is false as LHO was not violent or a “nut”. The proof is in the pudding, the FBI never gave his name to the Secret Service (SS) as a potential threat to the President, therefore, LHO was either a great actor or was not a dangerous or violent person.
This is why a motive is paramount in this case, but the WC was unable to provide us with one. How does a normal, peaceful person suddenly decide to kill the President? That needed to be answered, but it wasn’t.
The comments in this post by JEH show that the conclusion that the FBI and the WC reached was based on a biased opinion, and not evidence. It also shows that it was full of falsehoods that are sunk by both the evidence and the truth.