Did Lee Harvey Oswald Order The Rifle? The Answer Is Yes

[David Von Pein]

E-Mail from Gary Mack (re: the backyard photographs)....

Date: 6/5/2015 3:57:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

-------------------

Hey Dave,

Well, the CTs are all wound up again over the BY photos but I'm continually puzzled as to why they claim things don't make sense?

For example, [David] Josephs misrepresents when the third pose was found by saying "NYE 1976." I guess that's code for New Year's Eve? Anyway, that third pose was known to exist in November 1963. Det. Bobby Brown was interviewed for local TV back in the early 90s and described how and why Fritz sent him out to duplicate the poses (plural) to look into Oswald's claim that CE134 (the blowup) was fake.

So yes, DPD had at least three poses and it's fair to wonder what the heck happened to the missing negative. But the poses were evidence when Brown made his test studies.

As for the copies, as we know from DPD reports and later interviews, Det. Studebaker made souvenir copies of them for many officers, including Rusty Livingstone and, apparently, Roscoe White. Of course, anyone could have acquired copies from other officers in later weeks and months and there's just no way to know now who did what and when.

What the CTs never talk about is Marguerite and Marina both admitting to destroying a fourth pose in which Oswald held the rifle over his head. They did that the next day BEFORE Dallas Police found the other pictures.

I knew Marguerite and I know Marina (although we haven't spoken in years) and not only did both women readily admit to having testified to the WC about destroying the photo, both were aware of the picture controversy and both said the destroyed picture was, in fact, just like the other three - taken in the Neely Street back yard.

What this means is that IF the BY photos are fake (but they aren't), Oswald is the one who faked them! Phew! It's hard to keep all this straight.

Gary

Edited June 6, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Date: 6/5/2015 (9:50:14 P.M. EDT)
E-Mail From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack

-------------------

Thanks so much, Gary. Your vast knowledge about this case continues to be amazing and almost beyond belief.

I love it so much that you feel comfortable writing to me all the time (and unsolicited too!) about everything under the sun which is "JFK"-related.

I'm so pleased to be able to have many of the crazy conspiracy myths so thoroughly debunked via your wealth of knowledge regarding this case.

And your messages to me also add a huge element of credibility and detailed info to my articles when I add them to my own website/blog (which as you probably know, I often do), such as your mail today regarding the backyard photos.

Many thanks.

Regards,
David Von Pein

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-949.html#Gary-Mack

Edited June 6, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Steven Gaal]

Did Lee Harvey Oswald Order The Rifle? The Answer Is Yes

Why would he order a rifle and not use it ??
=========================================

POSTER ALAN FORD -------------\

=========================\

On November 22, 1963 President John F. Kennedy was ambushed and killed in Dallas, Texas. Later that same afternoon, a Dallas police officer, J.D. Tippitt, was also slain out on the streets at 10th & Patton. The “official” report says a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, was responsible for both deaths; however, the only truth in both these encounters is the date of the demise of the respective parties. In both shooting instances, eyewitnesses to both encounters testified in their Warren Commission testimony that someone fitting descriptions contrary to Oswald actually fired weapons at the respective parties.

In the first instance, Mr. Euins (Amos), from his up close & personal vantage point at the corner of Houston & Elm Street gives this account of the actual gunman who fired upon the presidential limousine>

Mr. Specter.
What did you see in the building?
Mr. Euins.
I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through, he just pulled it back in the window.
Mr. Specter.
Did you see him pull it back in the window?
Mr. Euins.
Yes, sir.

Mr. Euins, then a young teenager, had this to add further along in his testimony>

Mr. Specter.
Do you know who that man was who said somebody ran out the back?
Mr. Euins.
No, sir. He was a construction man working back there
Mr. Specter.
Were you there when the man talked about somebody running out the back?
Mr. Euins.
Yes, sir. He said the man had--he said he had kind of bald spot on his head. And he said the man come back there.
Mr. Specter.
Do you know what the name of the man was who told the police that someone had run out the back?
Mr. Euins.
No, sir.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Specter.
All right.
Amos, would you tell us everything that you can remember about what you saw about the gun itself?
Mr. Euins.
Well, when I first got here on the corner, the President was coming around the bend. That is when--I was looking at the building then.
Mr. Specter.
What did you think it was when you first saw it?
Mr. Euins.
I thought it was a piece of pipe or something sticking out the window.
Mr. Specter.
Did it look like it was a piece of metal to you?
Mr. Euins.
Yes, sir; just a little round piece of pipe.
Mr. Specter.
About an inch in diameter, would you say?
Mr. Euins.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Specter.
And how long was the piece of pipe that you saw?
Mr. Euins.
It was sticking out about that much.
Mr. Specter.
About 14 or 15 inches?
Mr. Euins.
Yes, sir. And then after I seen it sticking out, after awhile, that is when I heard the shot, and everybody started looking around.

Of course, the barrel length of the “official” supposed weapon is much shorter than 14 or 15 inches long…but be that as it may let’s continue…

Mr. Specter.
How far was it sticking out of the window would you say then, Amos?
Mr. Euins.
I would say it was about something like that.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating about 3 feet?
Mr. Euins.
You know--the trigger housing and stock and receiver group out the window.
Mr. Specter.
I can't understand you, Amos.
Mr. Euins.
It was enough to get the stock and receiving house and the trigger housing to stick out the window.
Mr. Specter.
The stock and receiving house?
Mr. Euins.
Yes.
Mr. Specter.
Now, what direction was the rifle pointing?
Mr. Euins.
Down--what did you says Elm?
Mr. Specter.
Elm Street?
Mr. Euins.
Yes, sir; down Elm.
Mr. Specter.
Was it pointing in the direction of the President?
Mr. Euins.
Yes, sir.
*Continuing even further in Mr. Euins’ testimony>
Mr. Specter.
Now, what kind of a look, if any, did you have at the man who was there?
Mr. Euins.
All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this.
Mr. Specter.
Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?
Mr. Euins.
Yes, sir: and I could see the spot on his head.
Mr. Specter.
How would you describe that man for us?
Mr. Euins.
I wouldn't know how to describe him, because all I could see was the spot and his hand.
Mr. Specter.
Was he slender or was he fat?
Mr. Euins.
I didn't get to see him.
Mr. Specter.
Could you tell from where you looked whether he was tall or short?
Mr. Euins.
No.
Mr. Specter.
Of what race was he, Amos?
Mr. Euins.
I couldn't tell, because these boxes were throwing a reflection, shaded.
Mr. Specter.
Could you tell whether he was a Negro gentleman or a white man?
Mr. Euins.
No, sir.
Mr. Specter.
Couldn't even tell that? But you have described that he had a bald--
Mr. Euins.
Spot in his head. Yes, sir; I could see the bald spot in his head.

To the best of my knowledge Lee Harvey Oswald is void of a “bald spot”. Moreover, given that Mr. Euins observed the actual armed shooter’s “bald spot” this suggest he was observing a left-handed shooter (Oswald is right-handed).

but let’s continue>

Given the sworn testimony of Mr. Euins, there is an armed shooter firing upon the presidential motorcade that afternoon who remains still at large (or, at the very least evidence of an additional gunman).

Now, let’s examine what the closest eyewitness, Mr. Benavides (Domingo), who coincidently enough was never called to identify Oswald in a line up, says of the actual assailant who ambushes and kills the slain police officer at 10th & Patton>

*a complexion “Ruddier than mine”

*a complexion “a little bit darker than average”. Photos and film footage of Benavides show that his complexion was light brown, whereas Oswald’s complexion was pale white.

So, the actual assailant at 10th & Patton was much darker than Oswald. Moreover, Oswald's presentation is much cleaner and neater than someone in dire need of a haircut>

Mr. BELIN - Okay, well, I thank you. I was flying from St. Louis to Des Moines, Iowa. at about this time. Is there anything else?
Mr. BENAVIDES - I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look fiat in back.
Apparently, Benavides did eventually identify Oswald as the killer. However, if Benavides did really believe Oswald was the killer, then why on Earth did he hesitate to identify him during his Warren Commission testimony? More to the point, why should anybody accept his later identification as being trustworthy? The truth is we shouldn’t.

There is also the mysterious shooting of Benavides brother, Edward, in January 1964. Edward was shot in the back of the head in a club in Dallas. Many researchers have claimed that the intended target was Domingo - due to the fact that he didn’t positively identify Oswald as the killer. Quite curiously, on January 23 1964, Warren Reynolds, who followed Tippit’s murderer into Roger Ballew’s Texaco Service station, was shot in the head by a rifle at point blank range, but had miraculously survived.

Like Benavides, Reynolds was initially reluctant to identify Oswald as the killer. But after he was shot, Reynolds positively identified Oswald during his Warren Commission testimony. Source: Ace researcher Hasan ( Schnozzle ) Yusuf (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)

Rather than push a hastily contrived script upon the American people, and the genuinely concerned world community at large, Why? didn't those charged with fully investigating this matter from day one pull out all the stops, leaving no stone unturned in pursuing, identifying, apprehending and questioning these two still at large killers? For five full decades now, the BIG lie continues to enhance the script, rather than even try to address these major concerns. Why?

*An addendum>

An additional eyewitness, Howard Brennan, who observed an armed gunman in Dealey Plaza that afternoon, also doesn't believe Oswald resembled the actual shooter he observed>

Mr Brennan :And that was another thing that I called their [the police’s] attention to at the lineup.
Mr Belin :What do you mean by that?
Mr Brennan :That he [Oswald] was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the window.
Mr Belin :You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?
Mr Brennan :Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn’t have the same clothes on.
Mr Belin :All right.
Mr Brennan :I don’t know whether you have that in the record or not. I am sure you do.
Mr Dulles :Any further questions? I guess there are no more questions, Mr Belin.
Mr Belin :Well, sir, we want to thank you for your cooperation with the Commission.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.161)

Of course, there's no further questions whenever anyone begins to derail the hastily contrived Script (it wasn't lost upon me that it was Allen Dulles who quickly redirects/steers the conversation to an abrupt halt).

[Curtis Berkley]

One of your disciples, Dave?

This is a favourite LN tactic. Whenever things get a bit sticky, a "new" member chimes in to lend some support. Check out Curtis's profile; "Member since Today 1:33 A.M."

Hi, Robert. I have lurked for a bit, and appreciate your posts.

I saw the new member post while lurking today, submitted the necessary email containing the requisite information, and was approved a few hours later. I assure you that any significance of timing is purely coincidental.

Finally, I don't see where this thread has gotten "sticky", at all, as the issue seems to be a relatively straight-forward one - those are pics of Oswald, standing in his backyard, holding a rifle, just as Marina testified under oath that she had taken.

If you have any evidence, beyond the aforementioned and anecdotal, please present it, as I'd love to know and consider it.

Thanks, again, for the welcome.

"I don't see where this thread has gotten "sticky", at all, as the issue seems to be a relatively straight-forward one - those are pics of Oswald," You don't 'see'? No you don't, not if you see a picture of LHO standing anywhere.

Kenneth, do you think that the BY photos are fake?

Do you think that they are obviously faked?

Do you think they would even have looked obviously faked in 1963? What about 1976?

If you answered "Yes" to each question...how then do you explain that both the WC and the HSCA each determined that they were not only authentic, but untouched and unedited?

Was the HSCA in on the conspiracy, too?

And how then do you explain that Marina herself admitted to having taken the photographs?

Was Marina in on a conspiracy, as well?

Sincere questions, as I'm curious as to how you navigate these rather serious obstacles to holding a belief that the photos were faked / edited.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Curtis Berkley

[Robert Prudhomme]

"YES" to all of the above.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Marina was coerced into going along. Once in a lie, it's hard to get out.

[David Josephs]

For example, [David] Josephs misrepresents when the third pose was found by saying "NYE 1976." I guess that's code for New Year's Eve? Anyway, that third pose was known to exist in November 1963. Det. Bobby Brown was interviewed for local TV back in the early 90s and described how and why Fritz sent him out to duplicate the poses (plural) to look into Oswald's claim that CE134 (the blowup) was fake.

So yes, DPD had at least three poses and it's fair to wonder what the heck happened to the missing negative. But the poses were evidence when Brown made his test studies.

Gary... what exactly does "known to exist in Nov 1963" supposed to mean?

If the DPD's own Detective and Chief would not tell the truth about it - who CAN we trust then.... right?

And didn't the Warren Commission go to great lengths to have Marina tell us she took two and not the one photo that day she told the FBI... while holding the camera to her eyes - an incorrect statement for the woman who NEVER took photos and would have to look down into an inverted image of her husband with a rifle and pistol and take amazingly focused images... now 3 times? and that causes you no concern of course.... those blinders are amazingly effective... don't stray from the course boys.

Uh, right... time for a reality check Larry. The fox telling you he didn't eat the hens it not very reassuring.

WCR:

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.

Mrs. OSWALD. I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.

Mrs. OSWALD. Now I paid attention to it. A specialist would see it immediately, of course. But at that time I did not pay any attention at all. I saw just Lee. These details are of great significance for everybody, but for me at that time it didn't mean anything. At the time' that I was questioned, I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought that there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.

--------------------

HSCA:

Mrs. PORTER. Well, first of all, I refused to take picture because I did not know how to operate camera, and he told me, he insist that I will take it, and he said he will show me how, if I just push the button. So I took one picture, I think, and maybe he changed the pose, I don't recall. Maybe I took two pictures, but I was very annoyed by all the incidents.

Mr. McDONALD. Did you use a tripod at all?

Mrs. PORTER. Did I use what?

Mr. McDONALD. A tripod. In other words, was the camera attached to a stand?

Mrs. PORTER. No.

Mr. McDONALD. OK. You held it in your hands.

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. McDONALD. Now, Mrs. Porter, can you recall how many photographs you took, how many poses? What we have here are two, two poses. Can you recall whether you took any others?

Mrs. PORTER. No, I don't.

Mr. McDONALD. So as you look in front of you, you have three photographs, each one with a slightly different pose.

Mrs. PORTER. Well, I never compared them before. Since you ask me, you know, I have to compare.

Mr. McDONALD. As you will see, A has him holding a gun, holding the rifle in his right hand--left hand, B, the rifle in the right hand, and then, C, in the left hand again, slightly to the front.

So with these to refresh your memory, can you say, can you recall if you took any additional pictures?

Mrs. PORTER. No, I cannot remember how many exactly. To me it looks like all of them. It looks like Lee.

Mr. McDONALD. That is correct.

Mrs. PORTER. That is the only thing I can say, but I do not remember how many pictures I was taking.

And here all is the crux of the matter - what and how is the next question asked - think about Specter's "if it exits the throat would that be considered an exit wound, in your opinion"... The now have three photos... not once in the last 13 years has this other photo surfaced "but it was known to exist in Nov 1963"

How leading a question is this Mr. Tidd?

Mr. McDONALD. But since we have three in front of you, we know now that you at least took three; correct?

Mrs. PORTER. Yes.

Mr. McDONALD. Three different occasions?

Mrs. PORTER. I mean it was one occasion.

Mr. McDONALD. Right.

Mrs. PORTER. But I could take three pictures, I could take two pictures. I cannot be definite about how many.

Mr. McDONALD. Let me ask you if you can remember, was there a pose? Did Lee pose holding the rifle over his head, in two hands?

Mrs. PORTER. I don't remember that at all.

So y'know GMack... these are the standards of evidence and moral surety about how 133-C comes to be "known to exist in Nov 1963" and disappears - while it appears as if it was never taken - that you adhere to in this case?

Common sense and logical deduction not allowed

.

[Ray Mitcham]

http://www32.zippyshare.com/v/DjZSlsUk/file.html

http://www55.zippyshare.com/v/rhKlLbNO/file.html

chris

Brilliant gifs, Chris. Now let's see what DVP says.

The pose of Oswald holding the rifle above his head was taken in Russia, when he was hunting. His hosts said he was a lousy shot.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[Kenneth Drew]

David Josephs,

As I said before, I haven't the foggiest idea what the "Detective Brown" stuff is all about.

But let me once again stress the importance of the following two facts. And these are two facts that a certain number of conspiracy theorists will apparently forever label as "fake" or "phony" or "lies", but these two quotes are still going to be there for CTers to ignore until the cows come home....

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." -- HSCA Volume 6

and...

"Jack Duffy asked Marina if she had taken the backyard photos of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did"." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi (c.2007)

And if you'd like to hear Marina herself say that she took the backyard photos, here she is doing so in this HSCA audio from September of 1978....

https://app.box.com/s/hf7yp5ctenxvgjttuq7jwtuuv57eagb7

In additional, during the same 1978 HSCA testimony, Marina Oswald made the following comments concerning Lee leaving their apartment in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 to go out to "target practice" with his rifle....

Mr. JAMES McDONALD -- "Did he ever take it out, outside the apartment, to practice with it, to do anything with it?"

Mrs. MARINA OSWALD PORTER -- "Yes, he did."

Mr. McDONALD -- "And what did he do?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "He will, like before it gets very dark outside, he would leave apartment dressed with the dark raincoat, even though it was a hot summer night, pretty hot weather anyway, and he would be wearing this, and he would be hiding the rifle underneath his raincoat. He said he is going to target practice or something like that."

Mr. McDONALD -- "This was one occasion you are talking about with the raincoat?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "It is several occasions, maybe more than once."

Mr. McDONALD -- "He did the same thing on several occasions, put the raincoat on...and the rifle under the raincoat?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "Yes."

Mr. McDONALD -- "And how long would he be gone?"

Mrs. PORTER -- "A few hours."

-------------

AUDIO VERSION OF ABOVE TESTIMONY -- https://app.box.com/s/wyh0qnvas7pkmkahcldp3omfjsxotmqq

So the conspiracy theorists who continue to insist that there is no evidence or testimony whatsoever to indicate that Lee Oswald ever practiced with his Carcano rifle in the months leading up to the assassination are just flat-out ignoring the above testimony by Marina Oswald, which can be found on Page 231 of HSCA Volume 2.

I guess LHO was supposed to be walking around outside his house with the rifle for hours, since he didn't have a car to drive anywhere

I can't understand anyone believing anything in the WCR. So many things are known to be outright lies and fabrications. Once you know the WC itself fabricated evidence then you know that the rest was very selectively chosen just to amplify their side. Such as the SBT. Everyone except DVP and his pigpen playmate are still laughing at that one.

[David Von Pein]

David J.,

The main point regarding the backyard photos, which you will forever ignore, is that Marina Oswald Porter has always and forever said that she took SOME PICTURES of Lee Oswald in the Neely backyard.

What difference does it make HOW MANY she took? Or if she remembers exactly how many she took? The key is --- she remembers taking pictures in the Neely backyard of Lee wearing all black and holding guns.

Why do you insist on calling this woman named Marina a bald-faced xxxx, David? Why?

And Marguerite must have been a xxxx too, right David? Because Marguerite told the Warren Commission that she flushed one of the backyard pictures down the toilet in her hotel room on Nov. 23rd....

J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?"

MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture." And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet."

--------------

Face it, fellows, those backyard pictures are real and genuine and they were taken in the Neely Street backyard in the spring of 1963, just exactly as Marina Oswald has always maintained.

Conspiracy theorists should (once again) make at least a tiny effort to discard some of the perpetual myths that have surrounded the JFK case for five decades now. And the notion that the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald are fake photos (regardless of how many photos Marina took) is one of those myths.

Edited June 6, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

One of your disciples, Dave?

This is a favourite LN tactic. Whenever things get a bit sticky, a "new" member chimes in to lend some support. Check out Curtis's profile; "Member since Today 1:33 A.M."

Hi, Robert. I have lurked for a bit, and appreciate your posts.

I saw the new member post while lurking today, submitted the necessary email containing the requisite information, and was approved a few hours later. I assure you that any significance of timing is purely coincidental.

Finally, I don't see where this thread has gotten "sticky", at all, as the issue seems to be a relatively straight-forward one - those are pics of Oswald, standing in his backyard, holding a rifle, just as Marina testified under oath that she had taken.

If you have any evidence, beyond the aforementioned and anecdotal, please present it, as I'd love to know and consider it.

Thanks, again, for the welcome.

"I don't see where this thread has gotten "sticky", at all, as the issue seems to be a relatively straight-forward one - those are pics of Oswald," You don't 'see'? No you don't, not if you see a picture of LHO standing anywhere.

Kenneth, do you think that the BY photos are fake?

Do you think that they are obviously faked?

Do you think they would even have looked obviously faked in 1963? What about 1976?

If you answered "Yes" to each question...how then do you explain that both the WC and the HSCA each determined that they were not only authentic, but untouched and unedited?

Was the HSCA in on the conspiracy, too?

And how then do you explain that Marina herself admitted to having taken the photographs?

Was Marina in on a conspiracy, as well?

Sincere questions, as I'm curious as to how you navigate these rather serious obstacles to holding a belief that the photos were faked / edited.

Curtis, I'm going to do something that Nutters don't do. l'm going to answer your questions. As a practice, Nutters such as DVP usually show up and throw out a ridiculous statement that they know all CTers will disagree with, then won't answer anything and just reappear with more distractions.

Anyhow, here are the answers:

Fake? absolutely created out of whole cloth. A head put on a body and then put onto the picture of the gate. There was no human in the photo when the photo of the gate was taken.

Obviously faked? Not sure what that means, but could a moron recognize that they're faked. Yes.

1963, 76? Are morons smarter today than in those years? The first time I saw them, whenever that was, it was obvious. But then I'm not a moron.

How do i explain the WC and HSCA? How do you explain DVP? same deal. WC is easy to explain, HSCA was way too late and had waaaayy too much misinformation.

HSCA in on conspiracy too? Couldn't have been, conspiracy was in 1960-63 timeframe.

Marina was told she was scheduled to return to Russia unless she cooperated. She co-operated. Wouldn't you?

Was Marina in on conspiracy? Only a tool, just as LHO was.

I don't believe the photos were edited, depending on terminology. I think they were 'created'.

I think the photos are totally irrelevant except that they show that LHO was the Patsy. Where they failed was in doing such a poor job, such as using the wrong rifle, since the rifle in the artwork is not the rifle that is claimed was used in the assassination, except has never been shown to ever have fired a shot. The creators knew they were going to be controlling the investigation and could make it work out however they wanted it to. They didn't count on LHO surviving the 22nd. That messed up their plans.

[Ray Mitcham]

David J.,

The main point regarding the backyard photos, which you will forever ignore, is that Marina Oswald Porter has always and forever said that she took SOME PICTURES of Lee Oswald in the Neely backyard.

What difference does it make HOW MANY she took? Or if she remembers exactly how many she took? The key is --- she remembers taking pictures in the Neely backyard of Lee wearing all black and holding guns.

Why do you insist on calling this woman named Marina a bald-faced xxxx, David? Why?

And Marguerite must have been a xxxx too, right David? Because Marguerite told the Warren Commission that she flushed one of the backyard pictures down the toilet in her hotel room on Nov. 23rd....

J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had you said anything to her about burning it before that?"

MARGUERITE OSWALD -- "No, sir. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina's shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine's home. She said--I testified before "Mamma, you keep picture." And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. And when I refused it, then she decided to get rid of the picture. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet."

--------------

Face it, fellows, those backyard pictures are real and genuine and they were taken in the Neely Street backyard in the spring of 1963, just exactly as Marina Oswald has always maintained.

Conspiracy theorists should (once again) make at least a tiny effort to discard some of the perpetual myths that have surrounded the JFK case for five decades now. And the notion that the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald are fake photos (regardless of how many photos Marina took) is one of those myths.

The photo Marguerite flushed down the toilet was a photo taken on a hunting trip in Russia., where he held shotgun above his head. (The trip where his hosts said he was a lousy shot.)

Now explain why she said she held the camera up to her eye when it was reflex camera.

On second thoughts don't bother as you will say she must have been mistaken as she was when she first said she took one photo, then two.

And you believe her? !!!

[David Von Pein]

The pose of Oswald holding the rifle above his head was taken in Russia, when he was hunting. His hosts said he was a lousy shot.

E-Mail from Gary Mack......

Subject: B.G. "Bobby" Brown

Date: 6/6/2015 11:31:45 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

-----------------

Ha-Ha, now Mitcham makes up a story that the BY photo of Oswald holding his rifle over his head was taken in Russia! Based on what or who?

If he'd bothered to speak with the only two people on the planet who both saw and destroyed the picture, as I did decades ago, he'd know that the picture was definitely one of the BY photos we're all familiar with.

Marguerite, especially, was very knowledgeable about the BY photos and wanted desperately to find some proof her son was innocent. But as she explained to me in the late 70s, the picture location was the same as the other BY poses. Unless, of course, Marguerite and Marina were part of the dastardly evil plotters' cabal.

Here is Oswald's 201 file [and also see the photo at the bottom of this post] with a report mentioning Brown, Fritz and others taking the re-creation pictures at 214 Neely and there's a 1992 Now It Can Be Told show in which Brown appears on camera telling what he did and why. I've got a tape of it somewhere, but maybe you have it too. Brown is the person IN the picture re-creating 133-C, so obviously he and perhaps other DPD people knew about it in 1963.

And it seems to me, in addition to a report on KDFW-TV here, there was a newspaper story about Brown and the photos, for they were a news item in the JFK movie days and the release of Dallas Police docs by the city. At the time, Brown was living in Oklahoma but he's since passed away.

Gary

Edited June 6, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

In connection with what Gary Mack said in the e-mail above, here are some 1992 videos from the KDFW-TV archives regarding the backyard photos, including an interview with Dallas Detective Bobby Brown:

PART 1

PART 2

PART 3

PART 4

-----------------

Also see:

JFK VIDEO: THE DALLAS TAPES

Bobby Brown Re-Creation Photo

Edited June 6, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Some additional background information and testimony concerning the "Detective Brown re-creation" photos.....

This is from DPD Captain J. Will Fritz' 1964 WC testimony....

-------------------------

Mr. BALL. We offer 713, 712, and 714 as two pictures taken.

Mr. FRITZ. These are the pictures I told about a while ago.

Mr. BALL. They were taken by your crime lab?

Mr. FRITZ. Our crime lab took these pictures when I went over there with Mr. Sorrels. [Fritz is referring to CE712 and CE713 only here. He's not talking about CE714.]

Mr. BALL. Where were they taken?

Mr. FRITZ. In the backyard of the Neely Street address. If you will note, you will see in this picture, you notice that top right there of this shed. Of course, this picture is taken up closer, but if you step back further you can see about where the height comes to on that shed right there. Not exactly in the same position.

Mr. BALL. I offered these.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 712, 713, and 714 were admitted.)

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0262a.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0262b.htm

Mr. FRITZ. It shows the gate.

Mr. BALL. Indicating the location of the picture taken--this set will indicate the pictures were all taken at the Neely Street backyard.

Mr. DULLES. You recall the date of these pictures, in April?

Mr. FRITZ. I believe they will be dated on the back of them.

Mr. DULLES. April, so the trees would be about the same.

Mr. BALL. When were the pictures taken by your crime lab?

Mr. FRITZ. I am not sure but I believe the date will be on the back of the picture. November 29, 1963. Picture made by Officer Brown who works in the crime lab.

-------------------------

Edited June 6, 2015 by David Von Pein