Lawrence Schnapf

Just now, Michael Clark said:

Thank, you. I started to look it up myself, then realized That I would not know if what I found would be the case in Dallas, in 1963.

the privilege was in effect in texas in 1963. 

On 2/15/2017 at 9:04 PM, Michael Clark said:

Bingo! Thank you Lawrence. To be sure.... She would not have been able to, or she could not have been compelled to..... testify?

the privilege would have belonged to her husband and his defense team could have prohibited her from testifying. 

10 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Marina Oswald told the truth while she was under oath.

Buddy Walthers and James Hosty wanted to accuse Marina Oswald of being a "sleeper" KGB agent -- but that was because both of them were involved in the murder of JFK and the attempt to frame LHO as a Communist.

Anybody who still wants to accuse Marina Oswald of being a Communist has simply not read her testimony carefully.

Marina Oswald hated the USSR, and would do anything to get to the USA, where she could finally rent her own apartment and get some privacy.  Marina was raised by her grandmother, who was an aristocratic lady in old Russia.  She taught Marina to worship God in the Orthodox Church and to despise Communism -- which she did.

Once in the USA, Marina got lots of friends in the Dallas Russian Expatriate Community, which was violently Anticommunist as well as violently Antifascist.  Marina was really beloved.  They showered her with charity and gifts -- especially George Bouhe, who helped to promote the Orthodox Church there in Dallas.  Marina got her baby June baptized at the Russian Orthodox Church in Dallas -- despite the objections of LHO.

The main reason that LHO and Marina Oswald fought was because George Bouhe gave Marina more things that LHO could afford to give her.

The reason that Ruth Paine got involved with helping Marina Oswald was because Marina was pregnant, and LHO was out of work.  Heck, LHO was out of work three times from July 1962 to July 1963.  He could not hold down a job.  In September 1963, when Ruth Paine came to get Marina Oswald and baby June, LHO was out of work again, and Marina Oswald was eight months pregnant, and had no health insurance, and had not even seen a doctor.

Marina Oswald's life is an open book -- and it is a simple story.  A college educated Russian girl who would do anything to get to the USA, married this hight-school drop-out Marine with a good story, who turned out to be a bloke who could not hold down a steady job, no matter what.

It's really a simple story.  Anybody who still wants to press (1) LHO's rifle; (2) Mexico City; and (3) Ruth Paine has simply not done the reading of (i) the Warren Commission volumes; and (ii) the Lopez Report.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

The reason we have rules of evidence is to ensure use of reliable testimony/evidence. Marina's testimony "evolved" over time and was inconsistent. she was called back 4 times. Both Willens and Shenon's books discuss the frustration that the WC had with her testimony. Her testimony was the critical to linking her husband to the key evidence. She told the NY Times in Nov 1964 that she feared being deported if she did not cooperate with the government. She was a young mother with two babies and a non-citizen. Faced with the prospect of telling the truth about her dead husband or protecting her babies by telling the government what it wanted to hear, she did what any mother would have done. You choose to believe her testimony at the risk of your pursuit of the "truth".    

Marina Oswald would not have been able to testify in any trial had Oswald lived under the spousal immunity rule. 

There was no admissible evidence linking Oswald to the Walker shooting. Marina was the key to the alleged attempt but as we see, she would not have been able to testify. The bullet was too damaged to be traced back to the alleged Oswald rifle to the exclusion of any other rifle. The best that could be said was that it could be traced to a class of guns like the MC but not the specific rifle.  

wasnt much of a book. most of it was regurgitated. little original research or analysis- IMHO 

15 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

@Bill Miller doesnt your explanation assume that the people making the alternations have the conventional tools that were available in 1963. if the Z-film was altered at Hawkeye, wouldnt they have more sophisticated equipment/techniques. I dont know the answer. just asking the question. 

 

 

Actually, I think the situation is fundamentally similar to Reagan when viewed in the context of that time while the bitterness is very much like Nixon in 68.  We run big risks whenever we say this time is different. The hopeful message is that Reagan Administration overplayed its hand and the political backlash prevented the worst excess. this is why many conservatives view Reagan era as a "Squandered Opportunity". If they say the same at the end of this administration, I suspect Jeff will feel he accomplished his mission.   

does anyone know if the DPD dusted the boxes hiding the rifle for fingerprints (as opposed to the boxes comprising the alleged sniper next)? I have only seen references to dusting the rifle.... 

I dont think it is appropriate to ask for credit card information to validate account. what happens if the site is hacked? The owner of the site should reconsider this option.

how did you verify that the bushes were the same height as in 1963?

CAPA is organizing a two-day mock trial in November 2017 at the South Texas College of Law where we will be examining all of the forensic evidence used to tie Lee Oswald to the assassination. if you know of any handwriting experts (or for that matter any forensic experts in toolmarks, fingerprints, etc), we would be happy to contact them to see if they'd be interested participating in the mock trial. Robert Tanenbaum will be leading the defense team.

Larry

have you looked into his analysis of the two fragments found in the front of the limo that he said could be traced back to the sixth floor rifle to the exclusion of all rifles based on the markings? This seems to suggest that the rifle was fired that day though, of course, it does not mean that LHO pulled the trigger. Just curious if there is anyone out there who has closely looked at this forensic evidence.

Thanks

Mason is a curious figure. However, I think the real importance is that the FBI could not find any locations where Oswald purchased ammo. He didnt buy any when the rifle was purchased (my gun enthusiast friends say that almost never happens) and there were no fingerprints on the shells found in the TSBD.

I have been an environmental lawyer for over 25 years and before then was a reporter. I also teach at environmental law at New York Law School. I was born in the Bronx in 1953 and moved to New Jersey in 1963. The JFK Assassination was the pivotal moment of my life (a group of us 10 year olds went down to the creek near my house armed with sticks and Boy Scout knives because we heard JFK’s assassin had fled to NJ and we were determined to capture him). I have been studying the JFK Assassination since 1967. In college, I did an independent study project on the JFK Assassination and published a six-piece series in the Rutgers daily newspaper. I have continued to study the assassination and hope to be able to contribute to the discussion.