Ray Mitcham

Ray, I believe we must make allowances for the fact that English was Marina's second language. "Held the camera up to her eye" is a stock English phrase -- what one traditionally did with a camera in older days. She probably meant to say "looked into the camera viewfinder," but she didn't have the vocabulary for that. Believe what you want. She "probably" didn't know the English for two or three. Paul, if you compare the photo of Det Bobby Brown with the cut out photo, you will see that they were taken the same time. No amount of photoshopping could get the foliage to match up, particularly as Os didn't have the Bobby Brown photo to match up to. How could Oswald have cut out a photo which wasn't in his possession? Afraid your theory has just been blown out of the water.

OK, Lee, it's good to know what points you consider higher priority. My position has always been that I believe the sworn testimony of Marina Oswald. I am aware that this Forum is divided on this topic -- some completely believe her, some completely disbelieve her, and others pick and choose what they will believe from what she testified. Going by Marina Oswald's testimony -- the woman who spent the most time with Oswald for the last three years of his short life -- Lee Harvey Oswald was a disturbed, wife beating loser. Now -- just because I accept that portrayal doesn't mean that I believe that Oswald shot JFK. I say that Oswald was innocent of the shooting of JFK. I think the evidence shown by JFK researchers for the past half century is convincing -- Oswald was innocent of the JFK shooting. I cannot agree, however, that Oswald was an innocent choir boy. Just because Oswald was human -- he had flaws just like the rest of us have flaws -- this is not enough to convict Lee Harvey Oswald of the murder of JFK. I was most disappointed in CBS correspondent Walter Cronkite when he preached his defense of the Warren Report on national TV, listing all of Oswald's sins -- he was a xxxx, a tempermental man, and a Communist sympathizer. And based on that list of sins, Cronkite concluded that Oswald deserved to take the full blame as the lone JFK assassin. I used to respect Cronkite, but after that performance I was ashamed of Cronkite. You don't convict a man of murder just because he's a sinner. It's beyond immoral. That's what I'm arguing. Even though Oswald was everything that Marina Oswald said he was -- that does not make him the killer of JFK. Marina repeatedly said that she didn't have enough evidence to know for sure -- but based on the evidence that the WC and the FBI allowed her to see, it did seem to her that Oswald was guilty. Later, after she saw more evidence from JFK researchers, she reasonably changed her opinion. The shooting at Walker on 10 April 1963 is a case in point. The one and only witness we have that suggests that Oswald was guilty of that shooting is Marina Oswald. According to her testimony, Oswald came home at midnight, clearly upset, and he confessed to her that he shot at Walker that night. She was devastated. That was the tear in their relationship that she knew could never heal. She wanted out -- but what could she do? She was pregnant in Dallas and could hardly speak English. OK, I accept Marina's testimony. But that doesn't mean that I believe the story that Oswald told her. I believe that Oswald lied to Marina. He told her he was alone. IMHO he wasn't alone. He told her he was on foot. IMHO he wasn't on foot. He told her he buried his gun. IMHO he didn't bury his gun. But she honestly repeated the lies that he told her. She had nothing else to report. Well -- there was also the matter of the photographs. She admits that she pressed the button on that Imperial Reflex only once. I consider that a fact. Also, she said that Oswald had made a photography book of pictures of Walker's house. We have some of those photographs, and Marina said she recognized one or two. Oswald took those, she testified. Now -- I find it unfortunate that these photos "formed part of the narrative that ultimatey condemned" Oswald of killing JFK. In my opinion, these photographs -- and the fact (from Marina's testimony) that Oswald was involved in shooting at Walker -- should never be a part of what condemns Oswald of killing JFK. There's no direct connection between the two events -- the one in April and the other in November 1963. The relationships are far more complex. Getting back to the point -- we have Marina's testimony of Oswald's confession, and we have the photographs of Walker's house and we have the one legitimate Backyard photograph and we have (as many readers also believe) several fakes that were made from one original. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Paul, Marina also said she held the camera up to her eye to take the photograph, something you don't do with an Imperial reflex. Do you believe that she did this? You omitted to discuss Lee's demolition of the cut out photograph. How did Oz make the foliage disappear in the cut out photograph? The cut out photograph appears to have been taken at the same time as the Bobby Brown photograph.

Here you go, Martin.

Strange way to stand Some people might say he was falling over and the photo is just a "moment in time"

Egad, Sir, We never involved ourselves in "affrays'. (too busy trying to get a cop off.)

LMAO. :D :D

Oi Lee! Lay off Upper Parliament Street. I met my wife at the Rialto Ballroom there.

I"ll drink to second that, Lee.

If the witnesses don't fit with preconceived ideas, then ignore them. Trouble is they don't go away. Wouldn't you just have loved seeing the prosecution squirming when they tried to get away with what the Warren Concoction did.`

<p> Easy Jim, (As you are aware) Dial Ryder, in an Irving Gun Shop, testified that two or three weeks before the assassination, a man brought him a rifle which he was to "drill and tap" so that a telescopic sight could be mounted on it. The man left the name "Oswald". The FBI found out about this through an anonymous phone call telling them that Oswald had had a sight mounted at a store on the block on which the Irving Sports Shop is located. Ryder's employer testified that Ryder was an employee of six years, and a reliable man, and that he believed the tag with the name Oswald on it was a legitimate tag for a bona fide transaction. Ryder's testimony was supported, furthermore, by two women, Edith Whitworth and Gertrude Hunter. They testified that a man "who they later came to believe was Oswald, drove up to the Furniture Mart in a two-tone blue and white 1957 Ford automobile, entered the store and asked about a part for a gun, presumably because of a sign that appeared in the building advertising a gunsmith shop that had formerly occupied part of the premises." The man came back shortly afterwards with a woman and two young children, and they browsed in the store for about half an hour; one of the children was apparently a new-born, just as one of Oswald's was at that time.If LHO had a scope fitted three or four weeks before the assassination then how come he had photos taken with a scope on his rifle in March?

Lee, I think you've thrown common sense, logic and rational thought out of the window. The abomination that is the Hillsborough Disaster isn't the same as the JFK assassination. In the case of the former, with time and persistence, the truth has begun to emerge. In the case of the latter, which surely has come under more scrutiny over a much longer period of time, no-one has yet presented an iota of credible evidence that contradicts the basic conclusion of the Warren Commission. How come? I've no doubt there are such things as cover-up, consipiracy and corruption. That's why there are words for them, I suppose. It's just that they're not applicable to the JFK assassination. Paul. What absolute nonsense and completely indicative of how someone who has wedded themselves to a belief so strongly and absolutely that they no longer have the ability to accept what is directly in front of their face. There now exists a mountain of “credible evidence” that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the fraud and corruption of the Dallas Police Department, the FBI, the Secret Service, the CIA, the MSM and the Warren Commission. The fraud and corruption continued through the House Select Committee on Assassinations and still exists in the mainstream media to this very day. The Hillsborough tragedy is exactly the same as the JFK assassination in the way in which the South Yorkshire police lied, fabricated evidence, and changed statements. The coroners were corrupted, the media colluded with the police and politicians, and evidence was destroyed and altered. The event at Hillsborough was much smaller from the perspective of its impact upon the world, but 96 people died there and it took 23 years for the truth to “emerge” as you so elegantly put it. I would phrase it slightly differently. I would say it took 23 years for the truth to finally be admitted to. Anybody who looked at the case for any reasonable length of time already knew the truth and knew the truth was covered up by people in very high positions of power. The Taylor Enquiry, as per the Warren Commission, was a whitewash that dismissed the truth in favor of quickly filing the case away as “solved and addressed.” Why has the truth finally been admitted to? The reason is very simple. It is because the families of those who tragically died in that football stadium would not let the issue die. They kept up their campaign with the support of the vast majority of the people of Liverpool and would not rest until the true FACTS of the case were presented to the people of the United Kingdom. The truth being that the national institutions that were supposed to serve and protect them were filled with corrupt liars. There were many people in this country that called these family members “crackpots” and dismissed them out of hand as people who could not come to terms with something that amounted to nothing more than a "self-inflicted" accident. They were people who couldn’t come to terms with the “truth” according to people like the former editor of The Sun newspaper Kelvin McKenzie. The “truth” as published by McKenzie in 1989 was that the disaster occurred because of a “surge” of drunken Liverpool fans that turned up late to the game. To add further punch to his version of the “truth” he also stated that other Liverpool fans stole from the dead bodies and urinated on policemen who were heroically trying to save the victims. He reiterated his claims in 2006 when he said "I wasn't sorry then and I'm not sorry now because we told the truth. There was a surge of Liverpool fans who had been drinking and that is what caused the disaster" The problem was that this wasn’t the truth. It was a pack of lies. They were lies that he created, published and stood by for nearly three decades after colluding with people in high positions of power. All of the evidence required for the truth to “emerge” was actually in the hands of the public and the media. The football game was actually broadcast live on the television. We could see what happened. We could see that the police did not help the victims who were slowly being crushed to death until it was far too late. We could see that the emergency services were kept out. We could see other Liverpool fans moving the bodies of those people who were either dead or dying on makeshift stretchers made from advertising hoardings. We watched the tragedy unfold in front of our very eyes and we watched it develop because of complete and utter police incompetence. You are like a Kelvin McKenzie concerning the JFK assassination. You continue to claim you are dedicated to the “truth” and you have the “facts” on your side. When almost everybody else with even a rudimentary understanding of events thinks you are either completely and utterly bonkers or, alternatively, that you have nothing better to do with your time than to come on here and try winding everybody up. Never forget that the truth concerning Hillsborough only came out because of the persistence, patience and dedication from a small group of people who continued to bang the drum and continued to shout for the records that had been locked away from them. They continued to collect and collate the evidence that undermined the official version of events even though they were continually dismissed by the majority of the media. And they did this whilst contending with the likes of Kelvin McKenzie, and many others, who told them they didn’t have “an iota of credible evidence that contradicted” their version of the truth. The truth in the Hillsborough case was finally admitted to 23 years after it happened. Will the truth in the Kennedy Assassination ever be admitted to? I seriously doubt it. At least I don’t think it will be, during a period of time, when admitting to the truth will have any sort of meaningful or positive impact. But the “truth” as currently written is bogus and a society cannot move forward when its history is constructed from lies, Idiots like you stand in the way of truth and your behaviour is an insult to the likes of Bill Kelly who has spent his entire life demanding truth and justice concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy.

Quite right, Daniel. Dr Perry performed a tracheostmony via the bullet wound in JFK's throat. The wound shown on the autopsy photographs was not a tracheostomy cut but a gash. Was this gash caused by the search for the bullet that entered JFK's throat whilst the Keystone Kops routine was being performed by the official Casket team? There is no doubt about the three different caskets being noted. What we need is for the official reason why there were three in the first place.

If you go the list of photos, http://firsk.hubpage...ed#slide7389948 Photo 2 has a guy with a star, on his jumper. The photo shows a lovely V shaped shadow above his t shirt. Wonder what made that?

I have been informed by Gary Mack that the photo was "made" for the film JFK by Oliver Stone. Why Stone would want such a great photoshop copy beats me. That's if Gary is correct.

Can anybody tell me the source of this back yard photo? It appears to be taken at the same time,and day as the other three photos. If so why?http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f128/Fourbrick/Emptybackyardphoto.jpg[/img]"]http://

I've sent him an email suggesting the questions, John.

One man who was abused by the former Home Secretary believes that both his brothers who were abused were both murdered. What was the old advertisement "Don't be vague..."

On Friday, the BBC programme "Newsnight" was going to name names in the North Wales scandal, but the politician involved took out an injunction to stop them. The libel laws in the U.K. are so slanted in favour of the accused that it is almost impossible for accusers to blow the whistle. Unfortunately, Newsnight didn't have the cojones to name names and the farago continues. The names are now becoming common knowledge and it is only time before they are made public.

John, perhaps you could do the same for me. I believe I know the two men involved but would welcome confrimation.

David, may I suggest, if you haven't already read it, "Confessions of an economic hitman" by John Perkins? Not bad if read as a work of fiction. Only in your opinion, Len

David, may I suggest, if you haven't already read it, "Confessions of an economic hitman" by John Perkins?

David, an anagram of his name is Mirage O.K.

Mike, the bullet entered JFK's body, not at his neck, but lower down in his back. How do you explain the bullet magically changing direction from a downward trajectory to angle upwards exiting his throat and angle downwards again without hitting any bone. It just doesn't work.

Why would the Post Office want to put the number of a cancelling machine on its postmarks?