Michael Clark

9 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

I retract that one sentence.   I meant it strictly within the context of the sworn WC testimony.   George DeMohrenschildt only HEARD from Jeanne that SHE saw Oswald's rifle in the other room.  She shouted it out, actually.  George's heart sank.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, what about the prior drama, in the prior sentence:

"George kept LHO busy in one room chatting, as Jeanne nervously searched for clues from room to room. When she finally found LHO's rifle, she shouted out -- "He has a rifle!"

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

Marina was showing Jeanne around the house. Jeanne wasn't sneaking around, playing detective while the other three were in the living room.

Cheers,

Michael

Paul Trejo wrote:

"George kept LHO busy in one room chatting, as Jeanne nervously searched for clues from room to room. When she finally found LHO's rifle, she shouted out -- "He has a rifle!"

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

Marina was showing Jeanne around the apartment and opened the door to the closet, showing Jeanne the rifle. That's what testimony says. It may not have happened at all. Why create fiction out of potential fiction?

Paul, I don't know what to say.

•  
•  
• Quote

On 10/19/2015 at 4:23 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Jim, no, that was somebody's error.

............................

Finally, at about 9:30 PM on Saturday night, .......

George kept LHO busy in one room chatting, as Jeanne nervously searched for clues from room to room. When she finally found LHO's rifle, she shouted out -- "He has a rifle!"

They all went over to see what Jeanne was looking at. There was a nervous silence, and then George broke the silence with a joke, that was already on his mind: "Lee, did you take that pot shot on General Walker?"

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

   On 2/22/2017 at 8:36 PM,  Michael Clark said: 

To be sure, George De Mohrenschildt DID NOT see the rifle.

-----------------------
Mr. JENNER. Did you see the weapon?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I did not see the weapon.

Jeanne De Mohrenschildt testified that Marina showed her the rifle but Marina never confirmed this in her testimony, and that could have easily been clarified.

Cheers,

Michael  

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

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

On Wednesday, February 22, Paul Trejo wrote:

Michael,

I didn't say that George De Mohrenschildt saw the rifle -- I said he was a witness -- in this case, an ear witness.  That is, when his wife, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt saw Oswald's rifle, she let out a shriek and shouted out, "George, he has a rifle!"

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

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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

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

Paul, Throughout your postings you claim that George De Mohrenschildt SAW the gun. When pointed-out that that was incorrect, you stated that you were referring to him as an"ear-witness". From the above it is clear that you are making claims that he actually SAW the gun. 

Its ust not right that you do that when you know better. You are a prolific poster and are filling the pages of this forum with a fiction that is critical to factual record.

WC testimony is that Marina states that she saw the gun. Jeanne De Mohrenschildt states that Marina showed it to her. George De Mohrenschildt states that he did not see the gun.

Marina does not back-up Jeanne's claim that she (Jeanne) was shown the gun.

That leaves one woman, who by her own testimony, could not tell a shotgun form a rifle, bolt-action from pump or lever action; much less a high powered rifle from a .22.

It also leaves us with another woman, with similar knowledge of guns, although she had shot skeet before, saying that a woman showed her the gun and that other woman does not claim to have done so.

Michael

46 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Yes it is interesting. But not surprising.

There are some people who favor simplicity over anything of any complexity. And rather than trying to explain seemingly inexplicable things, they simply choose to ignore them. At least their silence makes it appear they are doing so. But who knows what's really going on in their minds.

Of course there are varying degrees of this type of person. LNers being extreme examples, IMO.

Occam's Razor...

It is not always an I'll-advised or disreputable approach.

Cheers,

Michael

Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus. AKA Octavian, and simply Augustus.

I think that, with a little bit of fresh information, a little bit of disinformation, a few outright lies, threats, predictions and a couple of crude scientific experiments, the world could be very awesome place by now.

17 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - I opened mine too but didn't think it was out of bounds because Lance was so direct. I react badly when men take the position that the state should be empowered legally to punish a woman for having an abortion, especially when they take the even more extreme position that it doesn't matter how they got pregnant. 

Paul, I like this place and the people in it. I like to treat it like my living room or dinner table. I know we are all virtual strangers but I don't want to see it turn out like the comments area of youtube or your typical news article. I kind of think of it as the Senate as opposed to the House. It's kind of unique among Internet forums.

Cheers,

Mike

16 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

B.A. Copeland,

The doctrine that Oswald was never at the General Walker shooting of April 10, 1963, is largely fomented by the CIA-did-it CTers who first and foremost throw Marina Oswald.....

......................

This question is still on topic for this thread -- because the witnesses to the WC rifle included Marina, and the two DeMohrenschildts, but evidently did not include the two boys at the scene of the Walker shooting.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

To be sure, George De Mohrenschildt DID NOT see the rifle.

-----------------------
Mr. JENNER. Did you see the weapon?
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I did not see the weapon.

Jeanne De Mohrenschildt testified that Marina showed her the rifle but Marina never confirmed this in her testimony, and that could have easily been clarified.

Cheers,

Michael

13 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Michael - what's with the deleted posts?

I opened my yapper about abortion. I thought better of it before anyone quote/replied to it, and destroyed the evidence.

I just came across this and figured I would post it here. I am sure Y'all "already knew that"....

38) Peggy Joyce Hawkins---she was on the front steps of the TSBD and "…estimated that the President's car was less than 50 feet away from her when he was shot, that the car slowed down almost coming to a full stop." [Murder From Within by Fred Newcomb & Perry Adams (1974), p. 97]; 

39) Billy Lovelady---"I recall that following the shooting, I ran toward the spot where President Kennedy's car had stopped." [22 H 662];

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Maybe Frazier was told (by some military officer)  to say that Oswald carried a bag of curtain rods. But wasn't told what length it was supposed to be. So when asked the length in his questioning, he made up a number... two feet! And then stuck with it.

Another thought... maybe Oswald did take a 2 ft. package with him, whose contents he didn't want to reveal. So when asked by Frazier, Ozzie told him they were curtain rods. What Oswald had in the package may have been something his handler told him to take to the TSBD. But wasn't a rifle.

Either of these would explain why Oswald denied to his interrogators that he brought in the package.

 

 

Who knows what LHO really said about the rods. If he did bring them, he may have suspected something, and made sure that his package couldn't be construed as being long enough to disguise a gun. And like you said, he may have been manipulated into bring something else to work that day.

I'll have to look-into whether Lee's rooming-house lady testified to when Lee came and went, or whether he stayed elsewhere overnight, in the days prior to 11-22.

36 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My overall impressions from reading this rather convincing document are:

1. Buell Frazier lied about Oswald taking a long bag to work.
2. Buell Frazier made it clear that the bag was too small for a rifle to fit.

I cannot figure out why BWF would intentionally do something that incriminates Oswald, and in the same breath try to un-incriminate him.

Okay, having given it some thought, I did think of one possibility: Maybe Oswald actually did take a 2 ft. bag to work. And that fact came out in early interrogations. The authorities picked up on it and decided that that would have been a way Oswald got the rifle into the TSBD. They hadn't found a bag (or they did find Oswald's bag and saw it was too short), so they made their own bag and claimed it was Oswald's, and that they had found it the day of the assassination.

Seems reasonable. But why did Oswald lie about the curtain rods and bag when interrogated?

Also, all the windows already had rods and curtains. Does anybody really believe that Oswald would be replacing the rods?

Which brings me back to the very beginning, that BWF must have lied about this. It's a vicious cycle.

 

Regarding the rods. I won't say that I think he had or did not have curtain rods that day. If he did I think it is reasonable to think that he might have intended to change his Dallas residence that weekend, or possibly take an additional residence or rooming house. Maybe he had a girl on the side, in-town (spy-girl: "baby, I have some curtains for that window, you wouldn't have some curtain rods lying around at home, would you?). A new or alternative residence could be possible given that he almost assuredly was involved in something beyond his plain-Jane, struggling, below-blue-collar life.

Frazier's subsequent life is kind of difficult to dig up. I found info before but cannot find it now. I believe he had a fairly long career in the military and raised two kids. That may have been enough to control, keep watch and keep him quiet about particular elements of his story.

When I read testimony I am often struck by how some witnesses bring a couple nuggets to the official story but otherwise bring nothing, and indeed raise questions. That would serve to keep a story short, sweet, memorable and uncomplicated. Fraziers nuggets were the bag, curtain rods and nothing conflicting with the official line regarding LHO's presence at the time of the assassination.

After LHO was convicted by the police and press, THEN shot, all else is self preservation for Frazier.

A good article regarding the rifle, the dimensions and components of the rifle when broken down, the bag, Frazier's testimony and his sister's testimony.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16234#relPageId=34&tab=page

On 5/16/2007 at 9:17 PM, Sid Walker said:

Ron,

First, well done for a charming and well-written story. Every great tale has a canine angle, and you've both found it in the JFK case.

I think that looking for perfect rationality in all the activities surrounding Ruby's actions is probably searching for something that doesn't exist. It seems likely to me that Ruby was called to duty in a rush, because LHO was unexpectedly still alive. Ruby can't have been happy about it and was flustered. He and his controllers were patching up a bodged job on the fly. They couldn't plan their operation like clockwork.

Their main objective - other than killing LHO - must have been to make a plausible story stick in the public mind in the long run - a story, that is, compatible with Ruby's claim to be acting on impulse.

Because I personally also believe that elements of the Zionist lobby were ultimately responsible for the JFK assassination, I also believe that the most crucial objective of all when crafting the public image of Ruby was to downplay his Zionist affiliations - and make it seem that if he was lying, it was a mob (rather than Israeli) scam.

Bumping for a revisit, not only because of my interest in the Carousel Crew, but also because we had a member named Sid Walker, for 14 months, who posted almost 1000 times, and has not been online since. I scanned his posts. While most of his posts were outside of the realm of the JFK asassination scope, those that were within that purvue, by a quick scan, were not unwieldy. This forum is as interesting as the members. I can't help but wonder who some of these people are, were, or where they have gone. 

Cheers,

Michael

10 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Took me a while to see it, but now I see her peaking out and then easing up the stairs.

I quickly (and crudely) knocked up the following image to show where I am on this at the moment.
(nb: as mentioned in my last response to Tommy, I don't think there is anyone between the W.I.B and the (so called) "Lovelady" character)

 

Well done Alistair, you'll have this case solved yet!

Yet, I am looking for an Lol or Omg to my Dorothy Hunt sheep or patsy-herder comment. No need to reply; jus sayin. Xol-xo-xo !!!

7 minutes ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Ah, I probably wasn't overly clear earlier.

----------

P.S. just for informational purposes in regards to the steps. This comment here from Ray Mitcham on page 10 of the Prayer Person thread gives the height of the steps and the depth of them too.

I see two arms, one black and one bare, but there seems to be no room for two arms or people.

Cheers,

Michael

Actually, Walker would make a great latter-day Patsy..... an alleged homosexual with no progeny, nor ancestry. Paul might be on-to, or privy-to, more than we know.

I read, today, that Mr. General Walker, had no identifiable ancestry. I can't remember which thread that was in, and I didn't follow the ancestry issue to any resolution, for General WALKER.

Cheers,

Michael

I have read a couple good articles from this publication,

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1099

The Dealy Plaza Echo.

This is a new resource for me. I thought I would share.

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1099

Anyone have a better copy of this?

On 4/28/2006 at 8:13 AM, Francesca Akhtar said:

I've ben in touch with Ian and he's given me permission to print in his interview with Andrew Armstrong and also another article he wrote about Jack Ruby's possessions when arrested that may be of interest to you all.

Space permitting I'll try and upload the whole articles.

I am curious about what Andy has to say here....

Francesca has not been around in a while and it has been much longer since she posted.

On 4/27/2006 at 1:07 PM, Francesca Akhtar said:

Ian Griggs met and interviewed Andrew Armstrong last year in Dallas.There is an account of it in the latest issue of the Dealey Plaza journal, the DPUK Echo.