Jump to content
The Education Forum

Sins of Omission


Tim Gratz
 Share

Recommended Posts

How many times while he was a prosecutor did VB hear the oath that is administered to witnesses wherein they swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? Thousands I would assume.

We all know it can be misleading to leave salient points out of a story.

But in "Reclaiming History" Bugliosi repeatedly either leaves out important points or relegates them to his Endnotes CD.

For instance, when he deals with the backyard photos, he tells the reader that Marina stated she took the photographs. But he does not tell the reader that the first time she was questioned she said she took a single photograph. It is possible she just forgot but since she changed her story, it is indeed an important point and Bugliosi does his readers a disservice by failing to discuss it.

Is it really an important point?

Well, Bugliosi must think so. I can come up with a dozen examples where he attempts to discredit a statement or testimony of a witness whose story suggests a conspiracy by stating that the witness either changed his or her testimony or added to it over time.

Out of intellectual honesty if not fairness he should advise the reader when the story of a witness who he endoreses has changed over time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim Gratz Posted Yesterday, 07:06 AM

How many times while he was a prosecutor did VB hear the oath that is administered to witnesses wherein they swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? Thousands I would assume.

We all know it can be misleading to leave salient points out of a story.

But in "Reclaiming History" Bugliosi repeatedly either leaves out important points or relegates them to his Endnotes CD.

For instance, when he deals with the backyard photos, he tells the reader that Marina stated she took the photographs. But he does not tell the reader that the first time she was questioned she said she took a single photograph. It is possible she just forgot but since she changed her story, it is indeed an important point and Bugliosi does his readers a disservice by failing to discuss it.

Is it really an important point?

Well, Bugliosi must think so. I can come up with a dozen examples where he attempts to discredit a statement or testimony of a witness whose story suggests a conspiracy by stating that the witness either changed his or her testimony or added to it over time.

Out of intellectual honesty if not fairness he should advise the reader when the story of a witness who he endoreses has changed over time.

Tim, the number of the backyard photos is something like 6 or 7 photos. There are at least the two found by the police at the Paine residence, one separate one was given to DeMohrenschlidt, one was in the possession of Roscoe and Ricky White and approximately two were sent to a newspaper or magazine in New York.

The two New York ones were photos where Lee did not hold any weapons. The source regarding the existence of the New York photos, is Mr. Gary Mack, disclosed in a PM to me in 2005, if I recall.

Based on the total number of 6-7 separate photos, and Marina's initial testimony / recollection (less than a year after the fact) that she only took one, I'd say something fishy is going on. Wouldn't you...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But likr do many things about the case, explanations seem elusive.

Consider the possibilities:

(1) The non-sinister. Marina rook them all but just forgot the number when she testified.

(2) It's all smoke and mirrors. Marina took none of them. Oswald was correct. They were fake. Marina was somehow encouraged to lie about taking them. But if that is the case, why would she only claim (at first) only taking one? Wouldn't the lie be made accurate re the number of phoyos?

(3) Marina did in fact take one. The others were somehow manufactured. But the conspirators were unanle to get her to lie.

Can you think of any other possibilities? None of the above seem a logical explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim Gratz Posted Today, 09:12 AM

But likr do many things about the case, explanations seem elusive.

Consider the possibilities:

(1) The non-sinister. Marina rook them all but just forgot the number when she testified.

(2) It's all smoke and mirrors. Marina took none of them. Oswald was correct. They were fake. Marina was somehow encouraged to lie about taking them. But if that is the case, why would she only claim (at first) only taking one? Wouldn't the lie be made accurate re the number of phoyos?

(3) Marina did in fact take one. The others were somehow manufactured. But the conspirators were unanle to get her to lie.

Can you think of any other possibilities? None of the above seem a logical explanation.

Tim, I'd guess she forgot what she was supposed to say regarding these. Additonally per her testimony she had not taken a photograph (or not taken many) before that day. Considering this fact, these photos turned out quite remarkably well, no missing parts of limbs or head etc. However, in the photos, Oswald does not look quite natural, so I tend to believe they have been doctored. However, I'm not an expert, so it's just a lamen's opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of conspiracy is this?

Antti, any lawyer worth his or her salt or pepper will discuss with a friendly witness the witness' expected testimony and possible lines of cross-rxamination. It is called rehearsing the witness and is commonplace.

If her testimony was being manipulated, would not the guilty party have discissed it with her shortly before her testimony? If so, how could she have been confused about what she was suspected to say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim Gratz Posted Today, 10:19 AM

What kind of conspiracy is this?

Antti, any lawyer worth his or her salt or pepper will discuss with a friendly witness the witness' expected testimony and possible lines of cross-rxamination. It is called rehearsing the witness and is commonplace.

If her testimony was being manipulated, would not the guilty party have discissed it with her shortly before her testimony? If so, how could she have been confused about what she was suspected to say?

Perhaps she had a lot to remember....

I don't know Tim. It just strikes me as mighty peculiar that a woman (key witness) states under oath that she has taken one photograph of her husband in the backyard of their home. She then admits to it probably being two. In fact half a dozen is more accurate. Additionally this was one of the first, if not the first time, that she took photographs, in her life.

In my opinion the photos turned out quite well considering this was her first time taking photos. The only reservations being the slightly odd position and posture of Oswald. Additionally his head does not quite agree with the rest of the photo. I think Jack White was on the right tracks with these and made the correct conclusion that they were somehow manipulated.

Edited by Antti Hynonen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, one of Bugliosi's most sickening sins of omission is his use of Charles Givens to support that Oswald never came down for lunch. He would DESTROY any CT using such addled logic, but there it is.

(Anyone not familiar with the Givens problem should read the section on Givens in chapter 4b at patspeer.com.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, good point.

Bugliosi's book is clearly in the nature of a prosecutor's closing argument.

By the way, I am disturbed by sins of omission committed by pro-conspiracy authors as well.

I wish someone would write a book as expansive in scope as Bugliosi's but with a fair interpretation of the evidence on both sides of the issue.

I also think some tests could be done to put some issues tp rest with finality. E.g. the paraffin test. It ought to be demonstrated with some degree of certainty whether shooting a M-C rifle will inevitably leave nitrates on someone's cheek if the test is conducted at the same length of time that the paraffin test was conducted on Owald. Even if the paraffin test leaves nitrate traces in ONLY 80% of the tests, that should be at least compelling if not certain evidence of Oswald's innocence. On the other hand, if nitrate traces are found on cheeks only 50% of the time, then the Oswald test can hardly be considered exculpatory.

I also think it ought to be possible to determine with some degree of certainty if an expert can always detect a fake photograph. If one cannot detect a forgery, then the results of the HSCA photography panel can be dismissed.

I have talked to Larry Hancock to see if it is possible to establish that a disassembled well-oiled MC will always leave oil stains on paper of the same type used to construct the alleged paper bag. Again, even if the tests show oil present only 80% of the time, that is still rather compelling evidence if not of Oswald's innocence at least that the paper bag was manufactured out of whole paper--whole cloth, that is.

I am sure there are still other tests of the evidence that can still be accomplished with meaningful results.

The more tests that can be accomplished, the closer we will be to the truth.

Themost important mighht be the paraffin test since it could essentially exonerate Oswald.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...