Jump to content
The Education Forum

"Did Oswald Ever Possess Any Rifle?"


Charles Drago
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since the alleged ownership of CE 139 by Lee Harvey Oswald is generating some extremely warranted interest, I think all would benefit from reading the following passages from And We Are All Mortal: New Evidence and Analysis in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, by George Michael Evica (1978; University of Hartford Press).

Chapter One, pages 7-10

Did Oswald Ever Possess Any Rifle?

Marina Oswald was the [Warren] Commission’s sole witness cited for the Report’s conclusions that Oswald possessed a rifle before the alleged attack on General Edwin Walker and that the alleged rifle was moved from Dallas to New Orleans and from New Orleans to Irving, Texas. The Commission’s own records help to establish that no piece of the Oswalds’ luggage or any other container used in moving the Oswalds was large enough to hold the Commission’s disassembled rifle.

The Commission attempted to prove that a rifle was stored in the Paine’s garage prior to the assassination: it failed. Marina Oswald testified to the Commission that she had entered the Paine’s cluttered garage to look for parts to a baby crib; lifting a corner of a folded blanket on the floor, she said she saw part of a rifle stock (in another version of this incident Marina decided it was the barrel she had seen). But Marina’s testimony was not corroborated; she could not distinguish either between kinds of rifles or between kinds of pieces (rifles and shot-guns, for example) … When shown a rifle on November 22nd, at about 9:00 p.m., she was unable to identify it:

“Marina Oswald advised an Agent of this Bureau on November 22, 1963, that she had been shown a rifle at the Dallas Police Department … She advised that she was unable to identify it positively as the same rifle kept in the garage at [the] Paine residence … ”

Three months after the assassination, Marina’s memory improved so that on February 6th, 1964, when shown what the Commission alleged to be the same rifle, she said, “This is the fateful rifle of Lee Oswald.” But Sunday, September 6th, 1964 … the following odd exchange occurred:

Senator Russell: Did you testify that you thought this [CE 139] was Lee’s rifle that was shown to you?

Marina (translation): No – I’m sorry. As far as she knows about the arms, the rifle which was shown to her looked like the one he had.

Translator (Peter Gregory, an important member of the Dallas/Ft. Worth White Russian community) in English: Yes; That’s right.

Senator Russell: That’s all I asked her. That’s just exactly what I asked her.

Translator (in English): Yes, that’s right.

Most crucially, Marina’s testimony on the alleged assassination weapon was coached, altered, or corroborated by individuals associated with Jack Ruby, the Great Southwest Corporation, George de Mohrenschildt (who admitted consulting with a Dallas C.I.A. agent concerning Oswald), and two of de Mohrenschildt’s associates (the co-founders of a C.I.A.-subsidized Russian Orthodox church in Dallas). The F.B.I. reported that a Marina Oswald interview had taken place on February 18th, 1964, in the office of attorney William A. McKenzie, who had been recently associated with the law firm representing both the Great Southwest Corporation (owned by the Murchisons’ lawyers, the Bedford Wynne family, and the Rockefellers) and George de Mohrenschildt. The F.B.I. reported that:

“Marina said to her knowledge Oswald had only one rifle and that rifle is the one he maintained in the Paine Garage.”

But Mrs. Declan Ford (another member of the White Russian émigré group) admitted:

“… Mr. McKenzie didn’t know what they would talk about but he advised her [Marina], ‘They will ask you if there were two guns, you tell them there was one gun that was used … ’”

Peter Dale Scott found this involvement of the intelligence-oriented Russian émigré group in the transmission of Marina’s testimony ominous enough to suggest a House Select Committee investigation, pointing out that Peter Gregory altered Marina’s testimony on the rifle and supplied other details which were corroborated by Marina’s second interpreter – who, with Gregory, helped found an Agency-supported Orthodox parish. Details of Marina’s coached and altered testimony were echoed in statements given the F.B.I. by Charles Camplen and James F. Daley, employees of the Great Southwest Corporation.

William A. McKenzie, in whose office the February 18, 1964 Marina Oswald interview as recorded, and who Mrs. Declan Ford asserted had supplied Marina with the Line “ … there was one gun that was used,” had resigned from the Wynne family law firm to represent Marina Oswald. McKenzie had been a law partner of attorney Bernard Wynne whose law firm represented the Wynne/Murchison/Rockefeller Great Southwest Corporation – at whose motel Marina Oswald was hidden by the Secret Service.

While acting as Marina’s lawyer, McKenzie was associated with attorney Peter White, who in 1954 arranged for the dismissal of charges against Jack Ruby. The Warren Commission ignored the fact that Peter White’s name, address, and phone number all appeared in Jack Ruby’s notebook – Peter White, the office mate of Marina Oswald’s attorney and representative – though the Commission questioned Ruby’s roommate George Senator about other entries in that same notebook.

With evidence available of coached and altered Marina Oswald testimony on the very existence of a weapon and on that weapon’s characteristics, directly traceable to individuals associated with an organized crime figure (Jack Ruby) and with the C.I.A. (George de Mohrenschildt), Marina’s uncorroborated testimony on a “rifle” must remain dubious and suspect. (emphasis added by Drago)

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Charles this issue is of great importance indeed, and that it deserves a separate thread.

I am suspicious of whether Oswald indeed owned a rifle because of this reasoning:

(1) Intelligent people, facing criminal charges, do not lie about things that can be easily proven, knowing that the very act of lying can be used against them at trial.

(2) Oswald was an intelligent person, perhaps very intelligent. If he indeed owned a rifle (regardless of his guilt or innocence) he knew his wife (and others) had seen it and that indeed he was photographed with it.

(3) Being an intelligent person, therefore, there was no reason why Oswald would want to deny ownership of the rifle.

Of course another fact mitigating against Oswald owning the rifle was, as we all know, the illogic of his purchasing a rifle through mail order knowing its ownership could therefore be traced to him. And the issue where he bought the ammunition.

But on the contrary, if Oswald did not own the rifle, that means that Marina did lie-- remember she also testified she saw him practicing with it in New Orleans. Was she also coached about that? It also means that deMohrenschildt lied. If I recall correctly, he also testified he saw the rifle. It also means that there was a lot of forgery associated with the purchase of the rifle (forgery handwriting experts did not catch) and of course that the backyard photos were indeed faked. It also means that his palm print was planted on the rifle.

I certainly believe someone could have ordered the rifle from Klein's using the Hidell alias and then picked up the package from the post office box by showing some Hidell identification. But in order for that scenario to work, the person doing that would have to have known that Oswald had listed Hidell as a person to retrieve mail from the box.

If Oswald did not own the rifle, then, it was a rather elaborate frame that necessarily involved the cooperation of his wife.

Those are my thoughts anyway and I look forward to the comments and analysis of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the alleged ownership of CE 139 by Lee Harvey Oswald is generating some extremely warranted interest, I think all would benefit from reading the following passages from And We Are All Mortal: New Evidence and Analysis in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, by George Michael Evica (1978; University of Hartford Press).

Chapter One, pages 7-10

Did Oswald Ever Possess Any Rifle?

Marina Oswald was the [Warren] Commission’s sole witness cited for the Report’s conclusions that Oswald possessed a rifle before the alleged attack on General Edwin Walker and that the alleged rifle was moved from Dallas to New Orleans and from New Orleans to Irving, Texas. The Commission’s own records help to establish that no piece of the Oswalds’ luggage or any other container used in moving the Oswalds was large enough to hold the Commission’s disassembled rifle.

The Commission attempted to prove that a rifle was stored in the Paine’s garage prior to the assassination: it failed. Marina Oswald testified to the Commission that she had entered the Paine’s cluttered garage to look for parts to a baby crib; lifting a corner of a folded blanket on the floor, she said she saw part of a rifle stock (in another version of this incident Marina decided it was the barrel she had seen). But Marina’s testimony was not corroborated; she could not distinguish either between kinds of rifles or between kinds of pieces (rifles and shot-guns, for example) … When shown a rifle on November 22nd, at about 9:00 p.m., she was unable to identify it:

“Marina Oswald advised an Agent of this Bureau on November 22, 1963, that she had been shown a rifle at the Dallas Police Department … She advised that she was unable to identify it positively as the same rifle kept in the garage at [the] Paine residence … ”

Three months after the assassination, Marina’s memory improved so that on February 6th, 1964, when shown what the Commission alleged to be the same rifle, she said, “This is the fateful rifle of Lee Oswald.” But Sunday, September 6th, 1964 … the following odd exchange occurred:

Senator Russell: Did you testify that you thought this [CE 139] was Lee’s rifle that was shown to you?

Marina (translation): No – I’m sorry. As far as she knows about the arms, the rifle which was shown to her looked like the one he had.

Translator (Peter Gregory, an important member of the Dallas/Ft. Worth White Russian community) in English: Yes; That’s right.

Senator Russell: That’s all I asked her. That’s just exactly what I asked her.

Translator (in English): Yes, that’s right.

Most crucially, Marina’s testimony on the alleged assassination weapon was coached, altered, or corroborated by individuals associated with Jack Ruby, the Great Southwest Corporation, George de Mohrenschildt (who admitted consulting with a Dallas C.I.A. agent concerning Oswald), and two of de Mohrenschildt’s associates (the co-founders of a C.I.A.-subsidized Russian Orthodox church in Dallas). The F.B.I. reported that a Marina Oswald interview had taken place on February 18th, 1964, in the office of attorney William A. McKenzie, who had been recently associated with the law firm representing both the Great Southwest Corporation (owned by the Murchisons’ lawyers, the Bedford Wynne family, and the Rockefellers) and George de Mohrenschildt. The F.B.I. reported that:

“Marina said to her knowledge Oswald had only one rifle and that rifle is the one he maintained in the Paine Garage.”

But Mrs. Declan Ford (another member of the White Russian émigré group) admitted:

“… Mr. McKenzie didn’t know what they would talk about but he advised her [Marina], ‘They will ask you if there were two guns, you tell them there was one gun that was used … ’”

Peter Dale Scott found this involvement of the intelligence-oriented Russian émigré group in the transmission of Marina’s testimony ominous enough to suggest a House Select Committee investigation, pointing out that Peter Gregory altered Marina’s testimony on the rifle and supplied other details which were corroborated by Marina’s second interpreter – who, with Gregory, helped found an Agency-supported Orthodox parish. Details of Marina’s coached and altered testimony were echoed in statements given the F.B.I. by Charles Camplen and James F. Daley, employees of the Great Southwest Corporation.

William A. McKenzie, in whose office the February 18, 1964 Marina Oswald interview as recorded, and who Mrs. Declan Ford asserted had supplied Marina with the Line “ … there was one gun that was used,” had resigned from the Wynne family law firm to represent Marina Oswald. McKenzie had been a law partner of attorney Bernard Wynne whose law firm represented the Wynne/Murchison/Rockefeller Great Southwest Corporation – at whose motel Marina Oswald was hidden by the Secret Service.

While acting as Marina’s lawyer, McKenzie was associated with attorney Peter White, who in 1954 arranged for the dismissal of charges against Jack Ruby. The Warren Commission ignored the fact that Peter White’s name, address, and phone number all appeared in Jack Ruby’s notebook – Peter White, the office mate of Marina Oswald’s attorney and representative – though the Commission questioned Ruby’s roommate George Senator about other entries in that same notebook.

With evidence available of coached and altered Marina Oswald testimony on the very existence of a weapon and on that weapon’s characteristics, directly traceable to individuals associated with an organized crime figure (Jack Ruby) and with the C.I.A. (George de Mohrenschildt), Marina’s uncorroborated testimony on a “rifle” must remain dubious and suspect. (emphasis added by Drago)

Good points all. Ruth Paine's "He keeps it in the garage." - has got to be one of the fishiest things said on a very fishy day. Also, no doubt the rifle got into TSBD that day (or earlier) but how? Not with LHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points all. Ruth Paine's "He keeps it in the garage." - has got to be one of the fishiest things said on a very fishy day. Also, no doubt the rifle got into TSBD that day (or earlier) but how? Not with LHO.

Frank,

There's a story-within-a-story here, I think.

Professor Evica's And We Are All Mortal was published 30 years ago. His definitive and to-date unchallenged treatment of CE 139 has been all but lost to the majority of serious, honorably intentioned researchers to the degree that a Gary Mack can state, as if it is a matter of established and unchallenged historical record, that Lee Harvey Oswald owned the alleged murder weapon in the JFK case.

John Kelin's recently published masterpiece, Praise from a Future Generation, would return our focus to the so-called first generation of Warren Commission critics and their discoveries -- not to mention the collective courage of their conviction that conspiracy in the JFK case is established historical truth.

Professor Evica, who emerged somewhere between the first and second generations of WC critics, cites Sylvia Meagher in his brilliant demolition of the Oswald-owned-the-gun "certainty."

In other words: The work has been done.

It is up to us to keep it in the public eye.

I respectfully urge you to contact John Kelin and make his work better known.

Best,

Charles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points all. Ruth Paine's "He keeps it in the garage." - has got to be one of the fishiest things said on a very fishy day. Also, no doubt the rifle got into TSBD that day (or earlier) but how? Not with LHO.

Frank,

There's a story-within-a-story here, I think.

Professor Evica's And We Are All Mortal was published 30 years ago. His definitive and to-date unchallenged treatment of CE 139 has been all but lost to the majority of serious, honorably intentioned researchers to the degree that a Gary Mack can state, as if it is a matter of established and unchallenged historical record, that Lee Harvey Oswald owned the alleged murder weapon in the JFK case.

John Kelin's recently published masterpiece, Praise from a Future Generation, would return our focus to the so-called first generation of Warren Commission critics and their discoveries -- not to mention the collective courage of their conviction that conspiracy in the JFK case is established historical truth.

Professor Evica, who emerged somewhere between the first and second generations of WC critics, cites Sylvia Meagher in his brilliant demolition of the Oswald-owned-the-gun "certainty."

In other words: The work has been done.

It is up to us to keep it in the public eye.

I respectfully urge you to contact John Kelin and make his work better known.

Best,

Charles

Thanks Charles; especially for the book titles; some of the stuff written long ago is barely worth it, what with what has come after. But you point out what is still valid and I will persue those books.

I work in main stream media (at KCBS and KCAL in L. A.) and am constantly moving to get the JFK/RFK stuff in the news here. We did OK with the cache of goodies recently found in Dallas; I say (just) OK as far as one reporter who put together a competent package, and another reporter who got an interview with Bugliosi - and he didn't even break a sweat to fob her off with some of the lamest BS ever repeated about the case. I.E. - "...the charismatic leader brought down by the commie loser is the basis of conspiracy theory...". Actually it's facts, I had to remind her, but your basic clueless TV reporter doesn't make much of a distinction between conspiracy in JFK and Elvis sightings. I am working on getting some CBS coverage of the RFK acoustic report taking place tomorrow 2/21/08.

I'll capitalize the next part not because I'm yelling, but because I want people on the board to notice.

IF ANY OF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE OR DEVELOPMENT YOU FEEL NEEDS TO BE IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA GIVE ME A SHOUT HERE ON THE BOARD. I'll get a direct line to our asssignment desk in the near future, as well as some friends at CNN.

Anyhow thanks for your help, Charles, and by the by, has there been a comprehensive book written about Ruth Paine and her role? I flipped through "Mrs. Paine's Garage" once upon a time but can't remember much of it. I've heard it's the worst book on the Assassination. All the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank,

Glad to see a news reporter interested in this case. The mainstream media has been the biggest obstacle to finding out the truth about the JFK assassination.

Ruth and Michael Paine are both still alive. At last report, Ruth lived in Florida. I think hunting them down and getting an in-depth interview would be one of the most productive things any journalist could do. Imho, they were involved at the ground level of the conspiracy in framing Oswald; with all the dead witnesses in this case, it's really astounding to think these truly crucial witnesses are still around. In any real investigation, they (along with probably FBI agent James Hosty) would be the first witnesses called to testify.

Of course, the Paines have been extremely reluctant to talk to researchers, so I don't know how feasible my idea is. But, it's a suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF ANY OF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE OR DEVELOPMENT YOU FEEL NEEDS TO BE IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA GIVE ME A SHOUT HERE ON THE BOARD. I'll get a direct line to our asssignment desk in the near future, as well as some friends at CNN.

Anyhow thanks for your help, Charles, and by the by, has there been a comprehensive book written about Ruth Paine and her role? I flipped through "Mrs. Paine's Garage" once upon a time but can't remember much of it. I've heard it's the worst book on the Assassination. All the best.

OK Frank,

If I were forced to suggest one story line for you, it would best be expressed in the mantra/incantation/manifesto that I've posted innumerable times on this Forum, and that I included in my introduction to Professor Evica's final book, A Certain Arrogance:

Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in the JFK murder who does not conclude that it came about as the result of a criminal conspiracy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

In other words, the "how" question of the assassination has been answered beyond all doubt and to the degree of metaphysical certitude:

CONSPIRACY.

This "false mystery," as Vincent Salandria aptly described the case more than 40 years ago, is solved in terms of the "how."

CONSPIRACY.

Here's your story: NO MORE DOUBT.

CONSPIRACY.

Now we must deconstruct, if you will, the "how" in order to eliminate "who" suspects and "why" scenarios.

In terms of "how" JFK was killed: "Who" could have done it in such a fasion? "Who" could NOT have done it in such a fashion?

The latter question is of key importance to our task.

Would-be investigators of the crime, and the public at large, cannot hope to determine truth and effect justice in this case unless they segregate the "how," "who," and "why" questions. This approach remains the sine qua non for success.

Case closed.

CONSPIRACY.

Charles

PS -- Alas, Mrs. Paine's Garage is part of the cover-up.

But now that I think of it: Since yours is a visual medium, locate video footage and still photos of Michael Paine c. 1963.

Who does he resemble?

Edited by Charles Drago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank,

Glad to see a news reporter interested in this case. The mainstream media has been the biggest obstacle to finding out the truth about the JFK assassination.

Ruth and Michael Paine are both still alive. At last report, Ruth lived in Florida. I think hunting them down and getting an in-depth interview would be one of the most productive things any journalist could do. Imho, they were involved at the ground level of the conspiracy in framing Oswald; with all the dead witnesses in this case, it's really astounding to think these truly crucial witnesses are still around. In any real investigation, they (along with probably FBI agent James Hosty) would be the first witnesses called to testify.

Of course, the Paines have been extremely reluctant to talk to researchers, so I don't know how feasible my idea is. But, it's a suggestion.

Paine has been interviewed; I think for "The Men Who Killed Kennedy". Her performance wasn't convincing for me, but I've always been extremely suspicious of her and her husband. They link to DeMorentschild. She must be getting on in age. An interview before her death would be imperative.

As far as my media connections - actually I'm an editor (video). I do know a great many news persons both at local Los Angeles level and the network level. Regular news seems to like the type of stories like we saw the other day - the cache of items in Dallas. Unless that cache turns up a smoking gun; producers I know usually use an excuse like "too complicated" or "happened so long ago". I've pushed back on the "long ago" excuse pointing out that "cold cases", even previously unknown to the public, have become a favored mainstay in local and network TV news.

Let's hope in at least the next week or so, we can get somethiong out on the RFK acoustic research. Press conference tomorrow. L.A. connection obvious. I've got two producers at least halfway interested. And a reporter who'll jump on this stuff.

All the best

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points all. Ruth Paine's "He keeps it in the garage." - has got to be one of the fishiest things said on a very fishy day. Also, no doubt the rifle got into TSBD that day (or earlier) but how? Not with LHO.

Frank,

There's a story-within-a-story here, I think.

Professor Evica's And We Are All Mortal was published 30 years ago. His definitive and to-date unchallenged treatment of CE 139 has been all but lost to the majority of serious, honorably intentioned researchers to the degree that a Gary Mack can state, as if it is a matter of established and unchallenged historical record, that Lee Harvey Oswald owned the alleged murder weapon in the JFK case.

John Kelin's recently published masterpiece, Praise from a Future Generation, would return our focus to the so-called first generation of Warren Commission critics and their discoveries -- not to mention the collective courage of their conviction that conspiracy in the JFK case is established historical truth.

Professor Evica, who emerged somewhere between the first and second generations of WC critics, cites Sylvia Meagher in his brilliant demolition of the Oswald-owned-the-gun "certainty."

In other words: The work has been done.

It is up to us to keep it in the public eye.

I respectfully urge you to contact John Kelin and make his work better known.

Best,

Charles

Thanks Charles; especially for the book titles; some of the stuff written long ago is barely worth it, what with what has come after. But you point out what is still valid and I will persue those books.

I work in main stream media (at KCBS and KCAL in L. A.) and am constantly moving to get the JFK/RFK stuff in the news here. We did OK with the cache of goodies recently found in Dallas; I say (just) OK as far as one reporter who put together a competent package, and another reporter who got an interview with Bugliosi - and he didn't even break a sweat to fob her off with some of the lamest BS ever repeated about the case. I.E. - "...the charismatic leader brought down by the commie loser is the basis of conspiracy theory...". Actually it's facts, I had to remind her, but your basic clueless TV reporter doesn't make much of a distinction between conspiracy in JFK and Elvis sightings. I am working on getting some CBS coverage of the RFK acoustic report taking place tomorrow 2/21/08.

I'll capitalize the next part not because I'm yelling, but because I want people on the board to notice.

IF ANY OF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE OR DEVELOPMENT YOU FEEL NEEDS TO BE IN THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA GIVE ME A SHOUT HERE ON THE BOARD. I'll get a direct line to our asssignment desk in the near future, as well as some friends at CNN.

Anyhow thanks for your help, Charles, and by the by, has there been a comprehensive book written about Ruth Paine and her role? I flipped through "Mrs. Paine's Garage" once upon a time but can't remember much of it. I've heard it's the worst book on the Assassination. All the best.

Frank:

Keep in mind not everything about JFK is found in books. The old thought of.., "if its not found in a book then it didn't happen" or "it must be true, because I saw it on TV"", mentality is not the mark of good research. Some of the books concerning the assassination quoted as factual are based upon very sloppy research, personal opinions, egos and special interest editors. Some of us have never wanted to be found in some of the books that are in print. Some of us have in NO WAY wanted to be in them or in anyway associated with them. Sometimes it worked and sometimes it did not. That's the price some of us pay when you get involved in JFK. Use and abuse and if you don't agree with the Experts and their theories then they we will just discredit you, say nasty things about you, and continue to sell their books. Shame, shame... There are some out there that know what I mean. This BUDS for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it's facts, I had to remind her, but your basic clueless TV reporter doesn't make much of a distinction between conspiracy in JFK and Elvis sightings. I am working on getting some CBS coverage of the RFK acoustic report taking place tomorrow 2/21/08.

Herein lies the problem. The average TV reporter if they had any views on JFK beyond that of it being akin to an Elvis sighting would be booted-out. I'm sure they won't read a good book on the subject, but why not show them some of the better films - Like the Men Who Killed Kennedy series to peak their interest. There are others. It is only THE MOST IMPORTANT event ever in the USA post-WW2...no big deal....they treat it like a hoax....only the investigation and cover-up were....but that is way, WAY beyond where the average TV-Reporter will 'go'....questioning the powers that be and the ligitimacy of the society.

Well I don't know about booted out. Actually TV newsrooms do value smart, informed reporters. As far as the "cache" story earlier this week; we have several reporters who could have given Bugliosi a good mano a mano. Problem is our assignment desk sent this creampuff who eagerly lapped up his BS. Over the years I've told many young reporters that to function best they need to know the history of the world from WWII forward. About half of them are so young, and so hung up on the cosmetics of the industry, they aren't even up on today's Washington politics, let alone the major events through the years. I've met reporters who don't even know Oswald was taken out two days later! It's pretty astounding, and sadly very common. But he other side of that coin is, as I said, many reporters do know history and events. These are the ones who I try to interest in JFK/RFK stories. The executive producers are usually the ones who come across with -"too complicated" or "happened so long ago". One show producer pal of mine is pretty easy; he grew up in Oak Cliff - and used to go the the Texas Theatre regularly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the alleged ownership of CE 139 by Lee Harvey Oswald is generating some extremely warranted interest, I think all would benefit from reading the following passages from And We Are All Mortal: New Evidence and Analysis in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, by George Michael Evica (1978; University of Hartford Press).

Chapter One, pages 7-10

Did Oswald Ever Possess Any Rifle?

Marina Oswald was the [Warren] Commission’s sole witness cited for the Report’s conclusions that Oswald possessed a rifle before the alleged attack on General Edwin Walker and that the alleged rifle was moved from Dallas to New Orleans and from New Orleans to Irving, Texas. The Commission’s own records help to establish that no piece of the Oswalds’ luggage or any other container used in moving the Oswalds was large enough to hold the Commission’s disassembled rifle.

The Commission attempted to prove that a rifle was stored in the Paine’s garage prior to the assassination: it failed. Marina Oswald testified to the Commission that she had entered the Paine’s cluttered garage to look for parts to a baby crib; lifting a corner of a folded blanket on the floor, she said she saw part of a rifle stock (in another version of this incident Marina decided it was the barrel she had seen). But Marina’s testimony was not corroborated; she could not distinguish either between kinds of rifles or between kinds of pieces (rifles and shot-guns, for example) … When shown a rifle on November 22nd, at about 9:00 p.m., she was unable to identify it:

“Marina Oswald advised an Agent of this Bureau on November 22, 1963, that she had been shown a rifle at the Dallas Police Department … She advised that she was unable to identify it positively as the same rifle kept in the garage at [the] Paine residence … ”

Three months after the assassination, Marina’s memory improved so that on February 6th, 1964, when shown what the Commission alleged to be the same rifle, she said, “This is the fateful rifle of Lee Oswald.” But Sunday, September 6th, 1964 … the following odd exchange occurred:

Senator Russell: Did you testify that you thought this [CE 139] was Lee’s rifle that was shown to you?

Marina (translation): No – I’m sorry. As far as she knows about the arms, the rifle which was shown to her looked like the one he had.

Translator (Peter Gregory, an important member of the Dallas/Ft. Worth White Russian community) in English: Yes; That’s right.

Senator Russell: That’s all I asked her. That’s just exactly what I asked her.

Translator (in English): Yes, that’s right.

Most crucially, Marina’s testimony on the alleged assassination weapon was coached, altered, or corroborated by individuals associated with Jack Ruby, the Great Southwest Corporation, George de Mohrenschildt (who admitted consulting with a Dallas C.I.A. agent concerning Oswald), and two of de Mohrenschildt’s associates (the co-founders of a C.I.A.-subsidized Russian Orthodox church in Dallas). The F.B.I. reported that a Marina Oswald interview had taken place on February 18th, 1964, in the office of attorney William A. McKenzie, who had been recently associated with the law firm representing both the Great Southwest Corporation (owned by the Murchisons’ lawyers, the Bedford Wynne family, and the Rockefellers) and George de Mohrenschildt. The F.B.I. reported that:

“Marina said to her knowledge Oswald had only one rifle and that rifle is the one he maintained in the Paine Garage.”

But Mrs. Declan Ford (another member of the White Russian émigré group) admitted:

“… Mr. McKenzie didn’t know what they would talk about but he advised her [Marina], ‘They will ask you if there were two guns, you tell them there was one gun that was used … ’”

Peter Dale Scott found this involvement of the intelligence-oriented Russian émigré group in the transmission of Marina’s testimony ominous enough to suggest a House Select Committee investigation, pointing out that Peter Gregory altered Marina’s testimony on the rifle and supplied other details which were corroborated by Marina’s second interpreter – who, with Gregory, helped found an Agency-supported Orthodox parish. Details of Marina’s coached and altered testimony were echoed in statements given the F.B.I. by Charles Camplen and James F. Daley, employees of the Great Southwest Corporation.

William A. McKenzie, in whose office the February 18, 1964 Marina Oswald interview as recorded, and who Mrs. Declan Ford asserted had supplied Marina with the Line “ … there was one gun that was used,” had resigned from the Wynne family law firm to represent Marina Oswald. McKenzie had been a law partner of attorney Bernard Wynne whose law firm represented the Wynne/Murchison/Rockefeller Great Southwest Corporation – at whose motel Marina Oswald was hidden by the Secret Service.

While acting as Marina’s lawyer, McKenzie was associated with attorney Peter White, who in 1954 arranged for the dismissal of charges against Jack Ruby. The Warren Commission ignored the fact that Peter White’s name, address, and phone number all appeared in Jack Ruby’s notebook – Peter White, the office mate of Marina Oswald’s attorney and representative – though the Commission questioned Ruby’s roommate George Senator about other entries in that same notebook.

With evidence available of coached and altered Marina Oswald testimony on the very existence of a weapon and on that weapon’s characteristics, directly traceable to individuals associated with an organized crime figure (Jack Ruby) and with the C.I.A. (George de Mohrenschildt), Marina’s uncorroborated testimony on a “rifle” must remain dubious and suspect. (emphasis added by Drago)

Good points all. Ruth Paine's "He keeps it in the garage." - has got to be one of the fishiest things said on a very fishy day. Also, no doubt the rifle got into TSBD that day (or earlier) but how? Not with LHO.

Mc Wallace and two others put or left the rifle there. Oswald never touched it. IMO.., and too I do have supporting evidence... but I will be like everybody else I will not come forward with it at this time. I think I will however give it tothe Dallas DA if this matter goes forward and he does not become contaminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank,

Glad to see a news reporter interested in this case. The mainstream media has been the biggest obstacle to finding out the truth about the JFK assassination.

_________________________

Frank: I wish you the best of luck. The media HAS been our biggest obstacle. There have been a few brave souls here and there, but most have sold out to stay in the buz. Of course the execs tell you "too old, too complicted". It's their job. Operatin Mockingbird rules in this case. But reading your posts made my day.

Dawn

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...