Witnesses to LHO' posession of the MC rifle

[Lawrence Schnapf]

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.  

[Michael Clark]

1 minute ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

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.  

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

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

...Last one, I promise....  On Sept 24 '63 Ruth leaves with Marina and kids from the Magazine address in New Orleans.  The car had been loaded and Ozzie is seen with 2 small pieces of luggage leaving the Magazine address.  He supposedly goes to Mexico.   The next we know of the Carcano rifle, it is supposedly in the Paine garage wrapped in a blanket with a piece of string...

David, 

You keep jumping to conclusions.  

Harry Dean, for example, wrote in his manuscript, Crossroads (1990), that he helped Loran Hall and Larry Howard load up their trailer in Southern California in mid-September 1963, with paramilitary supplies bound for New Orleans.  Harry also says that Gabby Gabaldon gave Loran Hall a wad of cash to pick up Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans and drive him to Mexico City.

So -- LHO was a passenger in a car to Mexico City, and Loran Hall was also a paramilitary mercenary who was very comfortable hauling guns around.  

It is well-known that LHO lied continually to Marina Oswald, but sometimes he couldn't hide the truth.  Marina knew LHO had a rifle and a pistol -- but she never told anybody, ever, until after the JFK murder.  Marina also knew that LHO was going to Mexico City, but she didn't dare tell Ruth Paine.

Ruth Paine and Michael Paine testified honestly that they saw no rifle or package like a rifle when they unloaded Marina Oswald's belongings that she brought from New Orleans.

That means that the way that LHO's rifle came into Ruth Paine's garage was that it was driven to Texas by Loran Hall and Larry Howard.  

Makes perfect sense to me.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 16, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

15 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

David, 

You keep jumping to conclusions.  

Harry Dean, for example, wrote in his manuscript, Crossroads (1990), that he helped Loran Hall and Larry Howard load up their trailer in Southern California in mid-September 1963, with paramilitary supplies bound for New Orleans.  Harry also says that Gabby Gabaldon gave Loran Hall a wad of cash to pick up Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans and drive him to Mexico City.

So -- LHO was a passenger in a car to Mexico City, and Loran Hall was also a paramilitary mercenary who was very comfortable hauling guns around.  

It is well-known that LHO lied continually to Marina Oswald, but sometimes he couldn't hide the truth.  Marina knew LHO had a rifle and a pistol -- but she never told anybody, ever, until after the JFK murder.  Marina also knew that LHO was going to Mexico City, but she didn't dare tell Ruth Paine.

Ruth Paine and Michael Paine testified honestly that they saw no rifle or package like a rifle when they unloaded Marina Oswald's belongings that she brought from New Orleans.

That means that the way that LHO's rifle came into Ruth Paine's garage was that it was driven to Texas by Loran Hall and Larry Howard.  

Makes perfect sense to me.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, You admit the backyard pics were forgeries (by LHO).

You admit that the only witnesses to LHO being in posession of a rifle are Marina, and the unsubstantiated (by Marina) testimony of Jeanne having been shown the rifle, by Marina.

Do you have anything else?

Cheers,

Michael

Edited February 16, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Paul Trejo]

7 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul, You admit the backyard pics were forgeries (by LHO).

You admit that the only witnesses to LHO being in posession of a rifle are Marina, and the unsubstantiated (by Marina) testimony of Jeanne having been shown the rifle, by Marina.

Do you have anything else?

Cheers,

Michael

Michael,

Yes -- Ron Lewis, who knew LHO in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 wrote in 1993 that he saw LHO with his rifle in New Orleans.  

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

5 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

Yes -- Ron Lewis, who knew LHO in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 wrote in 1993 that he saw LHO with his rifle in New Orleans.  

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, with all due respect, and thanks, for your responses and information that you have so graciously offered, 

that is a slice of cheese for a sandwich that has long-since been eaten.

Cheers,

Michael

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by Michael Clark

[David Josephs]

14 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

Yes -- Ron Lewis, who knew LHO in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 wrote in 1993 that he saw LHO with his rifle in New Orleans.  

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, as you were told back in Oct 2014 by others, there is nothing for you to offer in the way of corroboration for any of his story...

If I have to choose between you and Mr. Stephen Roy who I've read for years... you'd need to actually offer authenticated evidence for what you post for me to consider your POV over Mr. Roy's studies/conclusions of the case.  

Funny thing is anyone wanting to see how you work and how you present corroborating data will get a kick out of the linked thread... maybe change your presentation style to include supporting data instead of sending others on wild goose chases due to your creating alt.facts.are.lies with no basis in reality.

 

 

 

[Paul Trejo]

17 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

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.  

Lawrence,

This is a technicality.  We are searching for the Truth, are we not?  Or are we searching for loopholes?

Although Marina Oswald is the only ear-witness to the Walker shooting itself (that is, she testified that LHO confessed to her that he was Walker's shooter on April 10, 1963), we have two other witnesses -- George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt -- who claim they saw Oswald's rifle in his apartment three days later.  

George DM confronted LHO with the question, "Lee, did you take that potshot at General Walker?" because it was on his mind at the time.  Heck it was on everybody's mind in Dallas at the time.  LHO did not respond with words, but with a "look" and George DM took this for a guilty look.  That's not positive evidence, admittedly, but this is what George DM testified.  Then George started laughing, and they all laughed at this big joke, and that was the end of their party that night.

Early the next morning, says Dick Russell in his landmark book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1993), George DM visited his friends, Igor and Natalie Voshinin, on this Easter Sunday, and told them of his worries that LHO was Walker's shooter four days beforehand.  They both stressed that George should tell the FBI or the Dallas police.  But George said he would not betray his friend on principle.  Too late.  As soon as George DM left, Natalie told Dick Russell, she called the FBI and told them everything.

But the most telling evidence that LHO did shoot at General Walker came from George De Mohrenschildt's manuscript, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy! (1977) which George wrote before he blew his brains out, rather than testify for the HSCA.  In that manuscript George admits his pressured LHO to hate General Walker.  He would call Walker, "General Fokker" to make LHO laugh.   George also mentions another guy, Volkmar Schmidt, whom they called, "Messer Schmidt," who appears on a YouTube video today, admitting that he strove to convince LHO that General Walker was "as bad as Hitler."  This was LHO's motivation in early 1963 for his shocking behavior.

While you're correct that there was no material ballistics evidence to link LHO with the Walker shooting -- that does not prove anything one way or the other. 

IMHO, the evidence that LHO left behind regarding his shooting at General Walker was his famous BYP -- of which Marina snapped one pose, and which LHO himself made variations (with his pal, Roscoe White) by using the sophisticated camera equipment at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, where LHO also made his Fake ID for Alek J. HIdell.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 16, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

NO ITS NOT A TECHNICALITY!

As Larry will tell you there are reasons for having rules of evidence.

They have evolved over time in order to correct problems that have arisen over the decades so that someone does not get convicted on evidence which should not have been admitted.

Marina Oswald would never have testified at a trial, for very good and obvious reasons.

But a deeper point is this:  in the phony sideshow called the Warren Commission, not only was she allowed to testify, there was never any cross-examination of her testimony!  Not until the very end, in August. This was when the Southern Wing--Cooper, Boggs and Russell--finally realized that the Troika--Dulles,Ford and McCloy--were using her as one of the very prime witnesses to frame their case against Oswald. (The others were the Paines, Brennan, and Markham)

So they arranged to question Marina on their own. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 318) She did not come off very well.  (This is in Volume five)  If you read that interview you will see what the WC might have been if it had been a true fact finding body.  And if there had been real unfettered access to all the evidence.  BTW, the Troika did not even show up for that session.  Its clear that the Southern Wing does not buy Marina.  And after this session they went over to Dealey Plaza.  Russell went up to the sixth floor with an unloaded rifle.  He came back down and said tongue in cheek, "Yeah, its an easy shot."

They were the first members to renege on the WR.

Edited February 16, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

11 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

deleted

 

Edited February 16, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, let me objectify specifically what I mean about the lack of cross examination in the WC proceedings.  Especially in regards to Marina. And when we are talking about cross examination, it does not necessarily apply to court proceedings.  In any fact finding arrangement there should be this kind of colloquy, and there usually is.

With Marina, just for starters, she should have been asked about her background in the USSR.  What I mean by this is that even the White Russians who were interviewed by the WC were puzzled at how she was allowed to leave with a military defector at the same time he left the country.  This was usually not the case.  She also should have been asked about her activities in Leningrad which were quite interesting and which Warren had heard about.  And she also should have been asked about her ability to speak English and when she developed it.  For, even at the time, there were rumors she spoke English much better than what was popularly accepted.  When and where did she acquire this, and if it was in the USSR, why would a pharmacist need to speak English there?

And I should add, the Southern Wing was actually pretty curious about this whole area of inquiry.  And so was  Warren.  But it was kept from the public.

The other three areas I would have asked her about were 1.) the rifle,  2.) Mexico City and 3.) Ruth Paine.

Concerning the first: Why did she change her story from never seeing a scoped rifle before, which is what she said in November, to "That is the fateful rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald" before the Commission?

Concerning the second:  Why did she first say in November that Oswald had never been to Mexico City, and then later on changed her story to , "Oh yes, he had been."

And with the third: Why was she all chummy with the Good Samaritan (Aka Ruth Paine), for several months, and then, after the assassination, the relationship was more or less terminated. And I would have used that to ask about how and when and why did she get associated with PJM.

Anyway, to my knowledge, none of these last three areas were addressed by the WC.  And they seem to me of paramount importance.  And only the first was covered by the Southern Wing, but only in a rudimentary way. And BTW, do not think that the lawyers on the WC did not understand all the problems Marina was creating for the WR.  They did.  And some of them did not want to use her to the degree she was used.  But they were overruled by the management level on orders from the Troika i.e. McCloy, Ford and Dulles. The Troika understood how much they needed her to make their paper thin case against the dead Oswald, especially in the Walker instance.  And again, its not like the problems with her were not at all aired;  in addition to the junior lawyers, like Ball, who called her unreliable, Scobey, Russell's legal assistant, went further and called her a xxxx.  Even Redlich, who authored a large part of the WR, and who overruled Ball, even he called her a xxxx.  But used her anyway. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 111)  

And this is my point.  If there is no informed and vigorous cross examination, then what is the forensic worth of the proceedings? 

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

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

[David Josephs]

{sigh}

Paul...  I truly did not think your level of misinterpretation was possible.  You are, without a doubt, for whom the lawyers wrote that report.

How does this gullibility work for you in the rest of your life?  You must already own a Brooklyn bridge or two and enough resort swampland in FL to start your own country.

Your approach is worse than dealing with COINTELPRO, unless of course that's what you're doing here.  Let's take a look

Seems to me PT, you've been studying of late.  IF you can, with a straight face, state you rely on the WCR and Marina's testimony for the bulk of your corroborating evidence, you simply have not been paying attention for something like 50 years.

Sure looks to me like your posting takes on a very clear tone and position, and you are criticized for it each and every time you do it.  Your inability to connect the dots behind your conclusions betrays a line of thinking which doesn't belong interfering with serious research being done here.  It fails to dawn on you evidently that the result of your approach is to further discount the value of your repeatedly poor attempts at debate and authentication of evidence.

The core of us understand what you're doing... for those who are newer to the situation, these are some of the tactics used to derail constructive discussion among serious researchers on internet forums.  Y'all can decide for yourselves whether they are being used anywhere on these threads....   in the real world of today we call this creating Fake News...  or alt.realities

Didn't Bugliosi proceed under your conclusion offered here?  Something about lying down with dogs comes to mind...

Quote

It's really a simple story. -PT

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core—Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone—into its present form of the most complex murder case, by far, in world history. Vincent Buglisoi

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt(trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

 

[Mark Knight]

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 2:29 PM, Paul Trejo said:

...As soon as George DM left, Natalie told Dick Russell, she called the FBI and told them everything.

 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

So where, pray tell, is the FBI report that can verify this?  Looking for PROOF, not "he said/she said."

I'm not doubting Dick Russell. Mrs. Voshinin likely DID tell him that.  But where's the proof that she did as she said she did?  I'm not saying she lied; I'm saying that, unless you can produce an FBI report of this contact, there is NO VERIFICATION.  If we can't verify it, then it's hearsay.

[Paul Trejo]

9 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

So where, pray tell, is the FBI report that can verify this?  Looking for PROOF, not "he said/she said."

I'm not doubting Dick Russell. Mrs. Voshinin likely DID tell him that.  But where's the proof that she did as she said she did?  I'm not saying she lied; I'm saying that, unless you can produce an FBI report of this contact, there is NO VERIFICATION.  If we can't verify it, then it's hearsay.

Mark,

My evidence is Dick Russell.  Obviously you've heard of him, because you say, "I'm not doubting Dick Russell."

The thing about Dick Russell is that he is generally very careful about what he publishes. 

Also, he's a genius.  So, there's that,

As for skepticism -- anybody can say no to anything.   It doesn't take much talent.

But it does take talent to carefully consider the implications of what Dick Russell reported -- especially when it contradicts decades of JFK "research."

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 17, 2017 by Paul Trejo