See No Evil
Hear No Evil
Marina & "Hidell"
Problems with Marina's testimony against her husband
The "Misfired" Round
Bullets in the Pocket
The WC alters timing
More evidence that Oswald was on the first floor
Evidence the "Gunsack was never on the 6th floor
Evidence the "Gunsack" was made on the afternoon of 11/22/63
Evidence the rifle was never in the "Gunsack"
Evidence the bag Oswald brought to work contained his lunch
Evidence Oswald had not fired a rifle
Evidence Oswald had not fired a handgun
Evidence the Depository rifle was not part of the February shipment to Klein's
Evidence that Oswald was at work when the money order for the rifle was purchased and the envelope mailed
Evidence that the "$ 21.45" entry on Klein's bank account statement was not the "Hidell" money order
Evidence that Oswald's handwriting was easily forgeable
Evidence the rifle in the "Backyard Photos" is not the Depository Rifle
Evidence that the Depository Rifle had not been fired on 11/22/63
Evidence that Klein's Sporting Goods did not mount the scope on the Depository Rifle
Evidence that Oswald could not afford to order the weapons
Proof the bullets recovered from Tippit's body did not match the bullets in evidence
News video shows the jacket was white
Problems with the gray jacket's chain of custody
Evidence that the witnesses described the jacket of the Tippit murderer as white
Evidence that the police radio description of the jacket found was white
Evidence that the witnesses refused to identify the gray jacket as the jacket the killer wore
Skeptical witness identification of the gray jacket as the jacket the killer wore
More problems with the evidence
Problems with the Chain of Custody of CE 573
Spectrographic evidence that CE 573 was not the same ammunition fired at JFK
Gen. Walker to HSCA: "Walker bullet" not Walker bullet
HOW CREDIBLE A WITNESS WAS MARINA OSWALD ?
Marina Oswald was an important witness to the Warren Commission. It was she who implicated her husband in the attempt on the life of General Edwin A. Walker. And it was she who told police that her husband owned a rifle. But how credible a witness was she ? Let's look at some of the inconsistencies in her recollection of events leading up to the Kennedy assassination.
MARINA & "HIDELL"
On the topic of when she first learned of the name "Hidell", Marina told three different stories.
STORY # 1
Commission Exhibit 1789 is an interview that the Secret Service conducted with Marina Oswald on December 10, 1963.
On page 2 of that document, she was asked specifically if her husband used the name "Hidell" and she, according to the report, "replied in the negative".
STORY # 2
Just two months later, in her February 1964 testimony before the Warren Commission, she said that she learned about the fictitious "Hidell" from Oswald's radio debate in New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. Have you ever heard that he used the fictitious name Hidell?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. When did you first learn that he used such a name?
Mrs. OSWALD. In New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn that?
Mrs. OSWALD. When he was interviewed by some anti-Cubans, he used this name and spoke of an organization.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you discover it, then?
Mrs. OSWALD. I already said that when I listened to the radio, they spoke of that name, and I asked him who, and he said that it was he.
( 1 H 64 )
But the name "Hidell" was never mentioned during the radio debate, as one can see by examining a transcript of that broadcast ( Stuckey Exhibit 3 )
In addition to the non-mention of "Hidell" during the broadcast, Lt. Frank Martello of the New Orleans Police appeared before the Commission on April 7 & 8, 1964 and testified that when he interviewed Oswald, he asked Oswald for identification and Oswald produced his wallet. Martello asked him to empty the wallet and examined the contents of it. Among the contents was:
4. Card for the New Orleans Chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in name of LEE HARVEY OSWALD signed by A. J. HIDELL, Chapter President, issued June 6, 1963." ( 10 H 54 )
This was a signature on the card that Marina had signed and was seen by Martello BEFORE THE RADIO BROADCAST.
And Martello wasn't the only one who saw it.
FBI agent John Quigley interviewed Oswald at the time of his New Orleans arrest and testified on May 5, 1964 that he also SAW the FPCC membership card signed by "Hidell".
Mr. McCLOY. Did he have the membership cards in his possession at that time?
Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, sir; he did, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. You saw them?
Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, sir; I did, sir. I think the last you will notice, in that last sentence he had in his possession both cards and exhibited both of them.
Mr. McCLOY. Right. One of them was, at least one of them, was signed A. Hidell?
Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, sir; that is correct.
( 4 H 434 )
SO THERE ARE TWO WITNESSES WHO PROVE THAT MARINA'S # 2 STORY IS A LIE. SHE SIGNED THAT CARD BEFORE THE RADIO BROADCAST.
STORY # 3
Because of these developments, Marina Oswald was invited back to give testimony and appeared before the Commission on June 11, 1964. At that time she admitted signing the FPCC card as "A.J. Hidell" and said that Oswald threatened to beat her if she didn't sign the card.
If story # 3 was the truth, then the first two stories were lies.
She was never questioned about why she lied to the SS in December 1963 or why she lied under oath to the Commission in February 1964. The Commission just accepted her latest version of events as the truth because her latest version satisfied its preconceived notions.
"Oswald's membership card in the "New Orleans chapter" of the committee carried the signature of "A. J. Hidell," purportedly the president of the chapter, but there is no evidence that an "A. J. Hidell" existed and.....there is conclusive evidence that the name was an alias which Oswald used on various occasions. Marina Oswald herself wrote the name "Hidell" on the membership card at her husband's insistence." ( Report, pg. 292 )
PROBLEMS WITH THE LEGALITY
OF MARINA'S TESTIMONY AGAINST HER HUSBAND
On March 11, 1964, Warren Commission staff member Richard Mosk wrote a memo to David Belin regarding the legality of Marina's testimony against her husband. Mosk noted that in both Texas and Federal jurisdictions "Marina would not be allowed to testify against her husband in a criminal procedure." He added that while that restriction would end with Oswald's death, certain "privileged communication" between Oswald and Marina would still be restricted, including "oral and written communications from her husband."
Mosk went on to say that the entire "Walker incident would have been inadmissible in a trial of Oswald" and that because of "the fact that the Walker incident and the Kennedy assassination have not been shown to be in any way connected......the Walker crime would not be admissible."
Mosk then notes that courts would not allow evidence from the Walker incident for the purpose of proving a propensity toward violence because of the "prejudicial effect" on a jury. He finishes the memo by saying that in order for a jury to consider the Walker incident as evidence, Oswald's guilt in that shooting must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt."
He ends, "if we exclude Marina's testimony, these standards would be difficult to meet."
The Commission, however, did not exclude Marina's testimony because it had predetermined Oswald's guilt and in that vein allowed illegal testimony and evidence that would never have been allowed by a court of law. In particular, Marina's testimony about what Oswald told her about the Walker shooting and the note he allegedly left for her on that night would have been inadmissible in court.
MORE TO COME