Gil Jesus
2024-01-16 10:40:43 UTC
I am not a conspiracy theorist. By that, I mean that I don't see conspiracies under every rock. You won't see me writing about popular conspiracy theories like 9/11, Sandy Hook, Flight 800 or the Moon Landing.
But I have a problem with the government's case against Lee Harvey Oswald. I believe that the Dallas Police/ FBI/ Warren Commission's case against Oswald was fraudulent.
There are several reasons why I believe this and this is the 4th reason. In my opinion, these reasons are the "smoking guns" of Oswald's innocence. Not only were many of the steps taken by authorities ILLEGAL, they do not fall into any category of what a normal homicide investigation would involve.
In the first three installments of this series, I've listed the reasons as: a.) the level of corruption in the Dallas prosecutorial system, b.) the way the authorities handled Oswald and c.) the way the authorities handled the evidence.
Reason # 4. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
Evidence of witness intimidation through harassment and threats
One example of witness coercion comes from the testimony of W.W. Litchfield II, who told the FBI that he saw a man who looked like Oswald in the Carousel Club.
He told the Commission that the FBI threats definitely had an effect on how he answered their questions:
Mr. HUBERT. I gather that you were more positive of the identity of Oswald as being the man in the Carousel on the occasion we have been speaking about at one time than you are now?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. I was; yes.
Mr. HUBERT. What has caused your opinion in the matter to weaken?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. The fact that they gave me the polygraphic test, that showed when they asked me–was it definitely him, it didn’t show up right, and the fact that I had told Don when I called him, I said, “It sure as heck looks like him,” and when the police were questioning me, they said, “Are you positive, are you positive, are you positive?” I said, “It looks like him, it looks like him, it looks like him.” And they come back, “Are you positive, are you positive?”
And then the fact that when the Federal agents talked to me, they said, “You know, if you say you are positive and it wasn’t him,” it’s a Federal charge, and I said, “Well, I’m not that positive.”
Mr. HUBERT. The Federal agent told you if you gave an opinion—
Mr. LITCHFIELD. No; they said, “If you give false information as to an exact statement–” not an opinion, but if I say I’m positive, that’s a statement.
Mr. HUBERT. But, what has caused you to weaken in your opinion it was Oswald, as you tell it to me, is the fact that you got the impression that if you gave a positive identification and it proved to be false, that it would be a Federal offense, is that correct ?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes; they said giving false information to the FBI, and I’m not 100 percent pure positive. I say, “It bears a close resemblance,” and this is all I can say.
Mr. HUBERT. And that’s all you did tell them ?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes, sir; that’s the statement I signed. ( 14 H 107-108 )
The FBI used threats against witnesses who were sure of what they saw to make them appear less sure in the official record.
This same tactic was used on witnesses who said they were “positive” that the man they saw was not Oswald.
This is why Federal agents were present during the questioning of witnesses at several different locations including the Tippit murder scene, the Dallas Police station and the Texas Theater, when the FBI had no legal jurisdiction in any of these crimes.
They were there to hear, question and intimidate witnesses.
These tactics seemed to work. Original stories like the one of Charles Givens, who at first said he saw Oswald on the first floor at 11:50 and then said he hadn’t seen Oswald all morning.
Or Domingo Benavides, who was 15 feet away from the Tippit killer but was afraid of not being able to identify the killer if he said he could, so he declined to view a lineup.
But in the case of Marina Oswald, the threat was to deport her if she didn’t “cooperate” with the “investigation”. Deportation would have meant that she would have gone back to Russia without her kids, who were American citizens by birth. She’d go, they’d stay. The threat of losing her children would have been enough to make ANY mother tell them what they wanted to hear. True or not.
The intimidation of Marina Oswald
More evidence of FBI intimidation and threats of witnesses comes no less from Oswald’s brother Robert, who told the Commission that he overheard the FBI threaten to deport Marina Oswald if she did not cooperate with them.
Mr. OSWALD. In my presence. And the tone of the reply between this gentle man and Mr. Gopadze, and back to Marina, it was quite evident there was a harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI at that time. And she was refusing to. They were insisting, sir. And they implied in so many words, as I sat there–if I might state–with Secret Service Agent Gary Seals, of Mobile, Ala.–we were opening the first batch of mail that had come to Marina and Lee’s attention, and we were perhaps just four or five feet away from where they were attempting this interview, and it came to my ears that they were implying that if she did not cooperate with the FBI agent there, that this would perhaps–I say, again, I am implying–in so many words, that they would perhaps deport her from the United States and back to Russia. ( 1 H 410 )
The FBI even brought an agent from the Immigration and Naturalization Service all the way from New York into the Inn at Six Flags ( where Marina was to be kept incommunicado for two months ) to scare Marina and “advise her to help” the FBI:
Mr. RANKIN. Did you see anyone from the Immigration Service during this period of time ?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who that was ?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don’t remember the name. I think he is the chairman of that office. At least he was a representative of that office.
Mr. RANKIN. By “that office” you mean the one at Dallas ?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was told that he had especially come from New York, it seems to me.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to you ?
Mrs. OSWALD. That if I was not guilty of anything, if I had not committed any crime against this Government, then I had every right to live in this country. This was a type of introduction before the questioning by the FBI. He even said that it would be better for me if I were to help them.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he explain to you what he meant by being better for you ?
Mrs. OSWALD. In the sense that I would have more rights in this country. I understood it that way. ( 1 H 80 )
Other evidence of witness coercion
Litchfield and Marina Oswald were not the only witnesses who revealed that they had been coerced by authorities.
Richard Randolph Carr witnessed a man who he claimed he saw in the sixth floor window, "walking very fast" on Houston St. after the shooting.
He said that he saw the man get into a "grey 61 or 62 Rambler station wagon which was parked just north of Commerce near Record St.". He added that, "the station wagon, which had Texas license and was driven by a young negro man, drove off northerly direction." ( Oswald 201 file, Sec. 25, pg. 70 )
During the Clay Shaw trial, Carr testified that as a result of talking to the FBI, "I done as I was instructed. I shut my mouth." ( Carr testimony in Shaw trial, pg. 20 )
Intimidation was not the only tactic used by the FBI in this case. There is at least one example of where the FBI threatened to kill a witness if the witness testified to the Warren Commission a certain way.
Evidence of death threats against witnesses
Orest Pena was the owner of the Habana Bar in New Orleans. His bar was a social point for anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the city.
Pena was also a "confidential source" for the New Orleans FBI office. ( NARA # 124-10371-10192 )
Pena had seen Lee Harvey Oswald in his bar with an FBI agent named Warren C. DeBrueys. DeBrueys found out that Pena was to be called to give testimony to the Warren Commission.
Pena testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that DeBrueys told him, "about a week or ten days more or less before I went to testify to the Warren Commission that if I talk about him he will get rid of my ass." ( Orest Pena HSCA testimony, 6.23.78, pg. 10 )
Pena told the HSCA that he tried to tell the Warren Commission of this and DeBruey's connection to the training camps but that, "Mr. Liebeler did not cooperate with me and let me talk." ( ibid., pg. 19 )
Frustrated that Commission counsel showed no interest in what he was saying, Pena decided that, "I might as well keep my mouth shut". ( ibid. )
Intimidation and threats were not the only tactics the authorities used to control the narrative.
There is strong evidence that official reports and documents, including affidavits taken from witnesses, were falsified.
Evidence of falsification of witness statements
Subsequent investigations have revealed in testimony and in video that authorities altered witness statements and affdavits.
In at least one case, an affidavit was signed by someone who was not the affiant.
During their Warren Commission testimony, witnesses Robert Edwards, Buell Frazier, Michael Paine and James Worrell, were all asked by counsel about comments attributed to them in reports and affidavits. All testified that they never made the comments attributed to them.
Witness B.M. Patterson swore in an affdavit that a report saying that he was shown a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald and identified Oswald as the man he saw was in error. He testified that he was never shown a picture of Oswald and asked that the last paragraph of that report be stricken from the record.
Loading Image...
It was never stricken and remains part of the Commission's public record on the assassination as Patterson Exhibit A.
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0025a.htm
In this video from 2010, I compare the statements on the public record from witnesses such as James L. Simmons, Richard C. Dodd and J.C. Price, to what they told Mark Lane they told authorities.
During his investigation of Clay Shaw, New Orleans DA Jim Garrison showed witnesses their statements on the public record. Witnesses such as Jean Hill and Julia Ann Mercer said that those statements did not reflect what they told authorities.
Hill told Garrison that she was berated by authorities when she tried to tell what she saw and that her testimony was a, "fabrication from beginning to end."
Mercer went so far as to tell Garrison that the signature on the affidavit was not hers and that no notary public had been present when she gave her affidavit, a requirement by law. ( NARA # 180-10090-10219, pg. 5 )
Neither the Warren Commission nor the House Select Committee on Assassinations ever looked into these multiple allegations of altered statements and affidavits.
Their ignoring the possibility of criminal behavior by authorities in this case was not the only thing they ignored.
The ignoring of key witnesses
The Commission ignored important witnesses who HAD evidence to present. For example, the President’s personal physician, Admiral George Burkley, the only medical professional who was with the body BOTH in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland Hospital AND the morgue at Bethesda Naval Hospital, was never called to give testimony.
Why not ?
Witnesses who claimed to see smoke come out from the trees near the picket fence up on the grassy knoll were among those whose accounts were either ignored or never called to testify.
The ignoring of key witnesses in this case becomes more of a head shaker when one considers that the Commission wasted its time and the taxpayers' money by calling witnesses who had no evidence to contribute.
The calling of witnesses who had no evidence to contribute
57,224 questions, or 52.05 % of the total questions asked, were asked of people with no direct knowledge of the crime. This included Ruth Paine, Curtis LaVerne Crafard, George Senator, Marina Oswald, Robert Oswald, John Edward Pic, Andrew Armstrong and George DeMohrenschildt.
Witnesses Robert Oswald and John Pic, Oswald’s brother and half-brother, had not seen Lee Harvey in the year before the assassination. Yet they were called to give testimony.
Only 2,065 questions of the 109,930 dealt with valuable data with regard to the killing of the President. This amounts to only 1.87 % of the Warren Commission’s “work”.
The Commission asked more questions ( 104 ) of Secretary of State Dean Rusk and diplomat Llewellyn Thompson, neither of whom had any knowledge regarding the shooting at General Walker or killings of Kennedy, Tippit or Oswald than it asked autopsy doctor Boswell ( 14 ).
The Commission asked more questions of Mahlon Tobias, Oswald's landlord in Dallas, about how the Oswalds lived ( 229 ), than it did of the chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James Humes ( 215 ).
The Commission asked more questions of the emcee at Ruby’s strip joint, William D. Crowe, Jr. ( 342 ), than it did of the JFK autopsy doctors TOTAL . ( 304 )
The Commission asked more questions ( 70 ) of Mrs. Anne Boudreaux, who knew a woman who babysat Lee Harvey Oswald when he was 2 1/2 years old, than it asked Warren Caster ( 32 ) , the man who brought two rifles into the School Book Depository building just two days before the President's motorcade.
Another reason why I believe that this case is BS, is because the Commission's own tests proved that the crime could not have happened the way it concluded it did.
Next installment: Reason # 5 and my conclusion
But I have a problem with the government's case against Lee Harvey Oswald. I believe that the Dallas Police/ FBI/ Warren Commission's case against Oswald was fraudulent.
There are several reasons why I believe this and this is the 4th reason. In my opinion, these reasons are the "smoking guns" of Oswald's innocence. Not only were many of the steps taken by authorities ILLEGAL, they do not fall into any category of what a normal homicide investigation would involve.
In the first three installments of this series, I've listed the reasons as: a.) the level of corruption in the Dallas prosecutorial system, b.) the way the authorities handled Oswald and c.) the way the authorities handled the evidence.
Reason # 4. The way the authorities handled the witnesses.
Evidence of witness intimidation through harassment and threats
One example of witness coercion comes from the testimony of W.W. Litchfield II, who told the FBI that he saw a man who looked like Oswald in the Carousel Club.
He told the Commission that the FBI threats definitely had an effect on how he answered their questions:
Mr. HUBERT. I gather that you were more positive of the identity of Oswald as being the man in the Carousel on the occasion we have been speaking about at one time than you are now?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. I was; yes.
Mr. HUBERT. What has caused your opinion in the matter to weaken?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. The fact that they gave me the polygraphic test, that showed when they asked me–was it definitely him, it didn’t show up right, and the fact that I had told Don when I called him, I said, “It sure as heck looks like him,” and when the police were questioning me, they said, “Are you positive, are you positive, are you positive?” I said, “It looks like him, it looks like him, it looks like him.” And they come back, “Are you positive, are you positive?”
And then the fact that when the Federal agents talked to me, they said, “You know, if you say you are positive and it wasn’t him,” it’s a Federal charge, and I said, “Well, I’m not that positive.”
Mr. HUBERT. The Federal agent told you if you gave an opinion—
Mr. LITCHFIELD. No; they said, “If you give false information as to an exact statement–” not an opinion, but if I say I’m positive, that’s a statement.
Mr. HUBERT. But, what has caused you to weaken in your opinion it was Oswald, as you tell it to me, is the fact that you got the impression that if you gave a positive identification and it proved to be false, that it would be a Federal offense, is that correct ?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes; they said giving false information to the FBI, and I’m not 100 percent pure positive. I say, “It bears a close resemblance,” and this is all I can say.
Mr. HUBERT. And that’s all you did tell them ?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes, sir; that’s the statement I signed. ( 14 H 107-108 )
The FBI used threats against witnesses who were sure of what they saw to make them appear less sure in the official record.
This same tactic was used on witnesses who said they were “positive” that the man they saw was not Oswald.
This is why Federal agents were present during the questioning of witnesses at several different locations including the Tippit murder scene, the Dallas Police station and the Texas Theater, when the FBI had no legal jurisdiction in any of these crimes.
They were there to hear, question and intimidate witnesses.
These tactics seemed to work. Original stories like the one of Charles Givens, who at first said he saw Oswald on the first floor at 11:50 and then said he hadn’t seen Oswald all morning.
Or Domingo Benavides, who was 15 feet away from the Tippit killer but was afraid of not being able to identify the killer if he said he could, so he declined to view a lineup.
But in the case of Marina Oswald, the threat was to deport her if she didn’t “cooperate” with the “investigation”. Deportation would have meant that she would have gone back to Russia without her kids, who were American citizens by birth. She’d go, they’d stay. The threat of losing her children would have been enough to make ANY mother tell them what they wanted to hear. True or not.
The intimidation of Marina Oswald
More evidence of FBI intimidation and threats of witnesses comes no less from Oswald’s brother Robert, who told the Commission that he overheard the FBI threaten to deport Marina Oswald if she did not cooperate with them.
Mr. OSWALD. In my presence. And the tone of the reply between this gentle man and Mr. Gopadze, and back to Marina, it was quite evident there was a harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI at that time. And she was refusing to. They were insisting, sir. And they implied in so many words, as I sat there–if I might state–with Secret Service Agent Gary Seals, of Mobile, Ala.–we were opening the first batch of mail that had come to Marina and Lee’s attention, and we were perhaps just four or five feet away from where they were attempting this interview, and it came to my ears that they were implying that if she did not cooperate with the FBI agent there, that this would perhaps–I say, again, I am implying–in so many words, that they would perhaps deport her from the United States and back to Russia. ( 1 H 410 )
The FBI even brought an agent from the Immigration and Naturalization Service all the way from New York into the Inn at Six Flags ( where Marina was to be kept incommunicado for two months ) to scare Marina and “advise her to help” the FBI:
Mr. RANKIN. Did you see anyone from the Immigration Service during this period of time ?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know who that was ?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don’t remember the name. I think he is the chairman of that office. At least he was a representative of that office.
Mr. RANKIN. By “that office” you mean the one at Dallas ?
Mrs. OSWALD. I was told that he had especially come from New York, it seems to me.
Mr. RANKIN. What did he say to you ?
Mrs. OSWALD. That if I was not guilty of anything, if I had not committed any crime against this Government, then I had every right to live in this country. This was a type of introduction before the questioning by the FBI. He even said that it would be better for me if I were to help them.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he explain to you what he meant by being better for you ?
Mrs. OSWALD. In the sense that I would have more rights in this country. I understood it that way. ( 1 H 80 )
Other evidence of witness coercion
Litchfield and Marina Oswald were not the only witnesses who revealed that they had been coerced by authorities.
Richard Randolph Carr witnessed a man who he claimed he saw in the sixth floor window, "walking very fast" on Houston St. after the shooting.
He said that he saw the man get into a "grey 61 or 62 Rambler station wagon which was parked just north of Commerce near Record St.". He added that, "the station wagon, which had Texas license and was driven by a young negro man, drove off northerly direction." ( Oswald 201 file, Sec. 25, pg. 70 )
During the Clay Shaw trial, Carr testified that as a result of talking to the FBI, "I done as I was instructed. I shut my mouth." ( Carr testimony in Shaw trial, pg. 20 )
Intimidation was not the only tactic used by the FBI in this case. There is at least one example of where the FBI threatened to kill a witness if the witness testified to the Warren Commission a certain way.
Evidence of death threats against witnesses
Orest Pena was the owner of the Habana Bar in New Orleans. His bar was a social point for anti-Castro Cuban exiles in the city.
Pena was also a "confidential source" for the New Orleans FBI office. ( NARA # 124-10371-10192 )
Pena had seen Lee Harvey Oswald in his bar with an FBI agent named Warren C. DeBrueys. DeBrueys found out that Pena was to be called to give testimony to the Warren Commission.
Pena testified to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that DeBrueys told him, "about a week or ten days more or less before I went to testify to the Warren Commission that if I talk about him he will get rid of my ass." ( Orest Pena HSCA testimony, 6.23.78, pg. 10 )
Pena told the HSCA that he tried to tell the Warren Commission of this and DeBruey's connection to the training camps but that, "Mr. Liebeler did not cooperate with me and let me talk." ( ibid., pg. 19 )
Frustrated that Commission counsel showed no interest in what he was saying, Pena decided that, "I might as well keep my mouth shut". ( ibid. )
Intimidation and threats were not the only tactics the authorities used to control the narrative.
There is strong evidence that official reports and documents, including affidavits taken from witnesses, were falsified.
Evidence of falsification of witness statements
Subsequent investigations have revealed in testimony and in video that authorities altered witness statements and affdavits.
In at least one case, an affidavit was signed by someone who was not the affiant.
During their Warren Commission testimony, witnesses Robert Edwards, Buell Frazier, Michael Paine and James Worrell, were all asked by counsel about comments attributed to them in reports and affidavits. All testified that they never made the comments attributed to them.
Witness B.M. Patterson swore in an affdavit that a report saying that he was shown a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald and identified Oswald as the man he saw was in error. He testified that he was never shown a picture of Oswald and asked that the last paragraph of that report be stricken from the record.
Loading Image...
It was never stricken and remains part of the Commission's public record on the assassination as Patterson Exhibit A.
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0025a.htm
In this video from 2010, I compare the statements on the public record from witnesses such as James L. Simmons, Richard C. Dodd and J.C. Price, to what they told Mark Lane they told authorities.
During his investigation of Clay Shaw, New Orleans DA Jim Garrison showed witnesses their statements on the public record. Witnesses such as Jean Hill and Julia Ann Mercer said that those statements did not reflect what they told authorities.
Hill told Garrison that she was berated by authorities when she tried to tell what she saw and that her testimony was a, "fabrication from beginning to end."
Mercer went so far as to tell Garrison that the signature on the affidavit was not hers and that no notary public had been present when she gave her affidavit, a requirement by law. ( NARA # 180-10090-10219, pg. 5 )
Neither the Warren Commission nor the House Select Committee on Assassinations ever looked into these multiple allegations of altered statements and affidavits.
Their ignoring the possibility of criminal behavior by authorities in this case was not the only thing they ignored.
The ignoring of key witnesses
The Commission ignored important witnesses who HAD evidence to present. For example, the President’s personal physician, Admiral George Burkley, the only medical professional who was with the body BOTH in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland Hospital AND the morgue at Bethesda Naval Hospital, was never called to give testimony.
Why not ?
Witnesses who claimed to see smoke come out from the trees near the picket fence up on the grassy knoll were among those whose accounts were either ignored or never called to testify.
The ignoring of key witnesses in this case becomes more of a head shaker when one considers that the Commission wasted its time and the taxpayers' money by calling witnesses who had no evidence to contribute.
The calling of witnesses who had no evidence to contribute
57,224 questions, or 52.05 % of the total questions asked, were asked of people with no direct knowledge of the crime. This included Ruth Paine, Curtis LaVerne Crafard, George Senator, Marina Oswald, Robert Oswald, John Edward Pic, Andrew Armstrong and George DeMohrenschildt.
Witnesses Robert Oswald and John Pic, Oswald’s brother and half-brother, had not seen Lee Harvey in the year before the assassination. Yet they were called to give testimony.
Only 2,065 questions of the 109,930 dealt with valuable data with regard to the killing of the President. This amounts to only 1.87 % of the Warren Commission’s “work”.
The Commission asked more questions ( 104 ) of Secretary of State Dean Rusk and diplomat Llewellyn Thompson, neither of whom had any knowledge regarding the shooting at General Walker or killings of Kennedy, Tippit or Oswald than it asked autopsy doctor Boswell ( 14 ).
The Commission asked more questions of Mahlon Tobias, Oswald's landlord in Dallas, about how the Oswalds lived ( 229 ), than it did of the chief autopsy pathologist, Dr. James Humes ( 215 ).
The Commission asked more questions of the emcee at Ruby’s strip joint, William D. Crowe, Jr. ( 342 ), than it did of the JFK autopsy doctors TOTAL . ( 304 )
The Commission asked more questions ( 70 ) of Mrs. Anne Boudreaux, who knew a woman who babysat Lee Harvey Oswald when he was 2 1/2 years old, than it asked Warren Caster ( 32 ) , the man who brought two rifles into the School Book Depository building just two days before the President's motorcade.
Another reason why I believe that this case is BS, is because the Commission's own tests proved that the crime could not have happened the way it concluded it did.
Next installment: Reason # 5 and my conclusion