JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[No Other]

That's reasonable, and we can agree to disagree. As a practical matter, a criminal trial in Dallas was impossible, given the removal of the accused by Jack Ruby's vigilante justice. Again, I feel if LHO had lived to stand trial, much of the WC's sworn fact and expert testimony would have been excluded. So that stuff would presumably have reached the public informally, randomly, in bits and pieces of unsworn, probably distorted information over time. I don't think it would have had any more credibility than in its WC incarnation--quite possibly less. Some of it would have been, as Hank says, stuff relating to alleged conspiracy, which would have been excluded at trial as irrelevant to the question of LHO's guilt.

The loss of Marina's testimony would have been significant. Many who lean towards CT believe that her WC testimony was skewed by fear of being deported or otherwise punished by the feds. I happen to think that she had an incentive to be truthful about LHO, because if she had been caught in lies and misrepresentations, she could have been severely punished on that ground. As for her revised views from the 1980s on, I attribute those to the influence, general and specific, of CT/ABO claims seeking to exonerate her husband. As a lawyer, I favor fresh, contemporary sworn testimony over dated, unsworn recollections, especially when they are inconsistent with the original testimony. Human memory changes over time and according to personal need.

But these are counterfactuals, not measurable alternatives.

No disagreement from me. Thank you for the details...

 

[MicahJava]

Okay, nobody's buying Tom's little game of pretending there is no difference between the original EOP location of the small head wound and the "new-and-improved" cowlick location 4-5 inches above.

 

[MicahJava]

Where did the shot come from then?

Unless anybody can give good reason to suspect the EOP wound was some kind of exit instead of an entry, that shot probably came from behind.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Okay, nobody's buying Tom's little game of pretending there is no difference between the original EOP location of the small head wound and the "new-and-improved" cowlick location 4-5 inches above.

Care to supply evidence that you have convinced anybody the wound is anywhere other than what you call the "cowlick"?

 

[No Other]

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The WC did not operate as a sandwich-indicting grand jury. That is a false, inflammatory analogy. You're confusing two incommensurable domains: the criminal trial process and a government fact-finding commission. A criminal trial does not produce any complete truth. It puts in place multiple protections--a very high standard of proof, many evidentiary exclusions, rules against compelled self-incrimination--in order to protect a living defendant. The truth produced by a criminal trial is inevitably a limited truth and sometimes a highly artificial truth, consistent with our great concern for the presumed-innocent defendant. "Let nine guilty men go free rather than convict one innocent man," and so on.

I am not confused, I may not be able to express my intent effectively. My intent of the analogy is that a Grand Jury only hears one side; the Commission could hear anything they wanted but it was only one side who chose what they heard. There was not an opportunity from an aggrieved party to provide additional input. The input and output were contained within a hand-picked community. I understand about the living in a trial, what could have produced a more level playing field would have been to treat this matter as if the target (LHO) was in absentia. Truth is a casualty in litigation and I am not sure if litigation was ever intended to extract the truth. Truth and justice are not in alignment.

Oswald was deceased, so he personally was unthreatened by the absence of hearsay exclusions, the spousal privilege, and such. Your position seems to be that, despite Oswald's being beyond danger, the American public would somehow have benefited from a process that filtered all the evidence through the many protections of the criminal process.

In a criminal case... yes.

But that is your begged question. You haven't shown why this would have been a better generator of the truth, beyond your offering abstract paeans to the Bill of Rights.

I have not gone back to see if I said that this would be a better generator of Truth; what I do feel is that it would provide a vehicle to allow information to flow that would otherwise not.

I don't contend that the WC's process produced any perfect truth. (I believe it arrived, generally, at correct conclusions.)

That is what I don't like about the Commission, it became a conclusion. Even though, later in life we had more commissions, this one has been the harbinger for all commissions on this related matter.

But as between a criminal trial's highly sculpted truth and the WC's more liberal fact-finding, I prefer the latter, since Oswald was defunct and facing another court, if any.

At least the "sculpted truth" had a playing field with two sides, the "more liberal fact-finding" had an approach that could refuse evidence, testimony whereas the more "sculpted" approach had guidelines that both sides followed.

The WC still had sworn testimony, many lawyers to conduct the process according to their experience, the ABA President to oversee and object to unfair departures from our norms of justice, and so on.

George deMohrenschildt testified in front of the WC, it filled 119 pages, by far the longest and only 2 people showed up Albert Jenner and CIA Historian Dr. Alfred Goldberg. It is difficult to come up with "conclusions" when you only read what was discussed versus being a part of the interaction. As for the oversight by lawyers, the only ones I came across were Leon Jaworski and RG Storey the former Prof at SMU. They were not actively engaged, it was for advice on matters that the committee approached them, not the other way around.

In sum, you are assuming that the WC would have produced more palatable conclusions if it had been conducted with all criminal-process precautions in place.

I never said "criminal" you have inserted that into the dialog. I advocate the adversarial process. A civil proceeding is more palatable than what we got...

 

[OKBob]

[snip]George deMohrenschildt testified in front of the WC, it filled 119 pages, by far the longest and only 2 people showed up Albert Jenner and CIA Historian Dr. Alfred Goldberg. [snip] I never said "criminal" you have inserted that into the dialog. I advocate the adversarial process. A civil proceeding is more palatable than what we got...

Just two points in response to the above selections from your remarks, since I think we've rather covered the other matters in subsequent posts. (If you disagree, I can try to circle back.)

First, notice what you say about George dM: a huge amount of WC testimony, much more, in fact, than would ever have been allowed in an adversarial trial, where much testimony would have been objected to and probably excluded, and the judge would not have allowed the questioning to go on and on. So, with George dM we didn't have adversarial procedures but we did get a much more relaxed, open-ended kind of fact-finding, though still sworn, that allowed for digression and development. Which approach would yield more information, on balance? I don't feel the public would necessarily have been satisfied with George dM's adversarially "sculpted" testimony--which would necessarily have resulted from regular trial procedure. Wouldn't later critics typically complain, "The judge cut him off just when he was going to give us the truth?" and so on.

Now, as to a civil proceeding, which you suggest as another possible model, recall that at the start of a civil action in the United States, there is extremely wide-ranging, nearly unlimited "discovery" by the parties: capacious requests for documents; interrogatories; requests for admission. And then the live depositions start. Depositions can take hours or days, sometimes weeks in big cases; while attorneys for both sides are present at depositions, they are supposed to be largely passive. There are virtually no evidentially limitations, except for objections to the form of the question (compound and such) and to privileged matters: no objections to hearsay, irrelevancy, prejudice, and so forth.

When all that massive amount of evidence is gathered, and unless the case settles (as it usually does), we go to trial, where we are now in full-on adversariality, and all that previous discovery material gets "sculpted" in the trial process.

Actually, civil litigation is a good tool for thinking about the WC as opposed to adversariality. The civil discovery process is very like the WC: wide-ranging fact-finding, a desire for more material rather than less--sworn and subject to lawyers' ethical rules, of course--but not subject to taut trial procedures. The eventual civil trial, if it happens, is more like what you're advocating: many evidentiary exclusions, a much more trial-shaped truth.

Given that LHO was beyond earthly suffering, I feel the American public was better served by the WC's more-rather-than-less approach as opposed to adversariality's less-rather-than-more.

 

[OKBob]

Weren't dead men convicted in the Nuremberg trials?

Only unintentionally, in one case I know of. Most of the scores or hundreds of Nazi accused were tried while living. Either they were acquitted or were convicted and sentenced to death or prison terms. Martin Bormann was tried in absentia, as he had escaped from the Fuhrer bunker in May 1945 and had not been captured. He was in fact dead--as was discovered decades later--but when he was tried for war crimes, he was presumed to be alive. Some other defendants, such as Hermann Goring, were convicted but cheated the hangman by committing suicide. Yet they were tried while alive.

Had the Nuremberg trials sought justice against the deceased, surely the big three--Hitler, Himmler, and Goebbels--would have been the first up. They had all committed suicide before the Nuremberg process began. They were not tried.

 

[No Other]

Just two points in response to the above selections from your remarks, since I think we've rather covered the other matters in subsequent posts. (If you disagree, I can try to circle back.)

First, notice what you say about George dM: a huge amount of WC testimony, much more, in fact, than would ever have been allowed in an adversarial trial, where much testimony would have been objected to and probably excluded, and the judge would not have allowed the questioning to go on and on. So, with George dM we didn't have adversarial procedures but we did get a much more relaxed, open-ended kind of fact-finding, though still sworn, that allowed for digression and development. Which approach would yield more information, on balance? I don't feel the public would necessarily have been satisfied with George dM's adversarially "sculpted" testimony--which would necessarily have resulted from regular trial procedure. Wouldn't later critics typically complain, "The judge cut him off just when he was going to give us the truth?" and so on.

Now, as to a civil proceeding, which you suggest as another possible model, recall that at the start of a civil action in the United States, there is extremely wide-ranging, nearly unlimited "discovery" by the parties: capacious requests for documents; interrogatories; requests for admission. And then the live depositions start. Depositions can take hours or days, sometimes weeks in big cases; while attorneys for both sides are present at depositions, they are supposed to be largely passive. There are virtually no evidentially limitations, except for objections to the form of the question (compound and such) and to privileged matters: no objections to hearsay, irrelevancy, prejudice, and so forth.

When all that massive amount of evidence is gathered, and unless the case settles (as it usually does), we go to trial, where we are now in full-on adversariality, and all that previous discovery material gets "sculpted" in the trial process.

Actually, civil litigation is a good tool for thinking about the WC as opposed to adversariality. The civil discovery process is very like the WC: wide-ranging fact-finding, a desire for more material rather than less--sworn and subject to lawyers' ethical rules, of course--but not subject to taut trial procedures. The eventual civil trial, if it happens, is more like what you're advocating: many evidentiary exclusions, a much more trial-shaped truth.

Given that LHO was beyond earthly suffering, I feel the American public was better served by the WC's more-rather-than-less approach as opposed to adversariality's less-rather-than-more.

Thank you for the details you provided, I agree with your summation.

 

[No Other]

Earlier, I posted how one of Marina's first Secret Service interviews has her interpreter translating her words as saying that she had never seen a rifle with a scope, and didn't know that rifles with scopes existed until she saw it on television after the assassination.

This is an area that will never be resolved; it is a shame.

 

[Tomtomkent]

This is an area that will never be resolved; it is a shame.

Why?

She was human, she was in a stressful situation, and prone to the same confusion in those situations as anybody else, with her words being translated as best they could be, by a third party.

That would seem a reasonable enough explanation for anybody with an ounce of compassion for an innocent woman learning what her husband just did...

 

[No Other]

No, the Vice President of Kleins says that, and I already quoted it for you:
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; these numbers that you referred to are not control numbers, as previously stated. These are known as catalog numbers. The number C20-T749 describes a rifle only, whereas the catalog No. C20-T750 describes the Italian carbine rifle with a four-power scope, which is sold as a package unit.

Oswald was shipped an Italian carbine rifle with a four-power scope.
He was shipped, as affirmed by Klein's, the rifle bearing their internal unique control number VC-836. And that number was assigned to one weapon, and one weapon only. The one bearing the serial number C2766.

Mr. BELIN. Do you find anywhere on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 the serial number C-2766?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And what is your control number for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Our control number for that is VC-836.
...
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show any serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.

What you have not addressed is that the catalog number C20-T750 is for the shorter rifle versus the one found at the TSBD. Waldman does not provide an answer that supports your claim. Again, the rifle that Waldman says they shipped to Hidell and what their internal information shows, what Hidell ordered and what you provided in a link was the 36" rifle not the 40" rifle.

So how did the 40" rifle get associated with LHO? Show the paper trail. If Klein's substituted the rifle, show the paperwork, Waldman's testimony did not mention a substitute.

 

[No Other]

Why?

She was human, she was in a stressful situation, and prone to the same confusion in those situations as anybody else, with her words being translated as best they could be, by a third party.

That would seem a reasonable enough explanation for anybody with an ounce of compassion for an innocent woman learning what her husband just did...

We will never know what the Translator said to Marina, the words were never transcribed, that is what we never know...

 

[Tomtomkent]

We will never know what the Translator said to Marina, the words were never transcribed, that is what we never know...

Fair enough. I thought you meant the reason for confusion would never be understood. My mistake.

 

[No Other]

How's that eliminate Oswald's weapon?

And even earlier than her first Secret Service interview, is her encounter with authorities showing up at the home of Ruth Paine unexpectedly on the afternoon of the assassination.

When Ruth was asked if Lee Oswald had a rifle there, she said no, then translated for Marina. Marina said yes, and led the officers to the Paine garage where she pointed out the blanket, saying it was in there. But when one of the officers picked it up, it was empty. Meanwhile of course, Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano, with the serial number of C2766, had been recovered at the Depository.

Mrs. Paine's testimony:
Mr. JENNER - The police arrived and what occurred.
Mrs. PAINE - I went to the door. They announced themselves as from both the sheriff's office and the Dallas Police Office, showed me at least one package [badge?] or two. I was very surprised.
Mr. JENNER - Did you say anything?
Mrs. PAINE - I said nothing. I think I just dropped my jaw. And the man in front said by way of explanation "We have Lee Oswald in custody. He is charged with shooting an officer." This is the first I had any idea that Lee might be in trouble with the police or in any way involved in the day's events. I asked them to come in. They said they wanted to search the house. I asked if they had a warrant. They said they didn't. They said they could get the sheriff out here right away with one if I insisted. And I said no, that was all right, they could be my guests.
They then did search the house. I directed them to the fact that most of the Oswald's things were in storage in my garage and showed where the garage was, and to the room where Marina and the baby had stayed where they would find the other things which belonged to the Oswalds. Marina and I went with two or three of these police officers to the garage.
Mr. JENNER - How many police officers were there?
Mrs. PAINE - There were six altogether, and they were busy in various parts of the house. The officer asked me in the garage did Lee Oswald have any weapons or guns. I said no, and translated the question to Marina, and she said yes; that she had seen a portion of it--had looked into--she indicated the blanket roll on the floor.
Mr. JENNER - Was the blanket roll on the floor at that time?
Mrs. PAINE - She indicated the blanket roll on the floor very close to where I was standing. As she told me about it I stepped onto the blanket roll.
Mr. JENNER - This might be helpful. You had shaped that up yesterday and I will just put it on the floor.
Mrs. PAINE - And she indicated to me that she had peered into this roll and saw a portion of what she took to be a gun she knew her husband to have, a rifle. And I then translated this to the officers that she knew that her husband had a gun that he had stored in here.
Mr. JENNER - Were you standing on the blanket when you advised--
Mrs. PAINE - When I translated. I then stepped off of it and the officer picked it up in the middle and it bent so.
Mr. JENNER - It hung limp just as it now hangs limp in your hand?
Mrs. PAINE - And at this moment I felt this man was in very deep trouble and may have done--

Now here is Officer Buddy Walthers testimony of the same incident:

Mr. WALTHERS. Yes; and I took our Harry Weatherford and we met Officer Adamcik that works for the city and Officer Rose and another one of their officers, but I don’t recall his name right now-at this address in Irving and when we went to the door, what turned out to be Mrs. Paine-just as soon as we stepped on the porch, she said, “Come on in, we’ve been expecting you,” and we didn’t have any trouble at all-we just went right on in and started asking her-at that time it didn’t appear that her or Mrs. Oswald, or Marina, who came up carrying one of the babies in the living room-it didn’t appear that they knew that Oswald had been arrested at all-the way they talked.
Mr. LIEBELEB. How do you account for the fact that Mrs. Paine said, “Come on in, we’ve been expecting you?”
Mr. WALTHERS. I don’t know-to this day, I don’t know.
Mr. LIEBELER. Are you sure that’s what she said?
Mr. WALTHERS. I know that’s what she said.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Paine said that?
Mr. WALTHERS. Yes, sir ; she said, “Come on in, we have been expecting you.”
Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anybody else there that heard her say that?
Mr. WALTHERS. I imagine all the officers on the porch did. I know Rose was trying to show her his credentials and she just pushed the screen open and said, “Come on in.” Now, after we got inside and we were making a search of the house with their permission, they had no objection whatsoever. Mrs. Oswald couldn’t speak much English and Mr. Rose was doing most of the questioning, the city officer. We were just-not actually knowing what we were looking for, just searching, and we went into the garage there and found this-I believe it was one of these things like soap comes in, a big pasteboard barrel and it had a lot of these little leaflets in it, “Freedom for Cuba” and they were gold color with black printing on them, and we found those and we also found a gray blanket with some red trim on it that had a string tied at one end that you could see the imprint of a gun, I mean where it had been wrapped in it.

Someone is lying. I have no idea what Buddy Walthers would have to gain with a lie but on the other hand, Ruth Paine had a rifle on her property, she owned the home and had helped LHO secure the job at the TSBD. Who had more to gain with lying?

Guy Rose's testimony:
Mr. ROSE. Well, I was the senior detective that was there, and so I was sort of the spokesman for the group, I suppose, and Stovall wen into the bedroom of Marina Oswald--Marina Oswald's bedroom, and I don't remember where Adamcik went first, but I talked with Ruth Paine a few minutes and she told me that Marina was there and that she was Lee Oswald's wife and that she was a citizen of Russia, and so I called Captain Fritz on the phone and told him what I had found out there and asked him if there was any special instructions, and he said, "Well, ask her about her husband, ask her if her husband has a rifle." I turned and asked Marina, but she didn't seem to understand. She said she couldn't understand, so Ruth Paine spoke in Russian to her and Ruth Paine also interpreted for me, and she said that Marina said--first she said Marina said "No," and then a minute Marina said, "Yes, he does have." So, then I talked to Captain Fritz for a moment and hung up the phone and I asked Marina if she would show me where his rifle was and Ruth Paine interpreted and Marina pointed to the garage and she took me to the garage and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is." Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--it was in sort of an outline of a rifle.
Mr. BALL. You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it did.
Mr. BALL. Was it tied at one end?
Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; it was sort of rolled up, but it was flattened out from laying down and tied near the middle, I would say, with a cord and so I went on and picked the blanket up, but it was empty--it didn't have the rifle in it.
Mr. BALL. You brought that in?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; I did.

The problem with anything that Marina Oswald says is hearsay... unless you know Russian no law official at the Paine residence can confirm what Ruth Paine asked Marina or confirm what Marina said. Marina Oswald has very little protection of search and seizure since this is not her house and she is not paying rent.

And you might want to recall there's other evidence Oswald owned a rifle, independent of Marina's ID. Like:
1. His order form for the rifle, specifying he was ordering a rifle with a scope.

Hidell bought the rifle

2. His order form for the rifle, specifying a shipping address of Oswald's PO Box.

Hidell's order form did show LHO PO Box

3. The Money Order in his handwriting for $21.45, the purchase price of his MC rifle with a scope.

correct

4. The Klein's business records, showing they shipped a rifle with a scope to his PO Box.

correct

5. The backyard photographs of Oswald holding a rifle with a scope.

correct

6. His palmprint was found on the rifle (with a scope) recovered from the Depository.

Full disclosure: the palm print was found on the barrel and the only way it could get on the barrel was to have it disasembled, the print is not found on the stock. There is no print evidence that LHO held the rifle in a shooting position.

7. His fingerprints were found on the triggerguard.

correct

What you mentioned does not put the rifle found in the TSBD in LHO as the owner.

 

[HSienzant]

What you have not addressed is that the catalog number C20-T750 is for the shorter rifle versus the one found at the TSBD. Waldman does not provide an answer that supports your claim. Again, the rifle that Waldman says they shipped to Hidell and what their internal information shows, what Hidell ordered and what you provided in a link was the 36" rifle not the 40" rifle.

So how did the 40" rifle get associated with LHO? Show the paper trail. If Klein's substituted the rifle, show the paperwork, Waldman's testimony did not mention a substitute.

Asked and answered.

The rifle bearing the serial number C2766 was shipped to Oswald.

That was the rifle found in the Depository after the assassination. That was the rifle Oswald was holding in the backyard photos.

Now, what's the evidence Oswald was shipped that gun?

We pick up Waldman talking about Klein's receipt of that specific weapon here:

Mr. WALDMAN. Referring to the various delivery receipts, copies of which we have, these are packing slips, incidentally, not receipts; these were packing receipts included in each case. It was indicated there were 10 rifles in each case.
Mr. BELIN. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; these are memos prepared by Crescent Firearms showing serial numbers of rifles that were shipped to us and each one of these represents those rifles that were contained in a case.
Mr. BELIN. Now, you earlier mentioned that these were packed with the case.
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, I would like to correct that. This particular company does not include these with the cases, but sends these memos separately with their invoice.
Mr. BELIN. Now, again, Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 is a photostatic copy. Do you have the actual copies that came to you in front of you at this time?
Mr. WALDMAN. I do.
Mr. BELIN. And is Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 an accurate photostat of these other copies?
Mr. WALDMAN. It is.
Mr. BELIN. I notice that there are numbers on each of these papers with 10 serial numbers each. I see here No. 3672, 3504 on the first photostat of Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3. Do you see that?
Mr. WALDMAN. I do.
Mr. BELIN. I'm going to ask you to search through these 10 photostats and see if you find any invoice number that has on it a serial number, C-2766.
Mr. WALDMAN. Crescent Firearms delivery memo No. 3620 covering carton or case No. 3376 does have a--indicate a rifle bearing serial No. 2766.
Mr. BELIN. Well, is it 2766 or is there a prefix to it?
Mr. WALDMAN. There is a prefix, C-2766.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0361b.htm

Mr. BELIN. And you see that as also a part of Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3; I believe you are reading from the actual document in your possession which Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 is a photostat of; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. When a shipment of rifles is received, what is your procedure with regard to recordkeeping on the serial numbers of the rifles?
Mr. WALDMAN. We assign to each rifle a control number which is a number used by us to record the history of the gun while it is in our possession and until it is sold, thus each rifle will be tagged with both this control number and with the serial number of the rifle which is stamped on the--imprinted on the gun by the manufacturer.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have the same--does the same manufacturer give different serial numbers for each weapon that the manufacturer makes?
Mr. WALDMAN. The gun manufacturers imprint a different number on each gun. It's stamped into the frame of the gun and serves as a unique identification for each gun.
Mr. BELIN. Well, I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is the record created by us showing the control number we have assigned to the gun together with the serial number that is imprinted in the frame of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Now, this is a photostat, I believe, of records you have in front of you on your desk right now?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you find anywhere on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 the serial number C--2766?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And what is your control number for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Our control number for that is VC-836.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0362b.htm


And Waldman says (after going into a bit of the history of the FBI asking for their record of whom the rifle was shipped to):

Mr. BELIN. I'm handing you what has been marked as an FBI Exhibit D-77 and ask you if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a microfilm record that---of mail order transactions for a given period of time. It was turned over by us to the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know when it was turned over to the FBI?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was turned over to them on November 23, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Now, you are reading from the carton containing that microfilm. Do you know whose initials are on there?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the initials on here are mine and they were put on the date on which this was turned over to the FBI concerned with the investigation.
Mr. BELIN. You have on your premises a machine for looking at the microfilm prints?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And you can make copies of the microfilm prints?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. I wonder if we can adjourn the deposition upstairs to take a look at these records in the microfilm and get copies of the appropriate records that you found on the evening of November 22.
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had at the microfilm machine.)
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm


The rifle bearing the serial number C2766 was measured and determined to be 40.2 inches. That was the rifle now in the archives. That was the rifle found in the Depository. That was the one the FBI was interested in and inquired at Klein's about. That is the one Waldman researched. And that's the one Klein's received and subsequently shipped to Oswald's PO Box 2915, Dallas, Texas.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Now here is Officer Buddy Walthers testimony of the same incident:

Mr. WALTHERS. Yes; and I took our Harry Weatherford and we met Officer Adamcik that works for the city and Officer Rose and another one of their officers, but I don’t recall his name right now-at this address in Irving and when we went to the door, what turned out to be Mrs. Paine-just as soon as we stepped on the porch, she said, “Come on in, we’ve been expecting you,” and we didn’t have any trouble at all-we just went right on in and started asking her-at that time it didn’t appear that her or Mrs. Oswald, or Marina, who came up carrying one of the babies in the living room-it didn’t appear that they knew that Oswald had been arrested at all-the way they talked.
Mr. LIEBELEB. How do you account for the fact that Mrs. Paine said, “Come on in, we’ve been expecting you?”
Mr. WALTHERS. I don’t know-to this day, I don’t know.
Mr. LIEBELER. Are you sure that’s what she said?
Mr. WALTHERS. I know that’s what she said.
Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Paine said that?
Mr. WALTHERS. Yes, sir ; she said, “Come on in, we have been expecting you.”
Mr. LIEBELER. Was there anybody else there that heard her say that?
Mr. WALTHERS. I imagine all the officers on the porch did. I know Rose was trying to show her his credentials and she just pushed the screen open and said, “Come on in.” Now, after we got inside and we were making a search of the house with their permission, they had no objection whatsoever. Mrs. Oswald couldn’t speak much English and Mr. Rose was doing most of the questioning, the city officer. We were just-not actually knowing what we were looking for, just searching, and we went into the garage there and found this-I believe it was one of these things like soap comes in, a big pasteboard barrel and it had a lot of these little leaflets in it, “Freedom for Cuba” and they were gold color with black printing on them, and we found those and we also found a gray blanket with some red trim on it that had a string tied at one end that you could see the imprint of a gun, I mean where it had been wrapped in it.

Someone is lying. I have no idea what Buddy Walthers would have to gain with a lie but on the other hand, Ruth Paine had a rifle on her property, she owned the home and had helped LHO secure the job at the TSBD. Who had more to gain with lying?

The problem with anything that Marina Oswald says is hearsay... unless you know Russian no law official at the Paine residence can confirm what Ruth Paine asked Marina or confirm what Marina said. Marina Oswald has very little protection of search and seizure since this is not her house and she is not paying rent.

Whoa, there. The portion you quote of Buddy Walthers testifying to what Ruth Paine said is also HEARSAY. It is curious you wish to strike what Ruth Paine said Marina said, but not what Walthers said Paine said. In fact, your whole argument above contrasts the hearsay of Walthers with the direct testimony of Ruth Paine.

Double-standard much?

In any case, you haven't shown any lie (as opposed to a simple difference of recollection), and this would be another issue you're raising that would not be allowed at trial in any case. Walthers couldn't testify to what Mrs. Paine said. Another of your points would go up in smoke if he was not testifying to the Warren Commission. Isn't that the point I made earlier?

That 99.9% of the points raised by conspiracy theorists couldn't be explored at a trial of Oswald?

Why, yes, it is: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11840283&postcount=3561

Hidell bought the rifle
Hidell's order form did show LHO PO Box
correct
correct
correct
Full disclosure: the palm print was found on the barrel and the only way it could get on the barrel was to have it disasembled, the print is not found on the stock. There is no print evidence that LHO held the rifle in a shooting position.
correct

Hilarious. "Hidell" ordered the rifle?

You mean this Hidell?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-c0WPbzMqVMk/Ut2sJ8pBOcI/AAAAAAAAxsI/MIubuBInlVg/s1600/CE795.png

Hidell was a known alias of Oswald. He used it multiple times and even listed it as a person to receive mail on another PO Box Oswald opened in Dallas.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/n...-box-the-box-users-are-as-picture-id576878048

He also handed out handbills for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) with that name as the contact.
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos...j-hidell-po-box-30016-new-picture-id576877938

Oswald and the Hidell alias are linked tightly.

For example, the money order used to pay for the rifle ordered by "Hidell" was determined to be in Oswald's handwriting.
Alwyn Cole of the U.S.Treasury and James Cadigan of the FBI so testified to the Warren Commission.

What you mentioned does not put the rifle found in the TSBD in LHO as the owner.

The rifle bearing the serial number C2766 was the one shipped to Oswald's PO box.
It is the rifle seen in the backyard photos.
It is the one bearing Oswald's prints both on the trigger guard and under the stock, meaning Oswald handled it both assembled and disassembled.
It is the one found in the Depository.

The evidence puts the rifle found in the Depository with Oswald as the owner of that rifle.

He ordered it.
He paid for it.
He had it shipped to his PO box.
He took possession of it.

That pretty much makes it his rifle. Otherwise, I'm driving a truck to your house and emptying it of all its contents. You can't complain, because according to you, you don't own any of those contents of your house either. Even if you ordered it all, paid for it all, and took possession of it all.

Hank

 

[OKBob]

The problem with anything that Marina Oswald says is hearsay... unless you know Russian no law official at the Paine residence can confirm what Ruth Paine asked Marina or confirm what Marina said. Marina Oswald has very little protection of search and seizure since this is not her house and she is not paying rent.

If we're continuing with our counterfactual about an imagined trial, Marina's statements would not necessarily have been barred by the hearsay rule. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered at trial for the truth of the matter stated. Much of what Marina said might have been offered not for its truth, but rather for other, permissible purposes: evidence foundation or authentication; LHO's state of mind, etc.

The larger problem with admitting Marina's pretrial or testimonial statements would have been the spousal privilege, which LHO could have invoked to bar his spouse's statements from being used against him.

Marina would have had no 4th Amendment protections. She'd have had no standing to invalidate the search, because she was not the suspect/accused against whom the evidence could have been used. Rather, her husband was. Now LHO might also have had some difficulty invalidating the search because questions would have been raised about his reasonable expectation of privacy. He was largely a visitor at a home he didn't own; he couldn't really have claimed he was in the position of a normal tenant; he left a lot of his stuff out in the garage where Michael Paine pushed it around while doing garage work, etc.

However, the search of the Paine's home that first day or so was without a search warrant, and that would have created problems for a Dallas prosecutor, no doubt.

 

[OKBob]

Whoa, there. The portion you quote of Buddy Walthers testifying to what Ruth Paine said is also HEARSAY.

Not necessarily. Ruth's statement about expecting the police might have been offered for other purposes than that of the truth of the matter stated. Hearsay is actually not as easy to invoke as is often thought.

 

[No Other]

Hilarious. "Hidell" ordered the rifle?

You mean this Hidell?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-c0WPbzMqVMk/Ut2sJ8pBOcI/AAAAAAAAxsI/MIubuBInlVg/s1600/CE795.png

Hidell was a known alias of Oswald. He used it multiple times and even listed it as a person to receive mail on another PO Box Oswald opened in Dallas.
http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/n...-box-the-box-users-are-as-picture-id576878048

He also handed out handbills for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) with that name as the contact.
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos...j-hidell-po-box-30016-new-picture-id576877938




The rifle bearing the serial number C2766 was the one shipped to Oswald's PO box.(the serial number is associated with the 36" rifle)
It is the rifle seen in the backyard photos.(a rifle is seen no one has been able to confirm that is the same rifle found in the TSBD)
It is the one bearing Oswald's prints both on the trigger guard and under the stock, meaning Oswald handled it both assembled (???? how does show that he handled it assembled?)and disassembled.("It" is not necessarily the rifle found in the TSBD)
It is the one found in the Depository. (this is not a fact, it is not even a reasonable assumption)

The evidence puts the rifle found in the Depository with Oswald as the owner of that rifle.( you have NOT provided any evidence that puts the 40" rifle in LHO ownership possession)



Hank

This is the first time I have seen an image saying Hidell could receive packages at this PO Box; I will, in the interim, give you that. But what continue to evade is speaking to my comments about the catalogue number referencing the 36" and not the 40" rifle. What Hidell ordered was a 36" rifle, the catalogue number sent to Hidell was 36", there is absolutely no evidence that Klein's shipped a 40" in place of the 36" rifle... yet you continue go down this path.

Hidell/LHO ordered a 36" rifle, Klein's records show that a 36" rifle was ordered and shipped, a 40" rifle was found in TSBD and yet you still claim that there is evidence that Hidell/LHO bought the 40" rifle.

Where is your evidence?

People who want to hang onto the Lone Assassin theory ignore this fact that there is no evidence linking LHO to the 40" rifle.

Hank, maybe you could look into how a serial number associated with a 36" rifle got on a 40" rifle.

 

[No Other]

Asked and answered.

The rifle bearing the serial number C2766 was shipped to Oswald.

That was the rifle found in the Depository after the assassination. That was the rifle Oswald was holding in the backyard photos.

Now, what's the evidence Oswald was shipped that gun?

We pick up Waldman talking about Klein's receipt of that specific weapon here:

Mr. WALDMAN. Referring to the various delivery receipts, copies of which we have, these are packing slips, incidentally, not receipts; these were packing receipts included in each case. It was indicated there were 10 rifles in each case.
Mr. BELIN. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; these are memos prepared by Crescent Firearms showing serial numbers of rifles that were shipped to us and each one of these represents those rifles that were contained in a case.
Mr. BELIN. Now, you earlier mentioned that these were packed with the case.
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, I would like to correct that. This particular company does not include these with the cases, but sends these memos separately with their invoice.
Mr. BELIN. Now, again, Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 is a photostatic copy. Do you have the actual copies that came to you in front of you at this time?
Mr. WALDMAN. I do.
Mr. BELIN. And is Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 an accurate photostat of these other copies?
Mr. WALDMAN. It is.
Mr. BELIN. I notice that there are numbers on each of these papers with 10 serial numbers each. I see here No. 3672, 3504 on the first photostat of Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3. Do you see that?
Mr. WALDMAN. I do.
Mr. BELIN. I'm going to ask you to search through these 10 photostats and see if you find any invoice number that has on it a serial number, C-2766.
Mr. WALDMAN. Crescent Firearms delivery memo No. 3620 covering carton or case No. 3376 does have a--indicate a rifle bearing serial No. 2766.
Mr. BELIN. Well, is it 2766 or is there a prefix to it?
Mr. WALDMAN. There is a prefix, C-2766.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0361b.htm

Mr. BELIN. And you see that as also a part of Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3; I believe you are reading from the actual document in your possession which Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3 is a photostat of; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. When a shipment of rifles is received, what is your procedure with regard to recordkeeping on the serial numbers of the rifles?
Mr. WALDMAN. We assign to each rifle a control number which is a number used by us to record the history of the gun while it is in our possession and until it is sold, thus each rifle will be tagged with both this control number and with the serial number of the rifle which is stamped on the--imprinted on the gun by the manufacturer.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have the same--does the same manufacturer give different serial numbers for each weapon that the manufacturer makes?
Mr. WALDMAN. The gun manufacturers imprint a different number on each gun. It's stamped into the frame of the gun and serves as a unique identification for each gun.
Mr. BELIN. Well, I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is the record created by us showing the control number we have assigned to the gun together with the serial number that is imprinted in the frame of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Now, this is a photostat, I believe, of records you have in front of you on your desk right now?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you find anywhere on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 4 the serial number C--2766?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And what is your control number for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Our control number for that is VC-836.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0362b.htm


And Waldman says (after going into a bit of the history of the FBI asking for their record of whom the rifle was shipped to):

Mr. BELIN. I'm handing you what has been marked as an FBI Exhibit D-77 and ask you if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a microfilm record that---of mail order transactions for a given period of time. It was turned over by us to the FBI.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know when it was turned over to the FBI?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was turned over to them on November 23, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Now, you are reading from the carton containing that microfilm. Do you know whose initials are on there?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the initials on here are mine and they were put on the date on which this was turned over to the FBI concerned with the investigation.
Mr. BELIN. You have on your premises a machine for looking at the microfilm prints?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And you can make copies of the microfilm prints?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. I wonder if we can adjourn the deposition upstairs to take a look at these records in the microfilm and get copies of the appropriate records that you found on the evening of November 22.
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
(Whereupon, the following proceedings were had at the microfilm machine.)
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm


The rifle bearing the serial number C2766 was measured and determined to be 40.2 inches. That was the rifle now in the archives. That was the rifle found in the Depository. That was the one the FBI was interested in and inquired at Klein's about. That is the one Waldman researched. And that's the one Klein's received and subsequently shipped to Oswald's PO Box 2915, Dallas, Texas.

Hank

Still with all your cut and paste efforts, you FAIL to show that a 40" was replaced as the rifle that was shipped instead of the one that ordered... plain and simple. All you have shown is that a rifle with the serial number C2766 was shipped to the PO Box. That is all you have shown.