MOVIE/DVD REVIEW -- "Oswald's Ghost"
David Von Pein
Movie & DVD review of the PBS documentary film "OSWALD'S GHOST":
Walt
> Movie & DVD review of the PBS documentary film "OSWALD'S GHOST":
>
> www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3307872-post.html
Hey Von Pea Brain.... Ya know that mountain of evidence yer always
cryin about.... It's melting.
justm...@gmail.com
Walt, you're delusional to say the least
David Von Pein
MOVIE/DVD REVIEW:
"OSWALD'S GHOST" (2007)(PBS HOME VIDEO)
=====================================
Robert Stone's "Oswald's Ghost" (released on DVD on January 15, 2008,
by PBS Home Video) is a documentary film that I enjoyed very much.
It's filled with an abundance of archival film footage surrounding the
1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, with some of this
footage belonging in the "very rare" and "never before seen" drawers
(at least as far as my exposure to JFK assassination footage is
concerned). Details about some of these rare clips are discussed later
in this review.
The 82-minute "Ghost", a part of PBS-TV's award-winning "American
Experience" series, swiftly and efficiently takes the viewer through
the "four dark days" in November of '63, when America lost its 46-year-
old leader in Dallas, Texas, after two of the three gunshots fired by
Lee Harvey Oswald found their mark and ended the short life of John
Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Director Stone (who also produced and wrote the film) tells the still-
fascinating tale of those four days in Dallas through a combination of
the previously-mentioned archival film and video clips and recent
interviews with several authors, newsmen, historians, and
assassination researchers (such as Dan Rather, Edward Epstein, Josiah
Thompson, Mark Lane, Norman Mailer, Robert Dallek, Hugh Aynesworth,
Gary Hart, Priscilla McMillan, and a few others).
There's a general anti-conspiracy and "Oswald Acted Alone" feeling
that permeates the film, but "conspiracy" talk is woven into Mr.
Stone's film many times, by way of some of the new interviews and
older news footage.
We hear Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, and Jim Garrison (among others)
giving their opinions about how a grand plot took John Kennedy's life
in Dealey Plaza.
So, although filmmaker Robert Stone is a believer in the "lone
assassin" scenario (and admits as much point-blank during an interview
that's included as a bonus on the DVD), "Oswald's Ghost" lets the
conspiracists have their say (or at least a few of them anyway), which
makes this a film, IMO, that shouldn't necessarily be deemed totally
worthless by hardline conspiracy theorists, nor by most of the members
of the "Anybody But Oswald" club.*
* = Although, having stated the above, author and long-time conspiracy
advocate Robert J. Groden, after seeing a special preview of the movie
in November 2007, was quoted as saying that the film is "a horrible,
horrible piece of crap".
And Mr. Groden is even shown on camera a couple of times in the film,
and not in an especially bad light either. He also gets some air time
in one of the DVD's special features.
So Groden's vitriolic reaction to the film has me shrugging my
shoulders in bewilderment a tad bit.
My favorite quote from "Oswald's Ghost" is this one by soft-spoken
author Priscilla McMillan:
"He {Lee Oswald} had done very difficult things in his life, and he'd
done them alone. Anybody who thinks that he wasn't capable of planning
something and carrying it off alone....is wrong."
McMillan is unique to the "JFK" world in multiple ways. In addition to
being Marina Oswald's biographer, she not only interviewed Lee Oswald
personally in Russia in 1959, but she also knew and worked for a young
Senator from Massachusetts named Jack Kennedy in 1953.
McMillan, therefore, is almost certainly the only person in the world
who had personal contact with both JFK and his assassin.
There's a very good short and to-the-point observation made by Edward
Epstein in the film too -- "After forty years, none of the
{conspiracy} theories pan out."
Perhaps films like "Oswald's Ghost" and Vincent Bugliosi's hefty but
magnificent 2007 lone-assassin book, "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy", can reduce (by at least a
few notches) the ridiculously-high percentage of people in America who
still believe that a conspiracy existed to kill JFK in Dallas.
The percentage of conspiracy believers is approximately 75%, as of the
latest Gallup poll, taken in November of 2003.
--------------------------------------
Here's a selected sampling of some of the rare video and film footage
(plus some rarely-heard audio clips too) that is scattered throughout
"Oswald's Ghost":
>> Some vivid color film clips of President Kennedy's flag-draped casket on its caisson during one of the weekend's solemn processions through Washington, D.C.
>> A brief color clip of President Lyndon Johnson placing flowers on JFK's grave, filmed sometime after Kennedy's funeral (probably in 1964).
>> There's a fantastic 1966 black-and-white BBC-TV excerpt of Mark Lane arguing with Warren Commission counsel member Arlen Specter about the controversial Single-Bullet Theory. David Belin of the WC can also be glimpsed briefly in this clip.
>> 1991 behind-the-scenes footage, in color, on the set of Oliver Stone's blockbuster movie, "JFK". A portion of an interview with Director Oliver Stone is included here too.
>> Rare 11/22/63 audio excerpts from the Dallas Police Department radio tapes (recorded just after JFK was shot).
>> Audio recording of a drugged Perry Russo ("star" witness for Jim Garrison at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969). (This is a howl too.)
>> A segment from CBS-TV's 1964 news special, "The Warren Report", which aired the very day the Warren Commission's 888-page final report was made available to the public (September 27, 1964). B&W.
>> Marguerite Oswald, LHO's mother, is featured in a black-and-white news clip that's not seen too often. It includes the hilarious statement made by Marguerite at the cemetery as she was visiting the grave of her murdered son. Yes, Marguerite was distraught over her son's death, but this comment she made at the cemetery is just simply hysterical (there's no other way to define it):
"Lee Harvey Oswald, my son, even after his death, has done more for
his
country than any other living human being."
Hugh Aynesworth gets in a good jab at Marguerite's expense during this
film too, when he said: "Oswald's mother, Marguerite, was one of the
weirdest people I've ever run into."
>> There's also a B&W film snippet from a news conference with lawyer Mark Lane sitting next to his new client, Marguerite Oswald.
>> Jack Ruby, Lee Oswald's killer, can be heard in an audio recording made in 1966.
>> Two LBJ audio clips -- one of them has President Johnson talking on the phone with FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on November 29, 1963 (the very day that Johnson created the Warren Commission to investigate JFK's murder).
The other clip, from September 18, 1964, features part of a telephone
conversation between LBJ and Commission member Richard Russell, as
they discuss the assassination and the soon-to-be-released Warren
Report.
--------------------------------------
The number of old video/film clips that can be found in "Oswald's
Ghost" (and the rarely-seen nature of some of these) puts me in mind
of another good documentary centering on the same subject, "The Murder
Of JFK: A Revisionist History", an award-winning film that was made in
1999 and released on DVD in February 2006.
"Revisionist", like "Oswald's Ghost", is a worthy film for avid
collectors of JFK-related programs too, mainly for the large amount of
historic 1960s-era video and filmed material that it contains.
And a third Kennedy documentary film, "Four Days In November", is yet
another movie that earns high marks in the "vintage film footage"
category.
In fact, in my own personal opinion, the Academy Award-nominated "Four
Days In November" (which was released in theaters in late 1964, less
than a year after the assassination) is the cream of the crop when it
comes to films or TV programs associated with the JFK assassination. I
haven't seen it topped by any other movie or television documentary
yet.
--------------------------------------
DVD BONUS FEATURES:
Three items are on the "Special Features" menu of the "Oswald's Ghost"
DVD. Here's a quick look:
1.) "A Visit To Dealey Plaza" --- Now here's something that ought to
appeal to conspiracy-thirsty people. This bonus, filmed in Dallas'
Dealey Plaza (probably in 2007), consists of 9-and-a-half minutes of
non-stop, mile-a-minute JFK conspiracy talk.
For the first seven minutes of this torture, we're treated to some nut
who is perched up on the Grassy Knoll in the Plaza, armed with a thick
notebook full of assorted conspiracy-flavored tripe.
This guy has got his conspiracy spiel down cold, I've got to give him
credit for that, as he rattles off one unprovable theory after
another, including everything from soup to nuts it would seem (much
like Oliver Stone's "let's throw in the kitchen sink too" approach to
the case).
Yes, it's torture to sit through to a degree....and yet this man (a
Mr. Russell) is strangely compelling and easy to listen to at the same
time, despite the ridiculous position he is taking regarding how the
assassination of the President occurred.
And, yes, sure enough, Mr. Russell even believes that "Umbrella Man"
was part of the covert plot to kill Kennedy....and he also believes
that the "three tramps" were a major part of the murder plot too,
including the fable about one of the tramps being E. Howard Hunt.
The tramps, of course, have since been fully identified as just that--
tramps--and not conspirators, but tell that to Mr. Russell, who you
can no doubt find on the Knoll this very minute, peddling his pro-
conspiracy wares.
The final two-plus minutes of this bonus feature focus attention on
famous researcher and conspiracist Robert Groden, as he gives one of
his many talks to the visitors of Dealey Plaza.
Groden has set himself up a stand for selling his assassination books
and goods in a nicely-shaded area on the steps that lead up the Grassy
Knoll on the west side of the Plaza.
Bob doesn't talk quite as fast as our other conspiracy theorist
featured in this bonus supplement, but his theories are just as
preposterous and unsupportable by the evidence (of course).
Mr. Groden, for the trivia-minded out there who might not know this,
was born on November 22. He turned 18 on the day of JFK's death.
So, coincidences CAN, indeed, occur. And do. ;)
~~~~~~
2.) "The Zapruder Film And Beyond" --- This 22-minute DVD add-on
supplement is a "talking heads" piece, with various of the
participants from the main feature (plus Louis Stokes, the Chairman of
the House Select Committee on Assassintions) providing a dialogue
about Abraham Zapruder's infamous 26-second home movie, which shows
JFK being shot and killed in full color.
There's some other general "conspiracy vs. no conspiracy" discussion
included here as well. This is pretty basic stuff. My favorite part of
this bonus is when Mark Lane talks about how he took a copy of the
Zapruder Film off the desk of New Orleans District Attorney Jim
Garrison and then arranged for 100 copies of the film to be made and
distributed "everyplace". <chuckle>
~~~~~~
3.) "Interview With Robert Stone" --- This interview lasts almost 16
minutes. Among other things, Stone talks about how he was able to
unearth some never-before-seen film footage connected to the events of
11/22/63.
I think the best comment in the interview is when Mr. Stone says: "The
mantra in making the film was always, This is not a 'whodunnit'...this
is a 'what the whodunnit has done to us'. That's what it's about."
All three DVD bonus programs are presented in Anamorphic Widescreen
format (1.85:1), with Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo audio.
--------------------------------------
DVD STATS & SPECS (FOR MAIN FEATURE):
Video: Anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1).
Audio: Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround and a Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo
soundtrack.
Subtitles: None. (But Closed-Captioning is provided.)
The movie is divided into 13 DVD chapters. The chapters (or scenes)
are titled as follows:
1. Introduction
2. The Prime Suspect
3. Oswald In Custody
4. Oswald's Assassin
5. The Commission Investigates
6. The Warren Report
7. Re-examining The Evidence
8. Jim Garrison's Allegations
9. Murders Of MLK & RFK
10. The Church Committee & The CIA
11. Conspiracy Theories
12. Oswald's Ghost
13. Credits
--------------------------------------
FINAL "GHOST" ANALYSIS:
There's nothing really super-extraordinary or shocking or ultra-
spectacular about "Oswald's Ghost". It's just a good, solid, well-
constructed documentary film on the death of America's 35th President.
I suppose some people who viewed this movie wanted some kind of "new
evidence" or heretofore-undiscovered revelation to be unveiled by
Robert Stone within this film. Alas, that's not to be. And that, in my
opinion, is mainly due to the following fact: There is nothing "new"
to be unveiled concerning the way John F. Kennedy died on November 22,
1963.
JFK was shot by a lone loser named Lee Harvey Oswald. And that lone
loser who hated America and its "representatives" just happened to own
a cheap mail-order rifle and he also just happened to work in a
building that overlooked the very last portion of President Kennedy's
motorcade route through Dallas.
The combination of things I just mentioned above was a lethal
combination. And it's also, whether you want to believe it or not, a
combination of circumstances brought about by nothing except pure
garden-variety coincidence and happenstance.
Lee Oswald's very own brother, Robert, said pretty much the same thing
during an interview a few years ago:
"It is my belief--my conviction--no one but Lee was involved--
period. .... He had problems at home. He had problems on his job. He
was completely frustrated about what was going on around him. This is
not EXCUSING what he did. This is UNDERSTANDING what he did. He wanted
to be somebody. And this opportunity came about coincidental. Nothing
planned. Nothin' organized. It HAPPENED that way. It's one of those
happenstances of history." -- Robert Oswald; 2003
So, if you want to watch a well-made, non-sensationalistic documentary
about President John F. Kennedy's murder and the events associated
with it, you'll certainly want to pick up this DVD.
If you want sensationalism and lots of complicated and impossible-to-
pull-off conspiracy plots, then I'd suggest opting for the 1991 movie
"JFK" (helmed by that other director named "Stone").
David Von Pein
January 2008
David Von Pein
>>> "DVP, like so many other Warren Report apologists, I'm afraid you've been misled by imposter-CTers on the CIA payroll whose job it was to discredit real CTers and muddy the waters by creating the "LBJ did it" false lead. Another popular false lead is the "Mafia did it." If your impression of CTers in general stems from a passing acquaintance with works of these imposter-CTers (seeing them picked apart by grandfatherly authorities on network TV specials, for instance), you are correct to question their investigations and CTers in general. However, a close examination of the facts at the hands of real CTers like Mark Lane...." <<<
I'll stop you right here with the words "Real CTers like Mark Lane" --
i.e., the same Mark Lane who shamelessly and disgracefully tried to
shove a particular word down the throat of Tippit murder witness Helen
Markham.
And this is also the same Mark Lane who refused (at first) to hand
over to the Warren Commission the tape recording of his despicable
phone call with Markham.
And this is also the same Mark Lane who, in the 1967 film version of
his '66 book "Rush To Judgment", was trying to shove several already-
thoroughly-debunked conspiracy ideas down the gullets of the
unsuspecting and ignorant viewers of his film -- e.g., trying to get
the public to swallow the idea, as late as 1967 (!), that Lee Oswald
might very well have been located in the doorway of the TSBD after all
(instead of Billy N. Lovelady)....and Lane's pathetic attempts to take
Oswald off of Cecil McWatters' bus by telling his movie audience only
the piecemeal information about the "bus" incident that Lane wanted
his viewers to hear.
Lane totally ignored Mary Bledsoe's positive IDing of Oswald on the
bus, with Lane choosing, instead, to prop up the Oswald/Milton Jones
mix-up and the fact that driver McWatters wasn't positive about his
LHO identification later on.
And re. "Doorway Man": Lane decided that Lovelady's VERY OWN W.C.
TESTIMONY, wherein Lovelady drew an arrow to himself in the famous
Altgens photo, wasn't good enough to determine who Doorway Man really
was/is.
This, then, is the type of "Real CTer" that Mr. Randall Sellers (and
many other conspiracists like him) enjoy utilizing in order to try and
prop up their imagined conspiracy plots surrounding the death of the
35th U.S. Chief Executive.
I, however, prefer to call a spade a spade....and Mark Lane, it seems
to me, is pretty much the very same kind of CTer as Jim Garrison, Jim
Marrs, David Lifton, Robert Groden, John Armstrong, and Jim Fetzer
(among many other CT "authors"), i.e., a person who desperately WANTS
a conspiracy to exist in the JFK case....and wants it so badly he's
willing to do things like this to help in meeting that goal (see the
links below):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lane_m2.htm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8a64790b792f771f
>>> "Try reading 'Plausible Denial' cover-to-cover (read it again if necessary); then get back to me and we can have a real discussion." <<<
Yeah, then we can have a "real" discussion based on the "discoveries"
of a "real CTer" with a "conspiracy" agenda a mile wide, who believes
that the evil CIA was involved in killing their own President.
I'd suggest, instead, that you take a look at the 12 pages of the
"Mark Lane" chapter in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book (it's the 18th
chapter within the new JFK Bible, "Reclaiming History").
Yes, it's only a twelve-page chapter on Lane, but Bugliosi nicely and
succinctly reveals Mr. Lane for what he is....such as these three
sample excerpts:
"Assistant Warren Commission counsel Wesley J. Liebeler says
that..."if {Mark Lane} talks for five minutes, it takes an hour to
straighten out the record"." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 1001 of
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
~~~~~~
"It is nothing short of incredible that Lane, who finds room in
his book {"Rush To Judgment"} for 353 people who he claimed were
connected in some way to the Kennedy case, couldn't find room for a
single paragraph on people like {Robert} Jackson, {Johnny} Brewer, and
{Police Officer M.N.} McDonald." -- VB; Page 1003 of "RH"
~~~~~~
"The transcript of the tape {a taped telephone call between Mark
Lane and Helen Markham on March 2, 1964}, revealing Lane's gross and
tawdry effort to put words into the mouth of Mrs. Markham, shows why
Lane desperately sought to prevent the Commission from hearing
it. .... The tape had revealed {Lane's} blatant attempt to improperly
influence, almost FORCE {Markham} to say what he wanted her to say."
-- VB; Pages 1008-1009 of "RH"
====================
Two bonus VB excerpts (provided free of charge):
"In the Kennedy case, I believe the absence of a conspiracy can
be proved to a virtual certainty." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 973 of "RH"
~~~~~~
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the
tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty
pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or
she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal
witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the
equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to
the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain
everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vince
Bugliosi; Page xliii of "RH"
David Von Pein
>>> "The reason {Mark} Lane is grilling Mrs. Markham in the text quoted by McAdams is because she CHANGED HER STORY. Lane's method of questioning here is commonplace in any courtroom, especially in view of the fact that she had given, for the record, two conflicting descriptions. .... To call Lane's standard grilling "gross and tawdry" is pathetic hyperbole." <<<
That must be why Mr. Lane was so desperate to keep the Warren
Commission from hearing that taped recording between himself and Mrs.
Markham, huh?
If Lane's techniques heard on the audio tape were so "commonplace",
and it could be proven that Markham "changed her story" (i.e., told
the press and/or the police one thing about J.D. Tippit's killer being
a "stocky man with bushy hair" and told Mr. Lane something else
entirely), then there would be no reason under the moon why Mark Lane
would be so embarrassed and hesitant about turning over that tape
recording to the WC when he was asked to do so by the Commission.
And make no mistake....Lane was very embarrassed and quite hesitant
over that tape recording. That's obvious when reading his WC testimony
(below link):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/lane_m2.htm
>>> "After the assassination Marina Oswald was installed at the Six Flags Inn by the FBI and basically held captive and incommunicado for months while Priscilla Johnson got friendly with her." <<<
Oh....that's what you meant by "locked up". (Geez.)
Anyway -- yes, I'm familiar with Marina's lengthy motel stay. But to
hear you tell it via your earlier post, I had the impression you were
of the opinion that Marina was in handcuffs with burly armed guards
around her 24/7.
Let's now watch Mr. Sellers' imagination work wonders on Mrs.
Priscilla Johnson-McMillan, shall we?
The next hunks of unsupportable conspiracy-flavored idiocy being
offered up by Randall are rather typical of the mindset possessed by a
conspiracy-loving person who has spent a goodly amount of time in the
"CT" camp. I.E., lots of accusations and not a speck of PROOF to back
any of them up.
CTers don't have any problem at all with calling many, many innocent
people "CIA operatives" or "liars" or "shills" or "dupes" or outright
murderers for that matter. Just as long as Lee Harvey Oswald's skirts
can remain clean, these CTers are pleased. (Or, at the very least, as
long as LHO can be looked upon as the proverbial "patsy" in the case.)
You're up, Randy.....
>>> "Priscilla {Johnson-McMillan}, that old grandmotherly regular on the propaganda-documentary circuit, a so-called journalist who was caught lying about her State Dept. [read: CIA] employment and who happened to be on hand when the magic bus tickets *finally* appeared in a Spanish language television guide that Oswald, *we are asked to believe*, brought back from Mexico City. Oh and Priscilla was in Moscow in '59 and "happened" to meet Oswald there. Anyway, Marina was denied a lawyer, not allowed to give interviews, drilled by the FBI on "what really happened", etc." <<<
There's really no comment needed here. Just a dropped jaw, as I
continue to be in total awe of the strange and bewildering "CT
mindset" that many people in this world possess when it comes to the
topic of John F. Kennedy's assassination and its aftermath.
As I've said before on other forums, the motto of many conspiracy
theorists seems to be -- ACCUSE NOW; PROVE NEVER.
Simply amazing.
>>> "It's not that Warren Commission evidence lacks credibility across the board; it's just that, between their CIA man (Dulles, then unemployed and hence available for more sessions than most of the others) and their FBI man (Ford), their investigation was steered around the trouble spots, and when the dodgy evidence for Oswald in Mexico City came up (audio tape, photo), both had already been determined by the FBI to NOT be Oswald, so when the WC asked to see the audio tape, the CIA said it had been destroyed (confirmed lie), and the WC accepted an affadavit on behalf of the photo, which they never saw. But the Warren Report would have the reader believe that this stuff established Oswald in Mexico City. As I said before, the Warren case would not convince a real jury, and in fact did not convince the American people." <<<
Now is a good time to repeat the previously-mentioned motto of a CTer
the likes of Randall Sellers:
Accuse Now; Prove Never!
Randall can't provide a stitch of proof for the anti-WC accusations he
directly implies above....but that won't stop him from writing them
out on a public forum here at Amazon.com.
Randall surely also knows that Lee Harvey Oswald's trip to Mexico City
in late September of 1963 is WELL DOCUMENTED from start to finish,
with a paper trail of hotel records (with Oswald's OWN SIGNATURE ON
THEM) and eyewitnesses who saw and TALKED TO Oswald on the bus on the
way down to Mexico City.
The photographs and taped recordings of Oswald at the Embassies aren't
even needed to establish the provable and undeniable FACT that Lee
Harvey Oswald travelled to Mexico City in September of '63.
Oswald's own wife, Marina, also provided a large wealth of testimony
in front of the Warren Commission, detailing her husband's trip to
Mexico (at some length too) and about how she and Lee DISCUSSED IT
TOGETHER after his return to Texas in early October. Via Marina's
words ALONE, we can know that Lee Oswald went to Mexico City in late
September '63.*
* = Of course, since the testimony in question was being conducted by
the Warren Commission, an organization that Randall hates and
distrusts so much, I suppose it's useless and worthless testimony as
far as Mr. Sellers is concerned.
That's another typical CTer ploy -- distrust EVERYONE in "officialdom"
for the most part. Unless, of course, it suits the "pro-conspiracy"
needs of a particular theorist, then that CTer will almost certainly
latch onto those parts of the Government's story in a heartbeat.
Anyway, a CTer's distrust of all Government entities notwithstanding,
here's a hefty portion of what Marina Oswald had to say with respect
to LHO's 1963 Mexico City excursion (via Marina's WC session on
February 3, 1964):
MARINA OSWALD -- "I wrote a letter to Mrs. Paine telling her that Lee
was out of work, and they invited me to come and stay with her. And
when I left her, I knew that Lee would go to Mexico City. But, of
course, I didn't tell Mrs. Paine about it."
J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had he discussed with you the idea of going to
Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes."
MR. RANKIN -- "When did he first discuss that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "I think it was in August."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you why he wanted to go to Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "From Mexico City he wanted to go to Cuba--perhaps
through the Russian Embassy in Mexico somehow he would be able to get
to Cuba."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he say anything about going to Russia by way of
Cuba?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "I know that he said that in the embassy. But he only
said so. I know that he had no intention of going to Russia then."
MR. RANKIN -- "How do you know that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He told me. I know Lee fairly well--well enough from
that point of view."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "When your husband talked about going to Mexico City,
did he say where he was going to go there, who he would visit?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes. He said that he would go to the Soviet Embassy
and to the Cuban Embassy and would do everything he could in order to
get to Cuba."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you where he would stay in Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "In a hotel."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you the name?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "No, he didn't know where he would stop."
MR. RANKIN -- "Was there any discussion about the expense of making
the trip?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes. But we always lived very modestly, and Lee always
had some savings. Therefore, he had the money for it."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he say how much it would cost?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He had a little over $100 and he said that that would
be sufficient."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Do you know how he got to Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "By bus."
MR. RANKIN -- "And did he return by bus also?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "It seems, yes. Yes, he told me that a round-trip
ticket was cheaper than two one-way tickets."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you anything about his trip to Mexico
City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he told me that he had visited the two embassies,
that he had received nothing, that the people who are there are too
much---too bureaucratic. He said that he has spent the time pretty
well. And I had told him that if he doesn't accomplish anything to at
least take a good rest. I was hoping that the climate, if nothing
else, would be beneficial to him."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did you ask him what he did the rest of the time?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, I think he said that he visited a bull fight,
that he spent most of his time in museums, and that he did some
sightseeing in the city."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you what people he talked to?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He said that he first visited the Soviet Embassy in
the hope that having been there first this would make it easier for
him at the Cuban Embassy. But there they refused to have anything to
do with him."
MR. RANKIN -- "And what did he say about the visit to the Cuban
Embassy or consulate?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "It was quite without results."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he complain about the consular or any of the
officials of the Cuban Embassy and the way they handled the matter?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he called them bureaucrats. He said that the
Cubans seemed to have a system similar to the Russians--too much red
tape before you get through there."
[Later....]
MR. RANKIN -- "Mrs. Oswald, you told us about your knowledge about the
trip to Mexico and said that you were under oath and were going to
tell us all about what you knew. Did your husband ever ask you not to
disclose what you knew about the Mexican trip?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes."
MR. RANKIN -- "And when was that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Before he left. I had remained and he was supposed to
leave on the next day, and he warned me not to tell anyone about it."
MR. RANKIN -- "After he returned to Dallas from his Mexico trip, did
he say anything to you then about not telling he had been to Mexico?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he asked me whether I had told Ruth about it or
anyone else, and I told him no, and he said that I should keep quiet
about it."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
==============
In short, the conspiracy theorists who still to this very day think
that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico City in late September and
early October of 1963 (and think that Oswald was merely being
"impersonated" down in Mexico) are just plain nuts.
It's as simple as that.
>>> "As for Mr. Fritz of the Dallas police and his claim of no tape recorder-- oh, please. Do you honestly believe that sorry excuse? There was no shortage of tape recorders in Dallas on 11/22/63, and the FBI interrogated LHO too. If they could hustle the President's body onto Air Force One by 2pm that afternoon, someone would have provided a tape recorder for the interrogation of LHO in the 36 hours that followed, especially if they actually *believed that he was working for the Russians*, to learn all they could. But they didn't." <<<
I can't say that I haven't thought it a little odd that the Dallas
Police Department, as of 11/22/63, was lacking any kind of device for
tape recording the interrogations of arrested suspects. That does seem
a bit strange, I don't deny that. And it's even odder that they
couldn't have gotten a stenographer (at least) in the room to take
down the words spoken by Oswald.
But I'm certainly not prepared to call 31-year veteran DPD Homicide
Captain J. Will Fritz a bald-faced liar when he said these words to
the WC in 1964:
"I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if we had one at
this time we could have handled these conversations far better. .... I
have requested one several times but so far they haven't gotten me
one."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
What the conspiracy theorists need to do, it seems to me, in this
particularly instance, is to dig back into the DPD records and
archives and somehow PROVE to the world that it was the NORMAL POLICY
of the Dallas City Police Department (or the FBI for that matter) to
officially record or transcribe the verbatim words of a suspect during
that suspect's DPD/FBI interrogation sessions.
I have yet to see any CTer come up with any proof or documentation at
all that would establish the fact that it WAS, indeed, standard
operating procedure for the DPD to tape record (or transcribe) every
word spoken by an arrested prisoner. (Versus merely jotting down some
notes of the interrogations, which is what occurred in Oswald's case.)
And if it can be established that it was NORMAL for the DPD and/or FBI
to NOT tape or transcribe a prisoner's statements (circa 1963), then
the whole issue of "Why Didn't The Police Record LHO's
Interrogations?" becomes a completely moot one altogether.
aeffects
> www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencodi...
>
you ought to be charged with cyber-littering.... LMFAO
aeffects
> www.amazon.com/review/R1S95P93PLA7OF/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?%5Fencodi...
>
>
> >>> "A "simple human error" like Weitzman's might have satisfied the WC and its apologists (including CBS in following directions of the CIA in their Document #1035-960), but a defense lawyer and sitting jury would have had further questions regarding the {Mauser vs. Carcano} mixup. .... The 13 railroad workers and 2 policemen who were watching the motorcade from the railroad bridge, directly over Elm Street, had the best view of the grassy knoll. None of these railroad men were called before the WC. 4 were questioned by WC's counsel, 9 by FBI agents (four months after the assassination, no transcripts). 11 of them indicated they thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. 7 or 8 actually saw smoke behind the fence. The WC's interpetation? "No credible evidence" to suggest the shots were fired anywhere but the TSBD. Unbelievable, literally." <<<
>
> So, Weitzman decided to go on nationwide TV in June 1967 and lie his
> backside off, rather than just simply refuse to appear on the CBS
> documentary special....right?
>
> And Dr. Humes did the very same thing when he said the following to
> Dan Rather of CBS News in the same '67 Warren Report Special, right?
> (Instead of merely saying "no thanks" when asked to appear in front of
> the TV cameras. Somebody was holding a gun to Weitzman's and Humes'
> heads, I guess, huh?).....
>
> DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"
>
> DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head;
> yes, sir."
>
> RATHER -- "And that was where?"
>
> DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to
> the right of the mid-line posteriorly."
>
> RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"
>
> DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the
> front and right side of the President's head."
>
> RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you
> describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"
>
> DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and
> incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed
> the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a
> characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the
> skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from
> behind and passed forward through the President's skull."
>
> RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific
> evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"
>
> DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."
>
> RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the
> President's head was the entry wound?"
>
> DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."
>
> ============
>
> I've got to give Mr. Sellers credit though. He is definitely well-
> versed in his conspiracy lore....right down to citing specific covert
> CIA document numbers. (I wonder how Randall became privy to such under-
> the-table info and data? One can only shrug and stare in bewilderment.)
David Von Pein
>>> "A "simple human error" like Weitzman's might have satisfied the WC and its apologists (including CBS in following directions of the CIA in their Document #1035-960), but a defense lawyer and sitting jury would have had further questions regarding the {Mauser vs. Carcano} mixup. .... The 13 railroad workers and 2 policemen who were watching the motorcade from the railroad bridge, directly over Elm Street, had the best view of the grassy knoll. None of these railroad men were called before the WC. 4 were questioned by WC's counsel, 9 by FBI agents (four months after the assassination, no transcripts). 11 of them indicated they thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. 7 or 8 actually saw smoke behind the fence. The WC's interpetation? "No credible evidence" to suggest the shots were fired anywhere but the TSBD. Unbelievable, literally." <<<
So, Weitzman decided to go on nationwide TV in June 1967 and lie his
backside off, rather than just simply refuse to appear on the CBS
documentary special....right?
And Dr. Humes did the very same thing when he said the following
things to Dan Rather of CBS News in the same '67 Warren Report
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae