Oswald's "Reaction" At The Midnight Press Conference
David Von Pein
AT IMDB.COM, SOMEONE WITH THE USERNAME "ALCOCER-2" SAID:
>>> "That look he [Lee Oswald] gives when told he is being charged with the President's murder is priceless." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I think there might be just a small bit of a "surprised" reaction on
Oswald's face for just an instant after the reporter tells him (for
the second time): "You have been charged" with JFK's murder.
But, in my opinion, the major reaction that I see from Oswald at his
famous midnight press conference is more DISGUST and ANNOYANCE. (Poor
Lee Harvey truly looks annoyed and PUT OUT when he's being removed
from that room right after his brief press conference.)
In other words [simulating Oswald's feelings at that moment]--"HOW
DARE THEY TREAT ME LIKE THIS! ALL I DID WAS KILL THE PRESIDENT AND A
POLICEMAN! I'M GONNA SUE THESE DAMN COPS FOR CHARGING ME WITH AN
ASSASSINATION I COMMITTED!"
Now, when analyzing this a little bit more, since all reasonable
people who have studied the JFK assassination know beyond any and all
doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy, this
immutable FACT of Oswald's guilt HAS to mean that Oswald could not
possibly have been VERY surprised by the news that he was being
officially charged with the President's murder.
Knowing that he assassinated Kennedy AND that he had left a popcorn
trail of physical evidence behind on the sixth floor of the Book
Depository Building AND that he had been arrested earlier in the day
on a charge of murdering a policeman, Oswald therefore couldn't
possibly have thought that he WOULDN'T eventually be officially
charged with the President's murder too.
Unless Oswald was completely retarded (which he certainly wasn't), he
had to realize that Presidential assassins aren't normally given just
a light slap on the wrist and a $10 fine for having assassinated a
U.S. President.
Given these undeniable facts regarding Oswald's guilt, there's no way
that Lee Harvey could have been shocked very much (if at all) when the
reporter told him he had already been charged with JFK's
assassination.
Here's my guess (and I fully admit this is just a wild guess, and I
certainly could be wrong about this)---
Oswald looked a little bit surprised possibly due to the fact that a
NEWS REPORTER was breaking the news to him that he was being charged
with the death of the President.
This was probably a very unusual case where the prisoner (being held
in a police station, with policemen and detectives all around him for
ten hours!) first learned of a murder charge against him from a news
reporter, instead of first learning of that murder charge from the
police themselves. This possibly startled and surprised Oswald a
little bit, to hear that news FIRST from a newsman, vs. the cops who
were surrounding him.
Again, that's just a pure guess on my part. But there's no way in
Hades that Oswald truly thought he WOULDN'T be charged with JFK's
murder, in light of the massive amount of evidence he conveniently
left behind (not to mention the circumstantial stuff, such as the many
lies he told the police in those first ten hours of interrogation).
=========================================
OSWALD'S MIDNIGHT PRESS CONFERENCE (FILM AND VIDEOTAPE VERSIONS):
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/lee-harvey-oswald.html
=========================================
David Von Pein
ADDENDUM TO THREAD-STARTER:
I'll also add this -- It's quite possible that Oswald didn't even hear
the reporter when he said "You have been charged". There was quite a
bit of noise in that room at that particular time, so maybe Oswald
didn't even hear the reporter. On the videotape version of the
midnight press conference, the reporter's words "You have been
charged" are, indeed, quite audible and clear. But from where Oswald
was standing, I'm wondering if he heard those words as clearly as we
do on the videotape? We can never know this for certain, of course.
But if, in fact, Oswald didn't even hear the reporter, it puts a whole
new light on any "reaction" that we see on LHO's face, because under
those conditions, it would obviously mean that Oswald's reaction
wasn't one of "surprise" at all.
Anthony Marsh
>
> AT IMDB.COM, SOMEONE WITH THE USERNAME "ALCOCER-2" SAID:
>
>>>> "That look he [Lee Oswald] gives when told he is being charged with the President's murder is priceless."<<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>
> I think there might be just a small bit of a "surprised" reaction on
> Oswald's face for just an instant after the reporter tells him (for
> the second time): "You have been charged" with JFK's murder.
>
> But, in my opinion, the major reaction that I see from Oswald at his
> famous midnight press conference is more DISGUST and ANNOYANCE. (Poor
> Lee Harvey truly looks annoyed and PUT OUT when he's being removed
> from that room right after his brief press conference.)
>
Now you're reduced to solving this case by psychobabble.
pjsp...@aol.com
back and to the left motion after frame 313, the response of Oswald to
being charged is one of the main reasons so many think he was a patsy. I
remember, years before I ever saw the footage, my mom telling me how
Oswald sneered and smirked at the midnight press conference. When I
started researching the case, I noticed how men like Posner routinely
described Oswald's reaction as a self-satisfied smirk, or some such thing.
I even found references to Oswald's smirk in reputable publications within
weeks of the assassination. So, when I finally saw the footage, I was
absolutely shocked by what I witnessed. Oswald was completely DEFLATED by
the news he'd been charged, and almost started crying! The "smirk" and
:"self- satisfaction" so widely reported was a LIE.
While this by no means proves his innocence. it is strong evidence that
the "Oswald did it because he wanted to show everyone how great he was"
argument is nonsense. Towards the end of his life, Norman Mailer decided
Oswald did it, and decided he did it IN HOPES he'd receive the trial of
the century, so he could show everyone how smart he was. The actual tape
of Oswald's response proves this to be the pathetic musings of a once
bright man whose brightness had dimmed considerably. Whether Oswald was
guilty or not guilty of killing Kennedy, he clearly hoped he would not be
charged with the crime.
Gary Buell
> AT IMDB.COM, SOMEONE WITH THE USERNAME "ALCOCER-2" SAID:
>
> >>> "That look he [Lee Oswald] gives when told he is being charged with
the President's murder is priceless." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I think there might be just a small bit of a "surprised" reaction on
> Oswald's face for just an instant after the reporter tells him (for
> the second time): "You have been charged" with JFK's murder.
>
> But, in my opinion, the major reaction that I see from Oswald at his
> famous midnight press conference is more DISGUST and ANNOYANCE. (Poor
> Lee Harvey truly looks annoyed and PUT OUT when he's being removed
> from that room right after his brief press conference.)
>
> In other words [simulating Oswald's feelings at that moment]--"HOW
> DARE THEY TREAT ME LIKE THIS! ALL I DID WAS KILL THE PRESIDENT AND A
> POLICEMAN! I'M GONNA SUE THESE DAMN COPS FOR CHARGING ME WITH AN
> ASSASSINATION I COMMITTED!"
>
> Now, when analyzing this a little bit more, since all reasonable
> people who have studied the JFK assassination know beyond any and all
> doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy, this
> immutable FACT of Oswald's guilt HAS to mean that Oswald could not
> possibly have been VERY surprised by the news that he was being
> officially charged with the President's murder.
I'm a reasonable person and have studied the assassination. I believe
there was a conspiracy beyond Oswald. Therefore your statement is not
true. But god knows i have no interest in debating it with you.
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> ADDENDUM TO THREAD-STARTER:
>
>
>
> I'll also add this -- It's quite possible that Oswald didn't even hear
> the reporter when he said "You have been charged". There was quite a
> bit of noise in that room at that particular time, so maybe Oswald
It's clear that Oswald is reacting to a policeman YELLING out that he
has been charged.
> didn't even hear the reporter. On the videotape version of the
> midnight press conference, the reporter's words "You have been
> charged" are, indeed, quite audible and clear. But from where Oswald
> was standing, I'm wondering if he heard those words as clearly as we
> do on the videotape? We can never know this for certain, of course.
>
Of course we will, if certain people will stop covering up evidence.
David Von Pein
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/lee-harvey-oswald.html
PAT SPEER OPINED:
>>> "David, your response to this reeks of desperation." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
LOL. Thanks, Pat.
Now, continue reading and we'll see who the "desperate" one is....
PAT SPEER SAID:
>>> "Outside of Kennedy's back and to the left motion after frame 313, the response of Oswald to being charged is one of the main reasons so many think he was a patsy." <<<
DVP SAID:
Very weak in both instances, Pat. If those two things are the BEST
that the "He Was A Patsy" conspiracy theorists can muster, then Earl
Warren and his Commission's conclusions are home free.
PAT SPEER SAID:
>>> "I remember, years before I ever saw the footage, my mom telling me how Oswald sneered and smirked at the midnight press conference. When I started researching the case, I noticed how men like Posner routinely described Oswald's reaction as a self-satisfied smirk, or some such thing. I even found references to Oswald's smirk in reputable publications within weeks of the assassination. So, when I finally saw the footage, I was absolutely shocked by what I witnessed. Oswald was completely DEFLATED by the news he'd been charged, and almost started crying! The "smirk" and "self-satisfaction" so widely reported was a LIE." <<<
Regardless of WHO is doing the examining of Oswald's "reaction" to
being told by a newsman that he had been charged with JFK's murder,
it's always going to be a purely subjective opinion. I fully admit
that, too.
But, in my own subjective opinion, I think Oswald's reaction is more
akin to ANNOYANCE and IRRITATION than it is SURPRISE and/or DEFLATION.
As I explained in my first post, since all reasonable people have got
to know Oswald killed Kennedy, then how on Earth could Oswald have
really and truly been TOTALLY SURPRISED (or SHOCKED) by the news that
he was being charged with the murder that Oswald HAD committed about
twelve hours earlier in Dealey Plaza?
Answer: He couldn't.
But your "almost started crying" remark was a nice touch, though, Pat.
(Maybe Mr. Speer is showing some of that "desperation" he attributed
to me a little while ago. Ya think?)
PAT SPEER SAID:
>>> "Whether Oswald was guilty or not guilty of killing Kennedy, he clearly hoped he would not be charged with the crime." <<<
DVP SAID:
Well, I guess O.J. Simpson also "hoped" he wouldn't be charged with
the two murders he committed in 1994. But a lot of times "hope" and
"reality" don't go together. So, whether or not Oswald held out any
"hope" for not being officially charged with the crime of
assassinating President Kennedy, the stark REALITY of the situation
(based on the EVIDENCE of Oswald's guilt) certainly indicates that Lee
Harvey Oswald should not have been "surprised" at all by the news he
was going to be held accountable for murdering the 35th Chief
Executive.
As an addendum here, I'll include this brief e-mail conversation I had
with Gary Mack of The Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza on March 1st,
2010:
====================================
Subject: Oswald's "Reaction" At The Midnight Press Conference
Date: 3/1/2010 6:00:14 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
----------------------
Dave,
The reporter who told Oswald he had been charged was KRLD’s Bill
Mercer, who was kneeling right in front of him. Mercer, like most
reporters in the room, had already heard unofficially from Dallas
Police that Oswald had been charged with killing Kennedy. What they
didn’t know was that the police had not yet notified Oswald, hence his
surprise. I suspect he was just upset that he hadn’t been told.
Gary Mack
====================================
Subject: Re: Oswald's "Reaction" At The Midnight Press Conference
Date: 3/2/2010 12:15:51 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack
----------------------
Hi Gary,
[Your] explanation is pretty close to the one I speculated about in my
Internet article, i.e., Oswald was surprised to hear that news from a
reporter instead of from the police.
Thanks for the Mercer info too. I knew that I had heard (somewhere)
the identity of the reporter, but I could not recall it when I wrote
that online article.
Regards,
David V.P.
====================================
David Von Pein
>>> "I believe there was a conspiracy beyond Oswald. .... But god knows i have no interest in debating it with you." <<<
Oh, my! How will I ever be able to get over this heartbreaking news?!
Thalia
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes and then he told everyone he was 'just a patsy!' When he said that he
looked panicked, like he realised he was the patsy and none of his
"intelligence" contacts were going to bail him out. I do not see "smirk"
or "sneer' EVER in Oswald's demeanor - people really are seeing what they
want to see.
bigdog
> On Mar 1, 6:26 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Now, when analyzing this a little bit more, since all reasonable
> > people who have studied the JFK assassination know beyond any and all
> > doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy, this
> > immutable FACT of Oswald's guilt HAS to mean that Oswald could not
> > possibly have been VERY surprised by the news that he was being
> > officially charged with the President's murder.
>
> I'm a reasonable person and have studied the assassination. I believe
> there was a conspiracy beyond Oswald. Therefore your statement is not
> true. But god knows i have no interest in debating it with you.
>
And maybe someday you or one of your "reasonable" cohorts will actually be
able to produce some real evidence that someone other than Oswald was
involved. So far, ALL conspiracy theories are faith based.
jbarge
The Odio testimony shows that another person was discussing
assassinating JFK with Oswald - evidence of conspiracy.
The Bogard testimony shows that Oswald - or someone impersonating him
- was coming into a large sum of money 3 weeks before the
assassination.
This payment to Oswald - for what, his memoirs? - is potential
evidence of conspiracy.
Oswald was reported to the FBI as inquiring about renting an airplane
at the Redbird Airport to fly to Mexico, accompanied by 2 people, for
November 22nd. The FBI ignored the report, but when the witness called
a second time, they acknowledged the existance of the witness. End of
investigation.
Larry Hancock's interview has FBI agent Hosty revealing that FBI agent
Michael DeQuire told him (Hosty) "Oswald.....was....photographed
separately near a fountain" in Mexico City, indicating more destroyed
evidence in the Mexico City runaround.
One of the transcripts of Oswald's alleged phone calls into an embassy
was said by the CIA to occur on a Saturday, which both Syvia Duran and
a Russian embassy employee say is impossible as the embassies were
closed - evidence of falsification of evidence.
Of coiurse the CIA transcriber noted the poor Russian language ability
of Oswald. Unfortunately for the LN community Oswald was fluent.
Evidence of impersonation.
The flawed autopsy shows that definitive evidence of the bullet paths,
entrances, and exits is lacking. As an example, since the brain wasn't
sectioned (in fact the brain is humorously said to weigh 1500 grams -
a nice round number, eh?), it is impossible to state if the one entry
wound found in the photographic evidence is the only entrance wound.
Howard Brennan.stated he saw the assassin standing and told police the
color of the pants he saw. This is impossible with the sniper window
seating position, and thus nullifying the only alleged "eyewitness" to
Oswald's involvement.
Somebody signed for Oswald's rifle when it was delivered - but since
that record was destroyed contrary to Federal regulations it can't be
proved who did. Of course the PO Box paperwork that would authorize
who could sign for anything delivered to the PO Box should put to rest
that problem. Except that this second batch of paperwork was destroyed
contrary to Federal regulatons as well.
No ammunition clip was reported found by the Dallas police (needed for
firing the bolt action) when the evidence was tabulated on November
22nd, though later it mysteriously showed up.
Testifying to the AARB board in 1994 both FBI agents Silbert and
O'Neil state that the photograph of the back of JFK's head does not
show the same wound they observed at the autopsy.
"Stanley Watson.....(Winston) Scott's deputy.....said in secret sworn
testimony...in 1978....that the Mexico City station's Oswald file
contained two surveillance photos of Oswald." Washington Post, March
17th, 1996. More destruction of evidence.
Actually this is all evidence of Oswald's guilt - you just have to
kind of squint your eyes.
David Von Pein
>>> "I do not see "smirk" or "sneer' EVER in Oswald's demeanor - people really are seeing what they want to see." <<<
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder when it comes to whether
different people think Oswald had a "smirk" on his face while he was
in custody. But, IMO, there are several photos (and films/videotapes)
that show Oswald smirking. Here are just a few examples:
http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Lee-Harvey-Oswald.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01349/leeharvey_1349859c.jpg
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/LHO/oswald09.jpg
I can even see a little bit of a smirk in his mug shots, although not
as much as in other photos (but YMMV):
And LHO was most definitely in a "smirking" mood at the very end of
his midnight press conference, as we can easily see here:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/lee-harvey-oswald.html
markusp
> >>> "I do not see "smirk" or "sneer' EVER in Oswald's demeanor - people really are seeing what they want to see." <<<
>
> I guess it's in the eye of the beholder when it comes to whether
> different people think Oswald had a "smirk" on his face while he was
> in custody. But, IMO, there are several photos (and films/videotapes)
> that show Oswald smirking. Here are just a few examples:
Oswald seemed articulate and earnest during that "press conference". I've
long been disgusted by that conference, and believe it should have never
taken place. It was a kangaroo court meant to parade him to reinforce the
public perception of his guilt.
~Mark
d.wigg
The initial question from the reporter is, "did you kill the President?".
Oz responds that he has not been charged with "that". Obviously, a
deflecting non-response to the actual question, IMO. Oz did not answer
the question as asked. LHO responds by giving a "post assassination time
frame response" in his answers (what the police- said, did, or acted
towards him or what he's been told) rather than a direct response. A lot
of stress showed through his voice immediately following the "did you kill
the President question". The noise from the reporters in the back of the
room, IMO, immediately added further stress which caused Ozs' facial
response/reaction. When asked earlier by detectives if he had had killed
the President he answered "no" then veered off in another direction by
saying "yeah, well, people will forget that in a few days and there will
be another President" when told that JFK was dead. None of this means
much but it does show a defensiveness to LHOs' answers to the question.
bigdog
> On Mar 2, 8:53 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 1, 6:20 pm, Gary Buell <gbuellst...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 1, 6:26 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Now, when analyzing this a little bit more, since all reasonable
> > > > people who have studied the JFK assassination know beyond any and all
> > > > doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy, this
> > > > immutable FACT of Oswald's guilt HAS to mean that Oswald could not
> > > > possibly have been VERY surprised by the news that he was being
> > > > officially charged with the President's murder.
>
> > > I'm a reasonable person and have studied the assassination. I believe
> > > there was a conspiracy beyond Oswald. Therefore your statement is not
> > > true. But god knows i have no interest in debating it with you.
>
> > And maybe someday you or one of your "reasonable" cohorts will actually be
> > able to produce some real evidence that someone other than Oswald was
> > involved. So far, ALL conspiracy theories are faith based.
>
> The Odio testimony shows that another person was discussing
> assassinating JFK with Oswald - evidence of conspiracy.
No evidence. Just a loose thread. Who was the person discussing an
assassination with Oswald.
> The Bogard testimony shows that Oswald - or someone impersonating him
Or someone vaguely resembling him that a witness decided after the
fact was Oswald. Another loose thread. No evidence of anything.
> - was coming into a large sum of money 3 weeks before the
> assassination.
> This payment to Oswald - for what, his memoirs? - is potential
> evidence of conspiracy.
So why would Oswald, who had no driver's license and didn't know how
to drive, be shopping for a car, even if he were about to receive a
wad of money? Still waiting for some real evidence.
> Oswald was reported to the FBI as inquiring about renting an airplane
> at the Redbird Airport to fly to Mexico, accompanied by 2 people, for
> November 22nd. The FBI ignored the report, but when the witness called
> a second time, they acknowledged the existance of the witness. End of
> investigation.
Oh really. Who was this witness? When did they make the report to the
FBI?
> Larry Hancock's interview has FBI agent Hosty revealing that FBI agent
> Michael DeQuire told him (Hosty) "Oswald.....was....photographed
> separately near a fountain" in Mexico City, indicating more destroyed
> evidence in the Mexico City runaround.
Why would they destroy evidence that Oswald was in Mexico City. The WC
reported the details that Oswald was in Mexico City. Got anything of
substance?
> One of the transcripts of Oswald's alleged phone calls into an embassy
> was said by the CIA to occur on a Saturday, which both Syvia Duran and
> a Russian embassy employee say is impossible as the embassies were
> closed - evidence of falsification of evidence.
No, this is evidence of an unexplained anamoly. Another unanswered
question that doesn't prove anything. You assume the reason for all these
things are sinister and therefore evidence of something.
> Of coiurse the CIA transcriber noted the poor Russian language ability
> of Oswald. Unfortunately for the LN community Oswald was fluent.
> Evidence of impersonation.
Evidence you are still leaping to conclusions.
> The flawed autopsy shows that definitive evidence of the bullet paths,
> entrances, and exits is lacking. As an example, since the brain wasn't
> sectioned (in fact the brain is humorously said to weigh 1500 grams -
> a nice round number, eh?), it is impossible to state if the one entry
> wound found in the photographic evidence is the only entrance wound.
> Howard Brennan.stated he saw the assassin standing and told police the
> color of the pants he saw. This is impossible with the sniper window
> seating position, and thus nullifying the only alleged "eyewitness" to
> Oswald's involvement.
Oswald was likely kneeling. A person kneeling at a window with a sill just
one foot above the floor would appear to a person on the ground to be
someone standing at a window of normal height. Brennan had no idea the
windows were so low. This hardly nullifies Brennan's eyewitness account.
If Brennan didn't see a shooter in the window, how do you suppose he
mananged to pinpoint the exact window where three spent shells were later
found. Just a lucky guess? Brennan's testimony can only be dismissed by
someone who is desperate to explain away just one more piece of evidence
of Oswald's guilt. Certainly someone who is interested in the truth would
not disregard what Brennan said.
> Somebody signed for Oswald's rifle when it was delivered - but since
> that record was destroyed contrary to Federal regulations it can't be
> proved who did.
OMG, a civil service employee didn't exactly follow procedures. When does
that ever happen? We finally have the smoking gun of a conspiracy.
> Of course the PO Box paperwork that would authorize
> who could sign for anything delivered to the PO Box should put to rest
> that problem. Except that this second batch of paperwork was destroyed
> contrary to Federal regulatons as well.
Right. Those postal employees had a hunch Oswald was going to shoot the
President and they didn't want any incriminating evidence to be found.
> No ammunition clip was reported found by the Dallas police (needed for
> firing the bolt action) when the evidence was tabulated on November
> 22nd, though later it mysteriously showed up.
The clip remained in the rifle. It failed to eject which is not
uncommon.
> Testifying to the AARB board in 1994 both FBI agents Silbert and
> O'Neil state that the photograph of the back of JFK's head does not
> show the same wound they observed at the autopsy.
You don't suppose their memories might be just a little fuzzy after
just 31 years.
> "Stanley Watson.....(Winston) Scott's deputy.....said in secret sworn
> testimony...in 1978....that the Mexico City station's Oswald file
> contained two surveillance photos of Oswald." Washington Post, March
> 17th, 1996. More destruction of evidence.
Again, since no one was denying Oswald had gone to Mexico City, what
would the purpose be of destroying a photograph of him there?
> Actually this is all evidence of Oswald's guilt - you just have to
> kind of squint your eyes.
Nothing you have presented is evidence of anything. It is a collection of
loose ends and unanwered questions which you assume indicate a conspiracy
without ever attempting to answer any of your own questions. Typical for a
CT. They think they can prove something by raising a question. They never
follow through to find an answer because history has taught them that when
they take the next logical step of actually answering the questions they
raised, they find out that there is a perfectly plausible,
non-conspiratorial answer for their questions, so they satsify themselves
by pretending they have proven something by simply raising the question. I
stand by my statement that ALL the hard physical evidence points to LHO
alone as the assassin of JFK.
John Blubaugh
You can keep saying that but it will never make it true. You have no
answer for the most simple of theories. The back and to the left reaction
by JFK that indicated a shot from the right front. I don't understand why
all of those Jews executed by the Germans with a shot to the back of their
head never did a back flip back into the shooter knocking the shooter into
the mass grave.
JB
pjsp...@aol.com
> >>> "I do not see "smirk" or "sneer' EVER in Oswald's demeanor - people really are seeing what they want to see." <<<
>
> I guess it's in the eye of the beholder when it comes to whether
> different people think Oswald had a "smirk" on his face while he was
> in custody. But, IMO, there are several photos (and films/videotapes)
> that show Oswald smirking. Here are just a few examples:
>
> http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Lee-Harvey-Oswald.jpg
>
>
> http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/LHO/oswald09.jpg
>
> I can even see a little bit of a smirk in his mug shots, although not
> as much as in other photos (but YMMV):
>
>
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/048b.+LEE+HARVEY+OSWAL...
>
> And LHO was most definitely in a "smirking" mood at the very end of
> his midnight press conference, as we can easily see here:
>
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/lee-harvey-oswald.html
David, those are the faces of someone totally defeated, and without
hope. Perhaps you don't know what a smirk is..
smirk (smûrk)
intr.v. smirked, smirk·ing, smirks
To smile in an affected, often offensively self-satisfied manner.
OSWALD IS NOT SMILING IN ANY OF THOSE PHOTOS!!!
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "I do not see "smirk" or "sneer' EVER in Oswald's demeanor - people really are seeing what they want to see."<<<
>
>
> I guess it's in the eye of the beholder when it comes to whether
> different people think Oswald had a "smirk" on his face while he was
> in custody. But, IMO, there are several photos (and films/videotapes)
> that show Oswald smirking. Here are just a few examples:
>
I guess it's also in the eye of the beholder if Oswald raise his right
hand because he was handcuffed and being led in by the police or if he
paused to make a Communist salute as Jean Davison alleges. Of course eye
of the beholder is also influenced by what agenda the beholder is trying
to push.
John Canal
jbarge says...
[...]
>Testifying to the AARB board in 1994 both FBI agents Silbert and
>O'Neil state that the photograph of the back of JFK's head does not
>show the same wound they observed at the autopsy.
No great mystery there....because S & O left the morgue around 1:00 AM
before JFK's partially reconstructed head was photographed.
The only complaint I have is that when the witnesses were asked to
reconcile their recollections of JFK's wounds with the photos of an
undamaged BOH the witnesses were not told that the pictures were taken
let's say around 2:00 AM.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
The sole purpose of that news conference was so that the DPD could prove
that they weren't beating a confession out of him, the way some PDs are
wont to do.
Jean Davison
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b8ec9c2$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 3/3/2010 8:07 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>>>> "I do not see "smirk" or "sneer' EVER in Oswald's demeanor - people
>>>>> really are seeing what they want to see."<<<
>>
>>
>> I guess it's in the eye of the beholder when it comes to whether
>> different people think Oswald had a "smirk" on his face while he was
>> in custody. But, IMO, there are several photos (and films/videotapes)
>> that show Oswald smirking. Here are just a few examples:
>>
>
> I guess it's also in the eye of the beholder if Oswald raise his right
> hand because he was handcuffed and being led in by the police or if he
> paused to make a Communist salute as Jean Davison alleges. Of course eye
> of the beholder is also influenced by what agenda the beholder is trying
> to push.
Your memory failed you. Look at what I actually said:
>>Again, I'm not arguing that it was a "communist salute." Only
Oswald knew what he meant by it; others can only guess. <<
Jean
David Von Pein
>>> "David, those are the faces of someone totally defeated, and without hope." <<<
You could be right, Pat. Oswald WAS defeated, and he knew it. He HAD
to have known it at that time when he was in custody. He killed two
men that day, was caught red-handed with one of the murder weapons in
his hands, and was then arrested. That probably did make poor Lee
Harvey feel a bit "defeated" at that time, because it's obvious from
his actions after 12:30 PM that he DID NOT WANT TO GET CAUGHT.
>>> "Perhaps you don't know what a smirk is." <<<
If you don't think Lee Oswald is "smirking" in this picture, you'd
better look at it a few more times:
http://top-10-list.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Lee-Harvey-Oswald.jpg
John Blubaugh
I guess people see what they expect to see. I saw surprise and fear in
his eyes. It was anything but a smirk. He didn't look happy or
contented about anything.
JB
David Von Pein
>>> "He [LHO] didn't look happy or contented about anything [at the
midnight press conference]." <<<
Yes, you're right. And that's precisely the kind of emotions I think he
was expressing (just like I said in earlier posts) -- IRRITATION and
ANNOYANCE -- which are two things that don't equate to "happiness" either.