Where'd he leave the loot?
Dwayne K. Lanclos
location in Marina's room for the $170 Oswald left behind the morning of the
assassination. The Warren Report said he left his wallet in a dresser drawer
and Posner (in _Case Closed_) quoted Marina saying she saw it on top of the
bureau. Somehow this is supposed to make someone question the validity of the
story being told, despite the fact that both sources agree that a) Oswald left
a great deal of money (about all he had) behind for Marina and b) the amount
of the money. The actual location (in a drawer on on top of the dresser) is
pretty irrelevant to the point being made.
Am I the only one that sees this nit picking as absurd?
Mark Singer
Welcome to the newsgroup, and as the regular "nitpicker" and as the
originator of that partciular nitpick, I guess I ought to respond.
You say this is "irrelevant to the point being made". What is the
point being made?
WR (p. 423):
Oswald's behavior after the assassination throws little
light on his motives. The fact that he took so little
money with him when he left Irving in the morning indicates
that he did not expect to get very far from Dallas on his
own and suggests the possibility, as did his note to his wife
just prior to the attempt on General Walker, that he did not
expect to escape at all.
So the "point being made" is that Oswald deliberately left the money
for Marina, and in so doing suggested that he did not expect to
escape from his planned assassination attempt.
Why on earth would that be true? Oswald could not even have known
that he would get a shot off at JFK (a point made by Posner). How
can anyone draw a relationship between leaving the money behind and
his escape plan? If anything, I interpret that leaving the ring
and the money behind *intentionally* would be evidence of Oswald
acknowledging the end of his marriage, a reasonable conclusion based
on Marina's testimony of the conversation of November 21.
But back to the point, why would Posner characterize the leaving of
the money as such an *intentional* act, except for the sole purpose
of reinforcing the impression regarding Oswald's purpose? Indeed,
the WR indicates he left it *in his wallet* *in a drawer*. Perhaps
he just forgot to take it with him. Perhaps it was not uncommon
for him to carry such an amount. Perhaps he left the money
unintentionally.
All that having been said, I certainly cannot conclude anything from
the episode, except that Posner *deliberately* misrepresented the
evidence. And he did it as a subtle maneuver to leave a specific
impression with the reader. That was my point in noting the passage.
>
>Am I the only one that sees this nit picking as absurd?
Not by a long shot. But this is hardly an isolated nitpicking of
Posner. And this is hardly a one-way street; you'll hear these
challenges to conspiracy authors routinely as well.
The question is, is it absurd? I say that any attempt to make sure
that we are looking at the actual evidence, truthfully presented,
before we discuss the conclusions, cannot be absurd. I say the
absurdity is accepting evidence known to be false, then drawing
a conclusion from it.
Do you agree with the WR conclusion that Oswald left the money and
thus indicated that he planned to kill JFK, and he considered how it
would limit his ability to escape?
*That*, to me, is what is absurd.
So what do you want to discuss, Dwayne?
--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com
N.R.Harrison
The point being made, although not mine, was that Marina was the only source
available for this trivial detail, and thus when two distinct accounts of the
same detail are conflicting we can make some inference either about the
source or the people writing about it.
1) Either the WR or Posner, or both, have made up details for whatever reasons.
2) Marina Oswald is not a reliable source.
Personally, I would bank with option 2 in this case. Her strange recollections
about Oswald wearing a certain jacket on the night before the assassination -
see one of Mark's earlier posts - shows that she can have a 'strange' memory;
remember that it is much of her testimony that the WR and Posner use to set
up the 'Lone Nut' scenario. Remember too that the non-conspiracy types want
to discredit Holland and the Clinton witnesses on similarly shaky recollections,
the point being that such discrediting of witnesses should be meted out equally
by both sides of the argument.
Thus, the argument was not so much about the relevance of the location of the
money, but the fact that the reporting of the location changed (for whatever
reasons), and that this may be an indicator of Marina's 'poor' memory.
Neil...
John Locke
Yes. The rest of us take this nonsense extremely seriously.
Actually, one of the unwritten rules of the game is that every article
of evidence must have metaphysically certain authenticity. Or there was
a conspiracy.
john
Robert E. Daniels
WR p. 421:
The next morning [11/22/63] he left for work before anyone else arose.
For the first time he left his wedding ring in a cup on the dresser in
his room. He also left $170 in a wallet in one of the dresser drawers.
^^^^^^
He took with him the long brown package that Frazier and Mrs. Randle saw
him carry ...
WR p. 181
The arresting officers found a forged selective service card with a
picture of Oswald and the name "Alek J. Hidell" in Oswald's billfold.
^^^^^^^^
On November 22 and 23, Oswald refused to ttell Fritz why this card
was in his possession ...
Do you carry both a wallet an a billfold?
Dwayne K. Lanclos
>You say this is "irrelevant to the point being made". What is the
>point being made?
>So the "point being made" is that Oswald deliberately left the money
>for Marina, and in so doing suggested that he did not expect to
>escape from his planned assassination attempt.
Agreed. That's the point being made. So what difference does it make if the
money were left on top of a dresser or in a drawer?
>Why on earth would that be true? Oswald could not even have known
>that he would get a shot off at JFK (a point made by Posner). How
>can anyone draw a relationship between leaving the money behind and
>his escape plan? If anything, I interpret that leaving the ring
>and the money behind *intentionally* would be evidence of Oswald
>acknowledging the end of his marriage, a reasonable conclusion based
>on Marina's testimony of the conversation of November 21.
When you couple his leaving all his life savings, his wedding ring (which he
had never before taken off), and taking his rifle to work with him, the
general impression is that Oswald didn't plan on coming back alive. 'Til
death do us part.
>But back to the point, why would Posner characterize the leaving of
>the money as such an *intentional* act, except for the sole purpose
>of reinforcing the impression regarding Oswald's purpose? Indeed,
>the WR indicates he left it *in his wallet* *in a drawer*.
My copy says "in *a* wallet" (WCR p. 421). Sorry to be nitpicky.
>Perhaps
>he just forgot to take it with him.
Hadn't he told Marina to take as much money as she needed? (Case Closed, p.
223)
> Perhaps it was not uncommon
>for him to carry such an amount.
Irrelevant since he wasn't carrying it around.
>Perhaps he left the money
>unintentionally.
Again, Marina said he told her to spend whatever she needed.
>All that having been said, I certainly cannot conclude anything from
>the episode, except that Posner *deliberately* misrepresented the
>evidence. And he did it as a subtle maneuver to leave a specific
>impression with the reader. That was my point in noting the passage.
By saying the money was left "on top" of the dresser instead of in a drawer? I
don't have the Warren Commission volumes available to me? What exactly did
Marina testify? And if she said the money was left in a drawer, what is your
evidence that Posner *deliberately* misrepresented the location of the wallet?
Were you *deliberately* trying to mislead me when you said Oswald left the
money in *his* wallet instead of *a* wallet?
>Do you agree with the WR conclusion that Oswald left the money and
>thus indicated that he planned to kill JFK, and he considered how it
>would limit his ability to escape?
>*That*, to me, is what is absurd.
Maybe he didn't plan to escape. If you're going on what you believe is a
suicide mission, you're not going to need a lot of money.
Dwayne K. Lanclos
>>Am I the only one that sees this nit picking as absurd?
>The point being made, although not mine, was that Marina was the only source
>available for this trivial detail, and thus when two distinct accounts of the
>same detail are conflicting we can make some inference either about the
>source or the people writing about it.
Two distinct accounts? I believe Posner and the WCR both drew from Marina's
testimony to the Warren Commission. I do not have access to the
multi-volumes, so I can't really look it up to see what she actually said.
Maybe some kind soul will...
>1) Either the WR or Posner, or both, have made up details for whatever reasons.
How about: either the WR or Posner, or both, didn't quote Marina exactly.
>2) Marina Oswald is not a reliable source.
>Personally, I would bank with option 2 in this case. Her strange recollections
>about Oswald wearing a certain jacket on the night before the assassination -
>see one of Mark's earlier posts - shows that she can have a 'strange' memory;
I sort of recall mention of this, but since I came in on the tail end of it, I
don't see what the big deal was. Why couldn't Marina have seen Lee wearing a
certain jacket on the night before the assassination?
>remember that it is much of her testimony that the WR and Posner use to set
>up the 'Lone Nut' scenario. Remember too that the non-conspiracy types want
>to discredit Holland and the Clinton witnesses on similarly shaky recollections,
>the point being that such discrediting of witnesses should be meted out equally
>by both sides of the argument.
But hasn't Marina lately turned to the conspiracy camps? Has she regained
credibility?
>Thus, the argument was not so much about the relevance of the location of the
>money, but the fact that the reporting of the location changed (for whatever
>reasons), and that this may be an indicator of Marina's 'poor' memory.
Or not.
N.R.Harrison
>In article <72...@raven.ukc.ac.uk> n...@ukc.ac.uk (N.R.Harrison) writes:
>>>Am I the only one that sees this nit picking as absurd?
>
>>The point being made, although not mine, was that Marina was the only source
>>available for this trivial detail, and thus when two distinct accounts of the
>>same detail are conflicting we can make some inference either about the
>>source or the people writing about it.
>
>Two distinct accounts? I believe Posner and the WCR both drew from Marina's
>testimony to the Warren Commission. I do not have access to the
>multi-volumes, so I can't really look it up to see what she actually said.
>Maybe some kind soul will...
>
If both accounts were drawn from the same testimony, then one of them is
being deliberately misleading, as they are quite plainly different. On top
of the dresser is far more leading towards Oswald kissing goodbye to life
than popping it in a wallet in a drawer, where Marina may or may not find it
by accident, and then probably wouldn't have opened it had she found it. It
is just one of the cunning ways that Posner massages the evidence to support
his mal-formed case - if indeed he is the guilty party in this case.
John, John, Jim and Eric always slate people for just reading conspiracy
books and being tainted by them and swallowing all that they contain, but
believing wholeheartedly the WR or Posner is just as dangerous. Both also
misrepresent evidence and present biased accounts.
>>1) Either the WR or Posner, or both, have made up details for whatever reasons.
>
>How about: either the WR or Posner, or both, didn't quote Marina exactly.
But isn't that misrepresentation. Example. Suppose Marina said "Lee didn't
have a rifle" and the WR wrote "Marina Oswald stated that Lee Harvey Oswald
owned a rifle". That would be a case where the WR didn't quote Marina
exactly. Point taken? The discussion about money is not as severe but it
is perhaps misrepresentation all the same.
>>2) Marina Oswald is not a reliable source.
>
>>Personally, I would bank with option 2 in this case. Her strange recollections
>>about Oswald wearing a certain jacket on the night before the assassination -
>>see one of Mark's earlier posts - shows that she can have a 'strange' memory;
>
>I sort of recall mention of this, but since I came in on the tail end of it, I
>don't see what the big deal was. Why couldn't Marina have seen Lee wearing a
>certain jacket on the night before the assassination?
This was a brilliant piece of deduction from Mark that *nobody* answered or
disputed.
Marina Oswald was shown the jacket that Oswald dumped in the car lot after
shooting Tippit. She I.D.ed it as Oswald's, and said that he had even worn
it the night before at the Paine's house. However, Oswald travelled straight
from the Paines' to work on the Friday, obviously in the same jacket. When
he left the TSBD at 12:35ish he left the jacket he had been wearing behind,
and picked up his other jacket from his rooming house. Thus, the jacket he
had worn the night before was in fact still hanging in the TSBD when Oswald
shot Tippit.
This shows the continued doubt that surrounds the value of Marina's testimony.
Personally, when looking at witnesses in this case, I sort of rate them in
terms of their honesty and credibility. On this scale, Marina comes
somewhere around other fruitcases like Jean Hill, Helen Markham, Delphine
Roberts etc.. But that's probably not her fault. I guess she probably said
all that the FBI wanted to hear.
>>remember that it is much of her testimony that the WR and Posner use to set
>>up the 'Lone Nut' scenario. Remember too that the non-conspiracy types want
>>to discredit Holland and the Clinton witnesses on similarly shaky recollections,
>>the point being that such discrediting of witnesses should be meted out equally
>>by both sides of the argument.
>
>But hasn't Marina lately turned to the conspiracy camps? Has she regained
>credibility?
>
Only the most fickle buffs now listen to her again. Apparently she has now
come out and said that Oswald didn't do it, but she provides no new evidence
whatsoever.
>>Thus, the argument was not so much about the relevance of the location of the
>>money, but the fact that the reporting of the location changed (for whatever
>>reasons), and that this may be an indicator of Marina's 'poor' memory.
>
>Or not.
Or misrepresentation by non-conspiracy authors.
Neil...
Mark Singer
>
>>So the "point being made" is that Oswald deliberately left the money
>>for Marina, and in so doing suggested that he did not expect to
>>escape from his planned assassination attempt.
>
>Agreed. That's the point being made. So what difference does it make if the
>money were left on top of a dresser or in a drawer?
The location of the money being left behind is offerred as a *premise*
in drawing that conclusion. We have Marina's testimony that Oswald
left behind money for her, and Posner's interpretation that he left
it out in plain sight for her. But if, indeed, the money was left
in a wallet in a drawer, while the same conclusion *could* be drawn,
it is far less compelling according to the known circumstances.
>>Why on earth would that be true? Oswald could not even have known
>>that he would get a shot off at JFK (a point made by Posner). How
>>can anyone draw a relationship between leaving the money behind and
>>his escape plan? If anything, I interpret that leaving the ring
>>and the money behind *intentionally* would be evidence of Oswald
>>acknowledging the end of his marriage, a reasonable conclusion based
>>on Marina's testimony of the conversation of November 21.
>
>When you couple his leaving all his life savings, his wedding ring (which he
>had never before taken off), and taking his rifle to work with him, the
>general impression is that Oswald didn't plan on coming back alive. 'Til
>death do us part.
Yes. That is the impression you are left with.
And that is not an accident.
(Oh yes, and by the way, Marina was separating from him at that very
time without a clue that he was about to go on a suicide mission.
It wasn't a matter of 'til death do us part. They parted that night.
They had established separate residences. She told him not to return
until the holidays, for the children.)
>
>>But back to the point, why would Posner characterize the leaving of
>>the money as such an *intentional* act, except for the sole purpose
>>of reinforcing the impression regarding Oswald's purpose? Indeed,
>>the WR indicates he left it *in his wallet* *in a drawer*.
>
>My copy says "in *a* wallet" (WCR p. 421). Sorry to be nitpicky.
>
>>Perhaps
>>he just forgot to take it with him.
>
>Hadn't he told Marina to take as much money as she needed? (Case Closed, p.
>223)
And what is the credibility of *that*? But hey, it certainly leaves
the impression that he was going on a suicide mission, doesn't it?
>
>> Perhaps it was not uncommon
>>for him to carry such an amount.
>
>Irrelevant since he wasn't carrying it around.
In this scenario, he must have been. He didn't live at the Paine's.
That wasn't his home. This construction of events calls for us to
believe that LHO travelled to the Paine's that night as part of his
preparation for this suicide mission. He came to get the rifle to
use on JFK. He must, therefore, have brought the money with him
to leave behind with Marina. The money supposedly wasn't there before
that night. If he didn't carry it around all the time, he must ahve
retrieved it on the 21st so he could bring it to Marina.
>
>>Perhaps he left the money
>>unintentionally.
>
>Again, Marina said he told her to spend whatever she needed.
Again, you are now trusting an author who has,on that very page,
misrepresented her testimony. You are believing this as blind
faith.
WR (p. 421):
That night Oswald went to bed before his wife retired.
She did not speak to him when she joined him there,
although she thought he was still awake. The next
morning he left for work before anyone else arose.
It is true that Posner cites Marina's testimony, but that enters
into the questions about her credibility, a point I will respond
to on another thread.
>>All that having been said, I certainly cannot conclude anything from
>>the episode, except that Posner *deliberately* misrepresented the
>>evidence. And he did it as a subtle maneuver to leave a specific
>>impression with the reader. That was my point in noting the passage.
>
>By saying the money was left "on top" of the dresser instead of in a drawer? I
>don't have the Warren Commission volumes available to me? What exactly did
>Marina testify? And if she said the money was left in a drawer, what is your
>evidence that Posner *deliberately* misrepresented the location of the wallet?
>Were you *deliberately* trying to mislead me when you said Oswald left the
>money in *his* wallet instead of *a* wallet?
Please, Dwayne. I don't have paid editors at my disposal. And I
don't proofread my posts that carefully. But go ahead, and clutch
onto whatever beliefs you have.
The WR drew a conclusion about the money. Posner drew a different
one using the same evidence. You wish to believe this was happenstance,
accidental if inaccurate. Nitpicking to point it out.
If there were one such incidenct, I would agree. There are more.
Many more.
>
>>Do you agree with the WR conclusion that Oswald left the money and
>>thus indicated that he planned to kill JFK, and he considered how it
>>would limit his ability to escape?
>
>>*That*, to me, is what is absurd.
>
>Maybe he didn't plan to escape. If you're going on what you believe is a
>suicide mission, you're not going to need a lot of money.
>
Hope the bait was tasty.
--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com
Mark Singer
>In article <lanclosd.2...@unicomp.net> lanc...@unicomp.net (Dwayne K. Lanclos) writes:
>
>>>2) Marina Oswald is not a reliable source.
>>
>>>Personally, I would bank with option 2 in this case. Her strange recollections
>>>about Oswald wearing a certain jacket on the night before the assassination -
>>>see one of Mark's earlier posts - shows that she can have a 'strange' memory;
>>
>>I sort of recall mention of this, but since I came in on the tail end of it, I
>>don't see what the big deal was. Why couldn't Marina have seen Lee wearing a
>>certain jacket on the night before the assassination?
>
>This was a brilliant piece of deduction from Mark that *nobody* answered or
>disputed.
>
>Marina Oswald was shown the jacket that Oswald dumped in the car lot after
>shooting Tippit. She I.D.ed it as Oswald's, and said that he had even worn
>it the night before at the Paine's house. However, Oswald travelled straight
>from the Paines' to work on the Friday, obviously in the same jacket. When
>he left the TSBD at 12:35ish he left the jacket he had been wearing behind,
>and picked up his other jacket from his rooming house. Thus, the jacket he
>had worn the night before was in fact still hanging in the TSBD when Oswald
>shot Tippit.
>
>This shows the continued doubt that surrounds the value of Marina's testimony.
>Personally, when looking at witnesses in this case, I sort of rate them in
>terms of their honesty and credibility. On this scale, Marina comes
>somewhere around other fruitcases like Jean Hill, Helen Markham, Delphine
>Roberts etc.. But that's probably not her fault. I guess she probably said
>all that the FBI wanted to hear.
I don't consider Marina a fruitcake. Remember the circumstances. She
was quite frightened, quite intimated, quite fearful for herself and
her children. Bending over backwards to cooperate with authorities
was totally consistent with her upbringing in the Soviet Union.
She was asked leading questions. She did not have a good grasp of
English. She did not understand the implications of her testimony.
And she did not have good representation by counsel.
Indeed, Marina herself has made this point for a number of years.
In many instances, she says, she told the FBI what she thought they
wanted to hear. She had been told they had an airtight case against
her husband. She believed it. She was a mother of two youngsters.
Doesn't this all make sense to you?
I happen to believe that she was shown the jacket and that she thought
she was supposed to ID it as the one Oswald wore that day, so she did.
Or else she just ID'd it as Oswald's, but inadvertently indicated he
had worn it that day. I don't think she was mistaken about his wardrobe,
I think she was just trying to cooperate and do what was expected of
her.
>
>>>remember that it is much of her testimony that the WR and Posner use to set
>>>up the 'Lone Nut' scenario.
Exactly, but only when it fits.
>>
>>But hasn't Marina lately turned to the conspiracy camps? Has she regained
>>credibility?
John McAdams will certainly agree with you about the two-fork nature
of the world. I am not in a "camp". I do not assign blanket
credibility to those I want to believe. I just try to understand
the evidence as best I can, using logic and reasoning for the
inconsistencies rather than the assurance of some author, be that
author on one side of the issue or the other.
Of course, that makes me a nitpicker in your world.
--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com
John McAdams
n...@ukc.ac.uk (N.R.Harrison) writes:
>>
>>Two distinct accounts? I believe Posner and the WCR both drew from Marina's
>>testimony to the Warren Commission. I do not have access to the
>>multi-volumes, so I can't really look it up to see what she actually said.
>>Maybe some kind soul will...
>>
>
>If both accounts were drawn from the same testimony, then one of them is
>being deliberately misleading, as they are quite plainly different. On top
>of the dresser is far more leading towards Oswald kissing goodbye to life
>than popping it in a wallet in a drawer, where Marina may or may not find it
>by accident, and then probably wouldn't have opened it had she found it. It
>is just one of the cunning ways that Posner massages the evidence to support
>his mal-formed case - if indeed he is the guilty party in this case.
>
Unfortunately, neither Posner nor the WC footnote their conflicting
accounts sufficiently for me to run down Marina's testimony.
I'll check Macmillian, MARINA AND LEE, and Marina's HSCA testimony and
see whether Posner perhaps got it from there.
At 1H69 Marina says that a wallet was usually kept in a wardrobe, and
that Lee would put money in it from time to time. She doesn't say
(that I can find) that that's were she found the $170.
>John, John, Jim and Eric always slate people for just reading conspiracy
>books and being tainted by them and swallowing all that they contain, but
>believing wholeheartedly the WR or Posner is just as dangerous. Both also
>misrepresent evidence and present biased accounts.
>
It's a matter of degree. Neither Posner nor the WCR is as wildly
warped as most conspiracy books are.
It basically takes a Singer-type nitpicker to find holes in Posner and
the WCR.
>>>1) Either the WR or Posner, or both, have made up details for whatever reasons.
>>
>>How about: either the WR or Posner, or both, didn't quote Marina exactly.
>
>But isn't that misrepresentation. Example. Suppose Marina said "Lee didn't
>have a rifle" and the WR wrote "Marina Oswald stated that Lee Harvey Oswald
>owned a rifle". That would be a case where the WR didn't quote Marina
>exactly. Point taken? The discussion about money is not as severe but it
>is perhaps misrepresentation all the same.
>
Where the money was found isn't *nearly* as important as Lee's owning
a rifle.
>>>2) Marina Oswald is not a reliable source.
>>
>>>Personally, I would bank with option 2 in this case. Her strange recollections
>>>about Oswald wearing a certain jacket on the night before the assassination -
>>>see one of Mark's earlier posts - shows that she can have a 'strange' memory;
>>
>>I sort of recall mention of this, but since I came in on the tail end of it, I
>>don't see what the big deal was. Why couldn't Marina have seen Lee wearing a
>>certain jacket on the night before the assassination?
>
>This was a brilliant piece of deduction from Mark that *nobody* answered or
>disputed.
>
>Marina Oswald was shown the jacket that Oswald dumped in the car lot after
>shooting Tippit. She I.D.ed it as Oswald's, and said that he had even worn
>it the night before at the Paine's house. However, Oswald travelled straight
>from the Paines' to work on the Friday, obviously in the same jacket. When
>he left the TSBD at 12:35ish he left the jacket he had been wearing behind,
>and picked up his other jacket from his rooming house. Thus, the jacket he
>had worn the night before was in fact still hanging in the TSBD when Oswald
>shot Tippit.
>
Posner is correctly reporting the WC testimony of Marina. But he
probably should have discounted it in this case. At 1H121-122 Marina
is shown a whole batch of Lee's clothing, and asked what he was
wearing when. CE 162 was the Eisenhower-type jack he was wearing when
he shot Tippit.
---------------------------------------------------
MR. RANKIN: Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was
wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963.
MRS. OSWALD: On Thursday I think he wore this shirt.
MR. RANKIN: Is that Exhibit 150.
MRS. OSWALD: Yes.
MR. RANKIN: Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that
time?
MRS. OSWALD: It seems he had that jacket, also.
MR. RANKIN: Exhibit 162?
MRS. OSWALD: Yes.
MR. RANKIN: And the pants? Exhibit 157?
MRS. OSWALD: Yes. But I am not sure. This is as much as I can
remember.
-------------------------------------------------------
Note that Rankin put "Exhibit 162" into her mouth. And further she
said "I am not sure" although it isn't clear from the transcript
whether she is talking about only the pants, or his clothing
generally.
But what's the point?
Either she misspoke or Rankin misspoke and she went along (being
probably confused about the CE numbers).
Do you really think, for example, that Oswald wore CE 162 to Irving
Thursday night, The Conspiracy stole it from the Paine's house, and
planted it near the scene of the Tippit shooting?
>This shows the continued doubt that surrounds the value of Marina's testimony.
>Personally, when looking at witnesses in this case, I sort of rate them in
>terms of their honesty and credibility. On this scale, Marina comes
>somewhere around other fruitcases like Jean Hill, Helen Markham, Delphine
>Roberts etc.. But that's probably not her fault. I guess she probably said
>all that the FBI wanted to hear.
>
You are ignoring the fact that she has been quite consistent about the
key pieces of her testimony for 30 years.
Compare that to Jean Hill or Delphine Roberts.
And by *key* pieces I mean things like whether Lee came home at 11:30
one night and said he had shot at Gen. Walker. Which jacket he wore
isn't "key" unless you really *do* believe The Conspiracy stole it for
planting at the Tippit shooting site.
>>>remember that it is much of her testimony that the WR and Posner use to set
>>>up the 'Lone Nut' scenario. Remember too that the non-conspiracy types want
>>>to discredit Holland and the Clinton witnesses on similarly shaky recollections,
>>>the point being that such discrediting of witnesses should be meted out equally
>>>by both sides of the argument.
>>
This a far enough observation. BTW, I've only attacked Holland's
testimony WRT the timing and sequence of the shots. There, Bruce
tries to use Holland to support his own scenario, and Holland is
obviously all wet about the timing and sequence of the shots.
OTOH, I do believe he saw something that looked like smoke, and ran
around behind the Stockade Fence, and found footprints.
I'll eventually get around to posting Posner's treatment of the
Clinton witnesses. The problems go far beyond the weather.
>>But hasn't Marina lately turned to the conspiracy camps? Has she regained
>>credibility?
>>
>
>Only the most fickle buffs now listen to her again. Apparently she has now
>come out and said that Oswald didn't do it, but she provides no new evidence
>whatsoever.
>
She obviously *wants* to believe that her former husband wasn't a lone
nut. She also doesn't want to believe that maybe she could have done
something different that would have dissuaded Lee from shooting
Kennedy. (Not that she really should have done anything differently.)
And she has been heavily influenced by Dallas-area "researchers."
>>>Thus, the argument was not so much about the relevance of the location of the
>>>money, but the fact that the reporting of the location changed (for whatever
>>>reasons), and that this may be an indicator of Marina's 'poor' memory.
>>
>>Or not.
>
>Or misrepresentation by non-conspiracy authors.
>
>
If I were you, I would reserve judgment on that point until you
establish that Posner had no sound basis for saying *top* of the
bureau.
.John
Dwayne K. Lanclos
>being deliberately misleading, as they are quite plainly different. On top
>of the dresser is far more leading towards Oswald kissing goodbye to life
>than popping it in a wallet in a drawer, where Marina may or may not find it
>by accident, and then probably wouldn't have opened it had she found it. It
>is just one of the cunning ways that Posner massages the evidence to support
>his mal-formed case - if indeed he is the guilty party in this case.
Deliberately misleading? Cunning ways? Seems we're ascribing a lot of
intention based on a discrepancy of a trivial detail. The fact that Oswald
left his entire life savings behind is important -- where he left it is not.
>John, John, Jim and Eric always slate people for just reading conspiracy
>books and being tainted by them and swallowing all that they contain, but
>believing wholeheartedly the WR or Posner is just as dangerous. Both also
>misrepresent evidence and present biased accounts.
That's why I'd like to see what Marina actually testified to the Warren
Commission.
>>>1) Either the WR or Posner, or both, have made up details for whatever reasons.
>>
>>How about: either the WR or Posner, or both, didn't quote Marina exactly.
>But isn't that misrepresentation. Example. Suppose Marina said "Lee didn't
>have a rifle" and the WR wrote "Marina Oswald stated that Lee Harvey Oswald
>owned a rifle". That would be a case where the WR didn't quote Marina
>exactly. Point taken? The discussion about money is not as severe but it
>is perhaps misrepresentation all the same.
It certainly is not as severe as the example you posit which is a direct
contradiction. How about if Marina said, "Lee owned a gun" and the WR wrote,
"Lee owned a rifle." Now a rifle can be classified as a gun, but not all guns
are rifles. This could be interpreted as a "deliberate misrepresentation" or
it could also be an honest error. One would have to know what Marina was
talking about when she said, "Lee owned a gun". If the Warren Commissioners
had been questioning her about the rifle at the time, then her statement could
be used as verifying that Lee owned a "rifle", even though she said "gun".
>>I sort of recall mention of this, but since I came in on the tail end of it,
>>I don't see what the big deal was. Why couldn't Marina have seen Lee
>>wearing a certain jacket on the night before the assassination?
>This was a brilliant piece of deduction from Mark that *nobody* answered or
>disputed.
>Marina Oswald was shown the jacket that Oswald dumped in the car lot after
>shooting Tippit. She I.D.ed it as Oswald's, and said that he had even worn
>it the night before at the Paine's house. However, Oswald travelled straight
>from the Paines' to work on the Friday, obviously in the same jacket. When
>he left the TSBD at 12:35ish he left the jacket he had been wearing behind,
>and picked up his other jacket from his rooming house. Thus, the jacket he
>had worn the night before was in fact still hanging in the TSBD when Oswald
>shot Tippit.
>This shows the continued doubt that surrounds the value of Marina's testimony.
Well, I'm not sure I'd devalue Marina's testimony here without checking out
what she actually said. According to the WCR (p. 175), Marina said Lee owned
only two jackets: one blue and the other gray. The blue jacket was found at
the TSBD and the gray at the scene of the Tippet murder. Marina identified
both as belonging to her husband. No problem so far.
Now, in _Case Closed_(p. 278), Posner says basically the same and footnotes
her WC testimony (Vol. 1, pp. 121-22). He then adds that Marina said that she
had seen Lee wearing the gray jacket (from the Tippit crime scene) the night
before the assassination. As you pointed out, this is an impossibility since
Lee went from the Paine's house directly to work and was seen to arrive at his
boarding house without his jacket, yet left his room with the jacket. So
either Marina was mistaken in saying that she had seen Lee wear the gray
jacket the night before the assassination or Posner confused her
identification of the jacket. We'd have to look at her actual testimony
before drawing any conclusions.
>Personally, when looking at witnesses in this case, I sort of rate them in
>terms of their honesty and credibility. On this scale, Marina comes
>somewhere around other fruitcases like Jean Hill, Helen Markham, Delphine
>Roberts etc.. But that's probably not her fault. I guess she probably said
>all that the FBI wanted to hear.
I am aware of the case of Jean Hill, but what is there about Helen Markham and
Delphine Roberts that is deserving of such a title as "fruitcase"?
----
dwayne lanc...@unicomp.net
"War doesn't decide who's right, just who's left."
John McAdams
m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes:
>>
>>>But back to the point, why would Posner characterize the leaving of
>>>the money as such an *intentional* act, except for the sole purpose
>>>of reinforcing the impression regarding Oswald's purpose? Indeed,
>>>the WR indicates he left it *in his wallet* *in a drawer*.
>>
>>My copy says "in *a* wallet" (WCR p. 421). Sorry to be nitpicky.
>>
>>>Perhaps
>>>he just forgot to take it with him.
>>
>>Hadn't he told Marina to take as much money as she needed? (Case Closed, p.
>>223)
>
>
>And what is the credibility of *that*? But hey, it certainly leaves
>the impression that he was going on a suicide mission, doesn't it?
>
>
Posner quotes this correctly from 1H72: "he told me to take as much
money as I needed and to buy everything, and said goodbye, and that is
all."
>
>
>>
>>> Perhaps it was not uncommon
>>>for him to carry such an amount.
>>
>>Irrelevant since he wasn't carrying it around.
>
>
>In this scenario, he must have been. He didn't live at the Paine's.
>That wasn't his home. This construction of events calls for us to
>believe that LHO travelled to the Paine's that night as part of his
>preparation for this suicide mission. He came to get the rifle to
>use on JFK. He must, therefore, have brought the money with him
>to leave behind with Marina. The money supposedly wasn't there before
>that night. If he didn't carry it around all the time, he must ahve
>retrieved it on the 21st so he could bring it to Marina.
>
>
>>
>>>Perhaps he left the money
>>>unintentionally.
>>
>>Again, Marina said he told her to spend whatever she needed.
>
>
>Again, you are now trusting an author who has,on that very page,
>misrepresented her testimony. You are believing this as blind
>faith.
>
>WR (p. 421):
>
> That night Oswald went to bed before his wife retired.
> She did not speak to him when she joined him there,
> although she thought he was still awake. The next
> morning he left for work before anyone else arose.
>
>
See above. This is typical Singer nitpicking. It's perfect possible
to say something to your wife before she has arisen. I do it all the
time.
>It is true that Posner cites Marina's testimony, but that enters
>into the questions about her credibility, a point I will respond
>to on another thread.
>
>
Do you have any reason in the world to doubt that Lee told Marina this
on the morning of Nov. 22nd?
>
>>>All that having been said, I certainly cannot conclude anything from
>>>the episode, except that Posner *deliberately* misrepresented the
>>>evidence. And he did it as a subtle maneuver to leave a specific
>>>impression with the reader. That was my point in noting the passage.
>>
>>By saying the money was left "on top" of the dresser instead of in a drawer? I
>>don't have the Warren Commission volumes available to me? What exactly did
>>Marina testify? And if she said the money was left in a drawer, what is your
>>evidence that Posner *deliberately* misrepresented the location of the wallet?
>>Were you *deliberately* trying to mislead me when you said Oswald left the
>>money in *his* wallet instead of *a* wallet?
>
>
>Please, Dwayne. I don't have paid editors at my disposal. And I
>don't proofread my posts that carefully. But go ahead, and clutch
>onto whatever beliefs you have.
>
Not a lot of fun to have somebody be as nitpicky about your posts as
you are about Posner, is it?
.John
John McAdams
>
>I don't consider Marina a fruitcake. Remember the circumstances. She
>was quite frightened, quite intimated, quite fearful for herself and
>her children. Bending over backwards to cooperate with authorities
>was totally consistent with her upbringing in the Soviet Union.
>
>She was asked leading questions. She did not have a good grasp of
>English. She did not understand the implications of her testimony.
>And she did not have good representation by counsel.
>
>Indeed, Marina herself has made this point for a number of years.
>In many instances, she says, she told the FBI what she thought they
>wanted to hear. She had been told they had an airtight case against
>her husband. She believed it. She was a mother of two youngsters.
>Doesn't this all make sense to you?
>
She wasn't a frightened new immigrant when she testified to the HSCA.
>
>I happen to believe that she was shown the jacket and that she thought
>she was supposed to ID it as the one Oswald wore that day, so she did.
>Or else she just ID'd it as Oswald's, but inadvertently indicated he
>had worn it that day. I don't think she was mistaken about his wardrobe,
>I think she was just trying to cooperate and do what was expected of
>her.
>
>
See my other post. She simply misstated this, and probably was a bit
confused about the CE numbers.
>
>
>>
>>>>remember that it is much of her testimony that the WR and Posner use to set
>>>>up the 'Lone Nut' scenario.
>
>Exactly, but only when it fits.
>
>
>>>
>>>But hasn't Marina lately turned to the conspiracy camps? Has she regained
>>>credibility?
>
>John McAdams will certainly agree with you about the two-fork nature
>of the world. I am not in a "camp". I do not assign blanket
>credibility to those I want to believe. I just try to understand
>the evidence as best I can, using logic and reasoning for the
>inconsistencies rather than the assurance of some author, be that
>author on one side of the issue or the other.
>
I'm sorry, but I've seen you try to defend the testimony of people like
Joseph Milteer on this newsgroup.
You recited Summers list of people who supposedly "connected" Oswald
and Bannister, failing to note major problems that (for example) caused
the HSCA to disbelieve their testimony.
And you actually quoted Harold Norman's testimony as recounted by *Mark
Lane.* Naturally, it was an absurdly selective quotation.
>
>Of course, that makes me a nitpicker in your world.
>
You're a nitpicker because you attack authors and witnesses you don't
like on the basis of minor points with no substantive significance.
Even then, if you *really* applied your nitpicking skills even
handledly to both sides, I would be inclined to respect what you are
doing.
.John
Dwayne K. Lanclos
>>>So the "point being made" is that Oswald deliberately left the money
>>>for Marina, and in so doing suggested that he did not expect to
>>>escape from his planned assassination attempt.
>>
>>Agreed. That's the point being made. So what difference does it make if the
>>money were left on top of a dresser or in a drawer?
>The location of the money being left behind is offerred as a *premise*
>in drawing that conclusion. We have Marina's testimony that Oswald
>left behind money for her, and Posner's interpretation that he left
>it out in plain sight for her. But if, indeed, the money was left
>in a wallet in a drawer, while the same conclusion *could* be drawn,
>it is far less compelling according to the known circumstances.
What makes the premise compelling is not that money was or was not left in
plain sight, but that the money was their entire life savings. That, coupled
with the fact that he also left behind his wedding ring and took his rifle,
indicates to me that Oswald didn't plan on coming back from his "mission".
>>When you couple his leaving all his life savings, his wedding ring (which he
>>had never before taken off), and taking his rifle to work with him, the
>>general impression is that Oswald didn't plan on coming back alive. 'Til
>>death do us part.
>Yes. That is the impression you are left with.
>And that is not an accident.
Perhaps because that was Oswald's intention?
>>>But back to the point, why would Posner characterize the leaving of
>>>the money as such an *intentional* act, except for the sole purpose
>>>of reinforcing the impression regarding Oswald's purpose? Indeed,
>>>the WR indicates he left it *in his wallet* *in a drawer*.
>>
>>My copy says "in *a* wallet" (WCR p. 421). Sorry to be nitpicky.
>>
>>>Perhaps he just forgot to take it with him.
>>
>>Hadn't he told Marina to take as much money as she needed? (Case Closed, p.
>>223)
>And what is the credibility of *that*? But hey, it certainly leaves
>the impression that he was going on a suicide mission, doesn't it?
Especially since it was all their money. If he was just leaving her (as in
separation prior to divorce), he would have probably only left her half. And
pawned his wedding ring for more.
>>> Perhaps it was not uncommon for him to carry such an amount.
>>
>>Irrelevant since he wasn't carrying it around.
>In this scenario, he must have been. He didn't live at the Paine's.
>That wasn't his home. This construction of events calls for us to
>believe that LHO travelled to the Paine's that night as part of his
>preparation for this suicide mission. He came to get the rifle to
>use on JFK. He must, therefore, have brought the money with him
>to leave behind with Marina. The money supposedly wasn't there before
>that night. If he didn't carry it around all the time, he must ahve
>retrieved it on the 21st so he could bring it to Marina.
Exactly. Why else would he have visited the Paine's that Thursday night?
>>>Perhaps he left the money unintentionally.
>>
>>Again, Marina said he told her to spend whatever she needed.
>Again, you are now trusting an author who has,on that very page,
>misrepresented her testimony. You are believing this as blind
>faith.
>WR (p. 421):
> That night Oswald went to bed before his wife retired.
> She did not speak to him when she joined him there,
> although she thought he was still awake. The next
> morning he left for work before anyone else arose.
>It is true that Posner cites Marina's testimony, but that enters
>into the questions about her credibility, a point I will respond
>to on another thread.
How is Posner and the WR in disagreement? Posner quotes from Marina's
testimony (p. 223) that she didn't get up to fix Lee breakfast that morning
and he came to the bedroom door right before he left to tell her to take as
much money as she needed?
>>>All that having been said, I certainly cannot conclude anything from
>>>the episode, except that Posner *deliberately* misrepresented the
>>>evidence. And he did it as a subtle maneuver to leave a specific
>>>impression with the reader. That was my point in noting the passage.
>>
>>By saying the money was left "on top" of the dresser instead of in a drawer? I
>>don't have the Warren Commission volumes available to me? What exactly did
>>Marina testify? And if she said the money was left in a drawer, what is your
>>evidence that Posner *deliberately* misrepresented the location of the wallet?
>>Were you *deliberately* trying to mislead me when you said Oswald left the
>>money in *his* wallet instead of *a* wallet?
>Please, Dwayne. I don't have paid editors at my disposal. And I
>don't proofread my posts that carefully. But go ahead, and clutch
>onto whatever beliefs you have.
Just trying to make a point that a simple mistake should not be interpreted as
a "deliberate misrepresentation".
>The WR drew a conclusion about the money. Posner drew a different
>one using the same evidence. You wish to believe this was happenstance,
>accidental if inaccurate. Nitpicking to point it out.
How is the WR's conclusion about the money different from Posner's?
>>>Do you agree with the WR conclusion that Oswald left the money and
>>>thus indicated that he planned to kill JFK, and he considered how it
>>>would limit his ability to escape?
>>
>>>*That*, to me, is what is absurd.
>>
>>Maybe he didn't plan to escape. If you're going on what you believe is a
>>suicide mission, you're not going to need a lot of money.
>Hope the bait was tasty.
Yum.
>--
>Mark Singer
>m...@netcom.com
Mark Singer
>In article <73...@raven.ukc.ac.uk>,
>n...@ukc.ac.uk (N.R.Harrison) writes:
>
>>>
>Unfortunately, neither Posner nor the WC footnote their conflicting
>accounts sufficiently for me to run down Marina's testimony.
>
>I'll check Macmillian, MARINA AND LEE, and Marina's HSCA testimony and
>see whether Posner perhaps got it from there.
>
>At 1H69 Marina says that a wallet was usually kept in a wardrobe, and
>that Lee would put money in it from time to time. She doesn't say
>(that I can find) that that's were she found the $170.
But if so, that would certainly argue against the WR conclusion.
I hope you do track it down. Nothing wrong with a nitpicker being
shown a dead end.
>It's a matter of degree. Neither Posner nor the WCR is as wildly
>warped as most conspiracy books are.
>
>It basically takes a Singer-type nitpicker to find holes in Posner and
>the WCR.
Hey. You were the one that said I ought to read them.
>Where the money was found isn't *nearly* as important as Lee's owning
>a rifle.
And Lee's owning a rifle isn't nearly as important as who fired it.
So what? Your point is that I am nitpicking. I'm OK with that.
I've admitted it. Now let's get to the truth.
>Posner is correctly reporting the WC testimony of Marina. But he
>probably should have discounted it in this case. At 1H121-122 Marina
>is shown a whole batch of Lee's clothing, and asked what he was
>wearing when. CE 162 was the Eisenhower-type jack he was wearing when
>he shot Tippit.
Yes, he should have discounted it in this case, because he knew it
was not possible. But the point is that her testimony was inaccurate.
>
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>MR. RANKIN: Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was
>wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963.
>
>MRS. OSWALD: On Thursday I think he wore this shirt.
>
>MR. RANKIN: Is that Exhibit 150.
>
>MRS. OSWALD: Yes.
>
>MR. RANKIN: Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that
>time?
>
>MRS. OSWALD: It seems he had that jacket, also.
>
>MR. RANKIN: Exhibit 162?
>
>MRS. OSWALD: Yes.
>
>MR. RANKIN: And the pants? Exhibit 157?
>
>MRS. OSWALD: Yes. But I am not sure. This is as much as I can
>remember.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>
>Note that Rankin put "Exhibit 162" into her mouth. And further she
>said "I am not sure" although it isn't clear from the transcript
>whether she is talking about only the pants, or his clothing
>generally.
>
>But what's the point?
>
>Either she misspoke or Rankin misspoke and she went along (being
>probably confused about the CE numbers).
The point is that this is very likely not an isolated incident.
Indeed, about a year ago there were a number of excerpts from
counsel's questioning of witnesses that were leading as is this
example.
>
>Do you really think, for example, that Oswald wore CE 162 to Irving
>Thursday night, The Conspiracy stole it from the Paine's house, and
>planted it near the scene of the Tippit shooting?
Typical McAdamsblather. Next post, he'll attribute that statement to me.
>
>You are ignoring the fact that she has been quite consistent about the
>key pieces of her testimony for 30 years.
^^^
Defined by whom?
>And by *key* pieces I mean things like whether Lee came home at 11:30
>one night and said he had shot at Gen. Walker. Which jacket he wore
>isn't "key" unless you really *do* believe The Conspiracy stole it for
>planting at the Tippit shooting site.
Yes. And the origins of the money isn't really important unless
you *do* believe that LHO's leaving of it behind was indicative
of his known "suicide mission".
And how about that wedding ring, huh?
>I'll eventually get around to posting Posner's treatment of the
>Clinton witnesses. The problems go far beyond the weather.
I look forward to it. At least I'm not the only one who doesn't
necessarily lead off with my best argument, as Beavis and his friend
expect.
>And she has been heavily influenced by Dallas-area "researchers."
Of course she has.
Which says a lot for a woman who was not heavily influenced by the
weight of the US government after she had been in this country only
a couple of years.
--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com
Dwayne K. Lanclos
>Unfortunately, neither Posner nor the WC footnote their conflicting
>accounts sufficiently for me to run down Marina's testimony.
>I'll check Macmillian, MARINA AND LEE, and Marina's HSCA testimony and
>see whether Posner perhaps got it from there.
>At 1H69 Marina says that a wallet was usually kept in a wardrobe, and
>that Lee would put money in it from time to time. She doesn't say
>(that I can find) that that's were she found the $170.
Thanks, John. This makes the business about where Lee left the money even
more irrelevant. The important point is the *amount* of the money (almost
everything they had), not its location.
>Posner is correctly reporting the WC testimony of Marina. But he
>probably should have discounted it in this case. At 1H121-122 Marina
>is shown a whole batch of Lee's clothing, and asked what he was
>wearing when. CE 162 was the Eisenhower-type jack he was wearing when
>he shot Tippit.
[testimony deleted]
>Note that Rankin put "Exhibit 162" into her mouth. And further she
>said "I am not sure" although it isn't clear from the transcript
>whether she is talking about only the pants, or his clothing
>generally.
>But what's the point?
>Either she misspoke or Rankin misspoke and she went along (being
>probably confused about the CE numbers).
I think she was probably confused about the CE numbers. Then again, it
doesn't seem like the kind of detail (what clothes did someone wear on a
certain day) that someone would remember. Unless that person was witnessing a
crime or some such.
Mark Singer
>In article <mssCrn...@netcom.com>,
>m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes:
>
>>>Hadn't he told Marina to take as much money as she needed? (Case Closed, p.
>>>223)
>>
>>And what is the credibility of *that*? But hey, it certainly leaves
>>the impression that he was going on a suicide mission, doesn't it?
>
>Posner quotes this correctly from 1H72: "he told me to take as much
>money as I needed and to buy everything, and said goodbye, and that is
>all."
Why would he say that? I don't get it. He was leaving it *all* for
her, in your scenario.
Ooops. Maybe that's the problem.
>>WR (p. 421):
>>
>> That night Oswald went to bed before his wife retired.
>> She did not speak to him when she joined him there,
>> although she thought he was still awake. The next
>> morning he left for work before anyone else arose.
>
>See above. This is typical Singer nitpicking. It's perfect possible
>to say something to your wife before she has arisen. I do it all the
>time.
Oh boy, you got me there. And I'll bet your wife can remember verbatim
what you say.
>>It is true that Posner cites Marina's testimony, but that enters
>>into the questions about her credibility, a point I will respond
>>to on another thread.
>
>Do you have any reason in the world to doubt that Lee told Marina this
>on the morning of Nov. 22nd?
Exactly as much as you have to believe it, I presume.
The issue, still unresolved, is whether LHO's actions that morning
bespoke of his planned "suicide mission". I say that is a total
fantasy by the WR, and by Posner.
>
>>Please, Dwayne. I don't have paid editors at my disposal. And I
>>don't proofread my posts that carefully. But go ahead, and clutch
>>onto whatever beliefs you have.
>
>Not a lot of fun to have somebody be as nitpicky about your posts as
>you are about Posner, is it?
>
>.John
I'm a big boy. I can handle it. At least my nitpicking has a point.
And I'd rather have pointless nitpicking that your incessant
misrepresentation of my written word.
--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com
Mark Singer
>In article <mssCrn...@netcom.com>,
>m...@netcom.com (Mark Singer) writes:
>
>>
>>of the world. I am not in a "camp". I do not assign blanket
>>credibility to those I want to believe. I just try to understand
>>the evidence as best I can, using logic and reasoning for the
>>inconsistencies rather than the assurance of some author, be that
>>author on one side of the issue or the other.
>>
>
>I'm sorry, but I've seen you try to defend the testimony of people like
>Joseph Milteer on this newsgroup.
I have not *defended his testimony*, only the fact that it exists.
>
>You recited Summers list of people who supposedly "connected" Oswald
>and Bannister, failing to note major problems that (for example) caused
>the HSCA to disbelieve their testimony.
You tell us. I've invited you before.
>
>And you actually quoted Harold Norman's testimony as recounted by *Mark
>Lane.* Naturally, it was an absurdly selective quotation.
>
>
>>
>>Of course, that makes me a nitpicker in your world.
>>
>
>
>You're a nitpicker because you attack authors and witnesses you don't
>like on the basis of minor points with no substantive significance.
>
>Even then, if you *really* applied your nitpicking skills even
>handledly to both sides, I would be inclined to respect what you are
>doing.
>
Well, I'm sure I have not been evenhanded, but I have definitely
applied it to both sides. Recently, I agreed with Beavis about
part of Lane's use of rhetoric regarding a couple of Tippit
witnesses. I have, on this forum, been critical of Marrs more
than once.
Listen. All you do is rant and rave about "conspiracy authors".
Remember, I invited Locke to post even one of those lies he is
constantly assigning to Lane. Nothing but generalities from
your side of the table. If you want to be specific, I'll jump
in as well. Until then, I'll stay on this side of the fence.
I am perfectly willing to evaluate and discuss the Lane/Markham
issue with the thread you began. Unfortunately, I'm going to have
to put it off a couple of weeks due to my schedule. But I'll get
into it with you. And let's see whether or not I am fair.
--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com
Mark Singer
>
>What makes the premise compelling is not that money was or was not left in
>plain sight, but that the money was their entire life savings. That, coupled
>with the fact that he also left behind his wedding ring and took his rifle,
>indicates to me that Oswald didn't plan on coming back from his "mission".
We know. Only two thirds of the premise may be entirely unrelated.
If the money was usually kept there, then he didn't do anything *active*
in regards to it. He *could* have taken some, knowing he was planning
the assassination and possible escape. He *could* have taken all of it.
But you have assumed he brought the money into the house, then deliberately
left it behind. And there is no evidence to support that belief. So
it is a theory. Or a fantasy.
As for the ring, Marina's testiomny made it very clear that her
converstaion with LHO the night before was indicative of a marital
breakup. You reason he left it behind because he was going on a
"mission". I say he left it behind to symbolzize the situation.
Assuming, of course, that he did take it off that night and leave
it behind.
The rifle is obviously the key element here. But look how convinced
you are about the ancillary evidence even when there are no facts
to support your position.
And taht was my point.
>
>>>When you couple his leaving all his life savings, his wedding ring (which he
>>>had never before taken off), and taking his rifle to work with him, the
>>>general impression is that Oswald didn't plan on coming back alive. 'Til
>>>death do us part.
>
>>Yes. That is the impression you are left with.
>
>>And that is not an accident.
>
>Perhaps because that was Oswald's intention?
i
Perhaps because it was Posner's.
>Especially since it was all their money. If he was just leaving her (as in
>separation prior to divorce), he would have probably only left her half. And
>pawned his wedding ring for more.
Oh, please. Now you are making things up because you are unwilling
to even consider an alternate point of view.
Tell us. Does this lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald strike you as the kind
of person who would have pawned his ring, and left half the money
behind? How valuable do you think that ring was?
>>>> Perhaps it was not uncommon for him to carry such an amount.
>>>
>>>Irrelevant since he wasn't carrying it around.
>
>>In this scenario, he must have been. He didn't live at the Paine's.
>>That wasn't his home. This construction of events calls for us to
>>believe that LHO travelled to the Paine's that night as part of his
>>preparation for this suicide mission. He came to get the rifle to
>>use on JFK. He must, therefore, have brought the money with him
>>to leave behind with Marina. The money supposedly wasn't there before
>>that night. If he didn't carry it around all the time, he must ahve
>>retrieved it on the 21st so he could bring it to Marina.
>
>Exactly. Why else would he have visited the Paine's that Thursday night?
You're the one that is willing to take testimony at face value. He
told you why. Neither Marina nor the Paine's were suspcious at the
time.
>How is Posner and the WR in disagreement? Posner quotes from Marina's
>testimony (p. 223) that she didn't get up to fix Lee breakfast that morning
>and he came to the bedroom door right before he left to tell her to take as
>much money as she needed?
And you believe that? But not what LHO said about why he went there?
>>Please, Dwayne. I don't have paid editors at my disposal. And I
>>don't proofread my posts that carefully. But go ahead, and clutch
>>onto whatever beliefs you have.
>
>Just trying to make a point that a simple mistake should not be interpreted as
>a "deliberate misrepresentation".
If Posner made a mistake, fine. But so far, his supporters have
rallied to assert that he got it right. They always do.
--
Mark Singer
m...@netcom.com
Dwayne K. Lanclos
>>What makes the premise compelling is not that money was or was not left in
>>plain sight, but that the money was their entire life savings. That, coupled
>>with the fact that he also left behind his wedding ring and took his rifle,
>>indicates to me that Oswald didn't plan on coming back from his "mission".
>We know. Only two thirds of the premise may be entirely unrelated.
>If the money was usually kept there, then he didn't do anything *active*
>in regards to it. He *could* have taken some, knowing he was planning
>the assassination and possible escape. He *could* have taken all of it.
So what makes you believe the money was kept there? Lee was the one working
and earning a paycheck. He was the one who had expenses. Logically, he
should be the one keeping the money.
>But you have assumed he brought the money into the house, then deliberately
>left it behind. And there is no evidence to support that belief. So
>it is a theory. Or a fantasy.
A theory based on the above. Maybe somewhere Marina testified as to who kept
the money, I don't know.
>As for the ring, Marina's testiomny made it very clear that her
>converstaion with LHO the night before was indicative of a marital
>breakup. You reason he left it behind because he was going on a
>"mission". I say he left it behind to symbolzize the situation.
>Assuming, of course, that he did take it off that night and leave
>it behind.
"Assuming"? You think he didn't leave it behind?
>The rifle is obviously the key element here. But look how convinced
>you are about the ancillary evidence even when there are no facts
>to support your position.
No facts? Fact: $170 left at the Paine's. Fact: Lee's wedding ring left at
the Paine's. Fact: Lee's rifle left at the TSBD.
>>>>When you couple his leaving all his life savings, his wedding ring (which he
>>>>had never before taken off), and taking his rifle to work with him, the
>>>>general impression is that Oswald didn't plan on coming back alive. 'Til
>>>>death do us part.
>>
>>>Yes. That is the impression you are left with.
>>
>>>And that is not an accident.
>>
>>Perhaps because that was Oswald's intention?
>Perhaps because it was Posner's.
Come now, this was put forward by the WCR long before Posner came along.
>>Especially since it was all their money. If he was just leaving her (as in
>>separation prior to divorce), he would have probably only left her half. And
>>pawned his wedding ring for more.
>Oh, please. Now you are making things up because you are unwilling
>to even consider an alternate point of view.
Are you aware of extra money that Lee had stashed away somewhere? If not, the
$170 was almost all they had. As for my speculation as to leaving her half or
pawning his ring, I was explaining why I don't find your argument convincing.
>Tell us. Does this lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald strike you as the kind
>of person who would have pawned his ring, and left half the money
>behind? How valuable do you think that ring was?
Maybe valuable enough to buy a second-hand rifle? :-) And, yes, I do believe
he was the type. He was cheap -- he read day-old newspapers at work, for
example.
>>Exactly. Why else would he have visited the Paine's that Thursday night?
>You're the one that is willing to take testimony at face value. He
>told you why. Neither Marina nor the Paine's were suspcious at the
>time.
Now which story is this? The "I need some curtain rods" story he gave to
Buell Frazier or the "I was lonely" story he told Marina?
>>How is Posner and the WR in disagreement? Posner quotes from Marina's
>>testimony (p. 223) that she didn't get up to fix Lee breakfast that morning
>>and he came to the bedroom door right before he left to tell her to take as
>>much money as she needed?
>And you believe that? But not what LHO said about why he went there?
Well, he certainly lied about curtain rods since his apartment didn't need
them. And he couldn't have waited one more day to visit Marina? He never
visited except on weekends before and always called to get permission before
visiting. Then, on the night before the assassination, he breaks his custom.
This is all more telling of Oswald's plans than the fact that he left money
behind for Marina. Let's look at the bigger issues.
>>>Please, Dwayne. I don't have paid editors at my disposal. And I
>>>don't proofread my posts that carefully. But go ahead, and clutch
>>>onto whatever beliefs you have.
>>
>>Just trying to make a point that a simple mistake should not be interpreted as
>>a "deliberate misrepresentation".
>If Posner made a mistake, fine. But so far, his supporters have
>rallied to assert that he got it right. They always do.
It would be hard for me to believe that someone could compile all the research
to produce a book like _Case Closed_ without making some mistakes here and
there. But before we go attributing every mistake to "deliberate
misrepresentation", we have to make sure it wasn't a simple error.