RANDALL SELLERS SAID:
>>> "The reason [Mark] Lane is grilling Mrs. Markham in the text quoted
by McAdams is because she CHANGED HER STORY. Lane's method of questioning here is commonplace in any courtroom, especially in view
of the fact that she had given, for the record, two conflicting descriptions. .... To call Lane's standard grilling "gross and tawdry" is pathetic hyperbole." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That must be why Mr. Lane was so desperate to keep the Warren Commission from hearing that taped recording between himself and Mrs. Markham, huh?
If Lane's techniques heard on the audio tape were so "commonplace", and it could be proven that Markham "changed her story" (i.e., told the press and/or the police one thing about J.D. Tippit's killer being a "stocky man with bushy hair" and told Mr. Lane something else entirely), then there would be no reason under the moon why Mark Lane would be so embarrassed and hesitant about turning over that tape recording to the WC when he was asked to do so by the Commission.
And make no mistake, Lane was very embarrassed and quite hesitant over that tape recording. That's obvious when reading his Warren Commission testimony.
>>> "After the assassination, Marina Oswald was installed at the Six Flags Inn by the FBI and basically held captive and incommunicado for months while Priscilla Johnson got friendly with her." <<<
Oh, that's what you meant by "locked up". (Geez.)
Anyway -- yes, I'm familiar with Marina's lengthy motel stay. But to hear you tell it via your earlier post, I had the impression you were of the opinion that Marina was in handcuffs with burly armed guards around her 24/7.
Let's now watch Mr. Sellers' imagination work wonders on Mrs. Priscilla Johnson McMillan, shall we?
The next hunks of unsupportable conspiracy-flavored idiocy being offered up by Randall are rather typical of the mindset possessed by a conspiracy-loving person who has spent a goodly amount of time in the "CT" camp. I.E., lots of accusations and not a speck of PROOF to back any of them up.
CTers don't have any problem at all with calling many, many innocent people "CIA operatives" or "liars" or "shills" or "dupes" or outright murderers for that matter. Just as long as Lee Harvey Oswald's skirts can remain clean, these CTers are pleased. (Or, at the very least, as long as LHO can be looked upon as the proverbial "patsy" in the case.)
You're up, Randy.....
>>> "Priscilla [Johnson McMillan], that old grandmotherly regular on the propaganda-documentary circuit, a so-called journalist who was caught lying about her State Dept. [read: CIA] employment and who happened to be on hand when the magic bus tickets *finally* appeared in a Spanish language television guide that Oswald, *we are asked to believe*, brought back from Mexico City. Oh and Priscilla was in Moscow in '59 and "happened" to meet Oswald there. Anyway, Marina was denied a lawyer, not allowed to give interviews, drilled by the FBI on "what really happened", etc." <<<
There's really no comment needed here. Just a dropped jaw, as I continue to be in total awe of the strange and bewildering conspiracy mindset that many people in this world possess when it comes to the topic of John F. Kennedy's assassination and its aftermath.
As I've said before on other forums, the motto of many conspiracy theorists seems to be -- Accuse Now; Prove Never.
>>> "It's not that Warren Commission evidence lacks credibility across the board; it's just that, between their CIA man (Dulles, then unemployed and hence available for more sessions than most of the others) and their FBI man (Ford), their investigation was steered around the trouble spots, and when the dodgy evidence for Oswald in Mexico City came up (audio tape, photo), both had already been determined by the FBI to NOT be Oswald, so when the WC asked to see the audio tape, the CIA said it had been destroyed (confirmed lie), and the WC accepted an affadavit on behalf of the photo, which they never saw. But the Warren Report would have the reader believe that this stuff established Oswald in Mexico City. As I said before, the Warren case would not convince a real jury, and in fact did not convince the American people." <<<
Now is a good time to repeat the previously-mentioned motto of a CTer the likes of Randall Sellers:
Accuse Now; Prove Never!
Randall can't provide a stitch of proof for the anti-WC accusations he directly implies above....but that won't stop him from writing them out on a public forum at Amazon.com.
Randall surely also knows that Lee Harvey Oswald's trip to Mexico City in late September of 1963 is WELL DOCUMENTED from start to finish, with a paper trail of hotel records (with Oswald's OWN SIGNATURE ON THEM) and eyewitnesses who saw and talked to Oswald on the bus on the way down to Mexico City.
The photographs and taped recordings of Oswald at the Embassies aren't even needed to establish the provable and undeniable FACT that Lee Harvey Oswald travelled to Mexico City in September of '63.
Oswald's own wife, Marina, also provided a large wealth of testimony in front of the Warren Commission, detailing her husband's trip to Mexico (at some length too) and about how she and Lee DISCUSSED IT TOGETHER after his return to Texas in early October. Via Marina's words ALONE, we can know that Lee Oswald went to Mexico City in late September '63.
Of course, since the testimony in question was being conducted by the Warren Commission, an organization that Randall hates and distrusts so much, I suppose it's useless and worthless testimony as far as Mr. Sellers is concerned.
That's another typical CTer ploy -- distrust EVERYONE in officialdom for the most part. Unless, of course, it suits the pro-conspiracy needs of a particular theorist, then that CTer will almost certainly latch onto those parts of the Government's story in a heartbeat.
Anyway, a CTer's distrust of all Government entities notwithstanding, here's a hefty portion of what Marina Oswald had to say with respect to LHO's 1963 Mexico City excursion (via Marina's Warren Commission session on February 3, 1964):
MARINA OSWALD -- "I wrote a letter to Mrs. Paine telling her that Lee was out of work, and they invited me to come and stay with her. And when I left her, I knew that Lee would go to Mexico City. But, of course, I didn't tell Mrs. Paine about it."
J. LEE RANKIN -- "Had he discussed with you the idea of going to Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes."
MR. RANKIN -- "When did he first discuss that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "I think it was in August."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you why he wanted to go to Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "From Mexico City he wanted to go to Cuba--perhaps through the Russian Embassy in Mexico somehow he would be able to get to Cuba."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he say anything about going to Russia by way of Cuba?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "I know that he said that in the embassy. But he only said so. I know that he had no intention of going to Russia then."
MR. RANKIN -- "How do you know that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He told me. I know Lee fairly well--well enough from that point of view."
MR. RANKIN -- "When your husband talked about going to Mexico City, did he say where he was going to go there, who he would visit?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes. He said that he would go to the Soviet Embassy and to the Cuban Embassy and would do everything he could in order to get to Cuba."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you where he would stay in Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "In a hotel."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you the name?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "No, he didn't know where he would stop."
MR. RANKIN -- "Was there any discussion about the expense of making the trip?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes. But we always lived very modestly, and Lee always had some savings. Therefore, he had the money for it."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he say how much it would cost?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He had a little over $100 and he said that that would be sufficient."
MR. RANKIN -- "Do you know how he got to Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "By bus."
MR. RANKIN -- "And did he return by bus also?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "It seems, yes. Yes, he told me that a round-trip ticket was cheaper than two one-way tickets."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you anything about his trip to Mexico City?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he told me that he had visited the two embassies, that he had received nothing, that the people who are there are too much---too bureaucratic. He said that he has spent the time pretty well. And I had told him that if he doesn't accomplish anything to at least take a good rest. I was hoping that the climate, if nothing else, would be beneficial to him."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did you ask him what he did the rest of the time?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, I think he said that he visited a bull fight, that he spent most of his time in museums, and that he did some sightseeing in the city."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he tell you what people he talked to?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "He said that he first visited the Soviet Embassy in the hope that having been there first this would make it easier for him at the Cuban Embassy. But there they refused to have anything to do with him."
MR. RANKIN -- "And what did he say about the visit to the Cuban Embassy or consulate?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "It was quite without results."
MR. RANKIN -- "Did he complain about the consular or any of the officials of the Cuban Embassy and the way they handled the matter?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he called them bureaucrats. He said that the Cubans seemed to have a system similar to the Russians--too much red tape before you get through there."
MR. RANKIN -- "Mrs. Oswald, you told us about your knowledge about the trip to Mexico and said that you were under oath and were going to tell us all about what you knew. Did your husband ever ask you not to disclose what you knew about the Mexican trip?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes."
MR. RANKIN -- "And when was that?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Before he left. I had remained and he was supposed to leave on the next day, and he warned me not to tell anyone about it."
MR. RANKIN -- "After he returned to Dallas from his Mexico trip, did he say anything to you then about not telling he had been to Mexico?"
MRS. OSWALD -- "Yes, he asked me whether I had told Ruth about it or anyone else, and I told him no, and he said that I should keep quiet about it."
In short, the conspiracy theorists who still to this very day think that Lee Harvey Oswald was not in Mexico City in late September and early October of 1963 (and think that Oswald was merely being "impersonated" down in Mexico) are just plain nuts.
It's as simple as that.
>>> "As for Mr. Fritz of the Dallas police and his claim of no tape recorder -- oh, please. Do you honestly believe that sorry excuse? There was no shortage of tape recorders in Dallas on 11/22/63, and the FBI interrogated LHO too. If they could hustle the President's body onto Air Force One by 2pm that afternoon, someone would have provided a tape recorder for the interrogation of LHO in the 36 hours that followed, especially if they actually *believed that he was working for the Russians*, to learn all they could. But they didn't." <<<
I can't say that I haven't thought it a little odd that the Dallas Police Department, as of 11/22/63, was lacking any kind of device for tape recording the interrogations of arrested suspects. That does seem a bit strange, I don't deny that. And it's even odder that they couldn't have gotten a stenographer (at least) in the room to take down the words spoken by Oswald.
But I'm certainly not prepared to call 31-year veteran DPD Homicide Captain J. Will Fritz a bald-faced liar when he said these words to the Warren Commission in 1964:
"I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if we had one at this time we could have handled these conversations far better. .... I have requested one several times, but so far they haven't gotten me one."
What the conspiracy theorists need to do, it seems to me, in this particular instance, is to dig back into the DPD records and archives and somehow PROVE to the world that it was the NORMAL POLICY of the Dallas City Police Department (or the FBI for that matter) to officially record or transcribe the verbatim words of a suspect during that suspect's DPD/FBI interrogation sessions.
I have yet to see anyone come up with any proof or documentation at all that would establish the fact that it WAS, indeed, standard operating procedure for the DPD to tape record (or transcribe) every word spoken by an arrested prisoner. (Versus merely jotting down some notes of the interrogations, which is what occurred in Oswald's case.)
And if it can be established that it was normal for the Dallas Police Department and/or FBI to NOT tape or transcribe a prisoner's statements (circa 1963), then the whole issue of "Why Didn't The Police Record LHO's Interrogations?" becomes a completely moot one altogether.
David Von Pein
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (JANUARY 23, 2008)