Death Deception, (The Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald), Part VIII.
By S.r. “Dusty” Rohde
© February 2017
Author’s Note: (I wanted to put all of my remaining info into a single article, but as it turns out, there is just to much to share, and on different subjects. This article is necessary for what comes after, thanks…Dusty).
Before I get into this part of Death Deception, I want to point out a simple fact. By legal definition, Lee Harvey Oswald is “innocent” until “proven guilty” by a court of law. This was true in 1963 and it is just as true today. The Warren Commission is not a lawful substitute for a court of law or LHO’s legal right to trial by jury. Anyone who claims Oswald is guilty of shooting President Kennedy or DPD officer J.D. Tippit is participating in “libel, slander and defamation of character”. All of these are violating Oswald’s constitutional, civil and moral rights. All of these are legally actionable offences. Recently, in a discussion in Facebook forums an individual stated that they were unaware of any fraudulent evidence, perjured testimony, etc related to these shootings. I suggested that person take the time to actually look at the evidence and read the testimonies. This individual stated they would “decline” as they weren’t interested in “biased” information. Exposing evidence, factual, fraudulent, perjured or legitimate is not bias, that is objectivity and a public service. Simply because factual evidence doesn’t fit anyone’s personal pet theory and hence is rejected, that is bias, prejudice and dishonest.
Frankly, if the evidence proved Oswald guilty, I’m perfectly fine with that. I mean, what would I care? Oswald isn’t my father, my son or brother, he is not related to me and I never met the man. So what difference would it make to me if he was in fact guilty? It wouldn’t. On the other hand, if Oswald didn’t kill JFK, then I have a very big problem with the whole outcome of the Warren Commission. If Oswald truly isn’t guilty, it means someone else was and to date, they got away with murder. If they get away with it once, who’s to say they won’t do it again, or haven’t already?
While many have tarred and feathered Oswald for 50 plus years, his guilt had never been proven (beyond reasonable doubt) in a court of law. Hell, no one has even managed to supply a motive for Oswald in over 50 years. Lyndon B. Johnson had motive, so did J. Edgar Hoover and General Edwin Walker, . . .Organized Crime members had it (Carlos Marcello, etc.), Jack Ruby had it, Fidel Castro and numerous Cubans had it, H.L. Hunt and associates had it, even the CIA had motive, just about everyone but Oswald had motive. Some “Lone Nut” fans love to state “the DPD had enough evidence in 24 hours to convict Oswald”. Even after years and years, Chief Curry of the DPD stated they didn’t have to evidence to convict Oswald. Why not?
There are three common denominators used by courts of law to determine or prove someone guilty of a crime, they are “Motive, Means and Opportunity”. As I just noted, no one could prove Oswald had any “motive” to kill JFK. The opposite was actually true, Oswald had stated he liked the Kennedy’s and he thought JFK was doing a good job. Marina Oswald stated that Lee adored JFK.
No agency was able to prove that Oswald had the “opportunity” to kill JFK. Meaning, they couldn’t place him on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. I hear people say “Oswald was in the TSBD”! Yeah, so were about 90 other people. People might as well just say “Oswald was in Texas”, that would have about the same significance. The same people state “Oswald’s fingerprints were on the boxes of the sixth floor”. No kidding? Imagine that, Oswald has to fill his orders by taking books out of the boxes on various floors, and I’m supposed to be impressed that someone may find his fingerprints on any given box? I’d be amazed if they didn’t find his prints all over. Who is it that said the hardest part of their job was moving the boxes out of their way and then put them back in place? That would be the members of the sixth floor crew, of which Oswald was not part of. The sixth floor crew had to move all of the boxes and put them back while working on the floors of the TSBD. Wouldn’t the sixth floor crew have noticed if Oswald was casually stacking boxes to set up the sniper’s nest while they were working? They didn’t. In fact, according to Tom Aylea’s testimony members of the DPD are the ones who added boxes to the snipers nest prior to Alyea’s taking any film and photo’s, not Oswald. (See below)
Also per Aleya’s testimony, Captain Will Fritz picked up the shell casings near the snipers nest, pocketed them, and later officer Studebaker put them back, all prior to being photographed or filmed. In doing so, they contaminated the crime scene. The chain of evidence pertaining to the shell casings would also be broken by Lt. Day after the fact. Lt. Day testified he placed the three shell casings in an envelope (which he didn’t seal) and gave them to Detective Sims. The envelope was later returned (by whom is unknown) with only two of the shell casings, according to Lt. Day. (See the following two images below)
Now this may seem a technicality, but in a court of law, maintaining the chain of evidence is a critical point. Clearly, the chain of evidence in the case of the rifle shells was broken and the evidence contaminated when the shells were picked up prior to being photographed. This is where things take a rather odd turn at a critical juncture. So, let me contest one of the more common claims pertaining to Lee Harvey Oswald.
1) Oswald’s fingerprints were on the rifle.
Fact #1: Lt. Day of the DPD dusted the MC rifle for fingerprints in front of multiple DPD officers, Sheriff’s officers and reporters from the media which included filming Lt. Day checking the rifle for fingerprints. Lt. Day placed protective cellophane over the fingerprints he found on the rifle, (the alleged “partial palm print” of Oswald was not one of these). Lt. Day was ordered to turn over all evidence related to the rifle and shells to the FBI lab.
Fact #2: The rifle was sent to the FBI lab, and again checked for prints, the FBI also failed to find any fingerprints of value, meaning Oswald’s or anyone else’s. The FBI also found no evidence of the alleged “partial palm print” of Oswald claimed by Lt. Day. The FBI immediately questioned why Lt. Day placed no protective cellophane over the alleged partial palm print (if it existed); as Lt. Day stated the palm print was still visible after he allegedly “lifted” the print and the best bet for the FBI to make a lift of the print to ID Oswald. This caused the FBI and the HSCA to be suspicious of Lt. Days claims. (See below)
Fact #3: The rifle was returned to the DPD by the FBI. Only after the rifle was returned did Lt. Day send two DPD officers to the morgue to fingerprint Oswald, using two different fingerprinting methods. Lt. Day magically and suddenly discovers the “faint” partial print alleged to be Oswald’s, only “after” the DPD officers lifted Oswald’s prints at the morgue (the partial print previously unprotected and unreported to the FBI and unseen by them). Could this partial print of Oswald have come directly from those made at the morgue? Would this have to be proven in a court of law (it would if I was the defense attorney)? Why would Lt. Day send officers to fingerprint Oswald at the morgue, when they had already fingerprinted him (three times) when he was still alive? Why use two differing methods to fingerprint Oswald at the morgue? (Make note that in the previous image, Lt. Day states he was going to attempt to “photograph” the alleged partial palm print he found).
There is a more important and fairly rare bit of evidence that makes the magical appearance of the alleged partial print of Oswald’s even more interesting. When the HSCA requested the “original” partial print from NARA, the Warren Commission, the FBI and the Dallas Police Department, none of these agencies could produce it, it magically disappeared, as if it never existed. (See below)
The only evidence anyone had that the print existed was Lt. Days claim and a “photograph” he submitted as evidence which as stated, was sent on the 26th of November. However, make note the date on the previous image. The memorandum was sent on the 29th, indicating the FBI still had not received the original prints or any others from the time of Oswald’s arrest. (See also the following link, pages 2,3,4,5 and 6)
Also make note of the following testimonies related from the FBI and the HSCA during the HSCA hearings.
(NARS = NARA where shown in above image)
So if you put this all together, what does it mean?
- Day put no protective cellophane over the alleged partial print of Oswald prior to sending the rifle and related material to the FBI. (Even though Lt. Day claimed this partial print had the most value or potential to ID Oswald)
- Day made no mention of the alleged partial print to the FBI when he turned the evidence over to the FBI.
- The FBI found zero evidence of the alleged partial print that Lt. Day claimed still existed after he lifted the print.
- Day never sent the original partial print to the FBI as he claimed.
- During the HSCA hearings, no one could produce the original alleged partial print of Oswald, not the HSCA, the Warren Commission, NARA, the FBI or the Dallas Police.
- No other prints were determined to be of any value in identifying anyone who may have handled the rifle.
- Day only claimed to find the partial print “after” having Oswald fingerprinted twice at the morgue.
- The FBI and the HSCA were suspicious of Lt. Days claim, (meaning suspecting he may have fabricated this evidence).
- Oswald’s prints were not on the rifle.
- With no fingerprints connecting Oswald to the rifle means no one can prove Oswald had the “means” to commit the crime.Even if the original partial print was somehow magically found, after everyone else failed to find it, Prosecutors would still have to prove Lt. Day didn’t fabricate the evidence. They would have to convince a jury, not a court of public opinion. What I’ve shown doesn’t include any of the other evidence already presented in these articles. This also doesn’t include any information or evidence that Oswald may have presented to his defense attorneys had he lived to testify. Add to this information any and all other evidence that is provable as being fraudulent, incorrect, manipulated….or that was suppressed or that vanished from the records. The prosecution has to prove guilt “beyond reasonable doubt”. The defense attorney’s job is to create that reasonable doubt, if they couldn’t prove Oswald innocent outright (and I’m not saying they wouldn’t have been able to prove Oswald innocent).The big question anyone should ask themselves is, did the DPD have any motive in wanting to see Oswald found guilty. Did anyone in the DPD have motive to fabricate evidence? Well, considering one of their own was murdered and Oswald was considered the prime suspect, I would have to say yes. Then include the fact that Oswald allegedly attacked Officer McDonald. I think certain members of the DPD might just have taken that a bit personally.
While on the subject of proving if Oswald had the “means” to shoot JFK, we need to examine another bit of information researchers and investigators overlook. The 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle allegedly purchased by Alek Hiddell (aka Lee Harvey Oswald) was indeed found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. This purchase in March 1963 (8 months prior to the assassination) was the alleged proof that Oswald was the assassin (along with the alleged partial print no one can find). Bear in mind that the burden of proof falls upon the prosecution, and not the defendant. So let me bring up a point of interest. (See below)
Whether this story was true or not, I can’t say. Whether or not the WC investigated this story I don’t know. True or not, this story does raise a key point. Even potentially proving with 100 % certainty that Oswald purchased the MC rifle in March doesn’t prove Oswald still owned that rifle on the 22nd of November. Proving this would be kind of important, don’t you think?
According to the previous testimony, the rifle wasn’t won by Oswald while gambling (In August), prior to the assassination. Is this why police found no spare ammunition in Oswald’s possession? Can anyone prove to me that there was a single witness who saw the rifle in the home of Ruth Paine on the 21st of November, or the 20th, the 19th, no? How about a week or a month before? Can anyone prove to me the exact date the last time the rifle was actually seen in the garage of the Paine home? Marina Oswald stated the last time she had seen the rifle was two to three weeks prior to the assassination. Marina also said she didn’t see the whole rifle, just part of the barrel. Why does this matter? Any defense attorney worth a damn would ask the same question in a court of law and because the prosecution would have to prove Oswald still owned the rifle.
If prosecutors fail to prove Oswald had the “motive, means” (owning the rifle on 21st or 22nd November and no prints of LHO on the rifle) or opportunity to kill JFK means no one can convict him. I’ll grant that what I’ve presented hear could be declared as “technicalities” that could prove Oswald innocent, even if he had fired a shot. Just the same, it is important that you understand the information that has been presented to you in this article. This information is laying the foundation for some very surprising information coming in the next article. On that note, let me provide a sample of what is coming in that next article.
The big question is can Oswald be proven innocent beyond these technicalities?
Let’s have a look at the next bit of interesting evidence. Anyone familiar with the history of the assassination is aware that several witnesses testified there was a Secret Service agent (fake) on the grassy knoll who was blocking people from going behind the picket fence. This is something that is never looked at with any depth on JFK research forums.
- If “Oswald acted alone”, then explain the fake Secret Service agent on the grassy knoll.
What you may not know, is that Oswald was reported as having met with an FBI agent using Secret Service credentials while at work, and prior to the assassination. (See below).
“Alba always ate his lunch at Jack MANCUSO ‘ s restaurant and he saw OSWALD there many times but usually alone as he can’t remember anyone with him. (NOTE: Guy BANISTER office was just behind the restaurant in the same building). During this period of time the Secret Service stored their cars, as well as vehicles that were seized by them at ALBA’s garage.
One particular day, he remembers it because it was rather unusual and his memory was jogged by a TV commercial being shown just a couple of years ago, a FBI man came down, showed ALBA his credentials and also showed him a pass issued by the Secret Service allowing this FBI man to take out what he recalls as light green Plymouth. The car was kept out, apparently by this agent for two or three days. During this time he (Alba) was standing outside of his garage and he saw, as he referred to it, ‘my car’ coming down the street. He saw the plate number so it was the same one. The car stopped at the corner just outside of the Reilly Coffee company and he saw OSWALD come out of the building, go over to the car, not hold a conversation of any duration, but take a legal sized envelope hold it to his stomach under his T-shirt, turn around in a crouched position, and go back into the building straightening up as he went. The thing that jogged his memory was the commercial of a businessman (Rosenberg) showing a similar action. HE STATES THAT HE HAS NOT MENTIONED THIS IN THE PAST. ALBA has the record books going back to that time and an attempt was made to ascertain the license plate number and the agent assigned to the vehicle. The records that were checked by Daly and Buras only showed three of the five or six that were stored there and none were the vehicle in question. Further efforts will be made in this direction.” (See link below).
This is a rather strange set of circumstances is it not, a fake Secret Service agent on the grassy knoll, and an FBI agent using Secret Service credentials meeting with Oswald? This may or may not have been the same Secret Service agent on the grassy knoll on the day of the assassination, but it could be a vital bit of information. Obviously, if this was the same
“fake” Secret Service agent, then Lee was obviously not “acting alone”.
Author’s Note: (In the next article it is time to identify those involved with the assassination and to provide evidence well beyone that…until next time).