Lack Of Damage To CE-399

[Martin Weidmann]

Right.  I stand corrected. 133c was not introduced as a WC Exhibit but was discovered in 1977 and given that designation by the HSCA.  It appears to have been seized by the Dallas police but never tendered in evidence to the WC.  Unlike the other two photos (CE133A and CE133B) no negative for this photo was found among Oswald's possessions, which may be the reason they did not try to use it as evidence.

133C appears to have been taken at the same time of day and in the same general location as the other two.  Is the only reason you say Marina definitely didn't take it is because she couldn't remember taking three pictures?   That makes no sense.  She didn't remember taking two pictures, but she said that she obviously did because she was presented with the two pictures.  What makes you think that she would not have said something similar if she had been presented with all three?  It is not as if she said there was someone other than her in the back yard taking pictures.

Is the only reason you say Marina definitely didn't take it is because she couldn't remember taking three pictures?   That makes no sense.  She didn't remember taking two pictures,

How does Marina not remembering she took two photos relate to the fact that she did remember having one of the pictures (which turned out to be the fourth) in her possession and destroying it to keep it from law enforcement? Does that make any sense to you?

[Andrew Mason]

133c was not introduced as a WC Exhibit but was discovered in 1977 and given that designation by the HSCA.  It appears to have been seized by the Dallas police but never tendered in evidence to the WC.

So what you're saying is The DPD had the evidence (133c)  and withheld it from a legal investigation....  That my friend is FELONY.....  So the DPD were felons.

There were a lot of items that did not get put into evidence before the WC.  They did not put the entire contents of Ruth Paine's garage into evidence.  Someone has to decide what is relevant and what is not.  Having said that, I agree that 133c should have been put into evidence.  We don't know why it wasn't.  Maybe someone handling the Dallas Police exhibits saw there were two negatives and thought, without doing a careful comparison, that 133c was just a copy of one of the others. We don't know why it was not put into evidence.  If it showed something significant not shown in the other two one might think up a sinister reason, but that isn't the case.

[Andrew Mason]

Is the only reason you say Marina definitely didn't take it is because she couldn't remember taking three pictures?   That makes no sense.  She didn't remember taking two pictures,

How does Marina not remembering she took two photos relate to the fact that she did remember having one of the pictures (which turned out to be the fourth) in her possession and destroying it to keep it from law enforcement? Does that make any sense to you?

If that is what happened, then Marina was not telling the truth when she said that she thought she had taken only one photo.  What's your point? 

[Jerry Freeman]

This thread is really going wildly off topic.....

If that is what happened, then Marina was not telling the truth when she said that she thought she had taken only one photo.  What's your point? 

The point is that Marina was lying when she said that she took any of the pictures.
I would like to see in all of her testimony before the Warren Commission a quote that she used/identified CE-750 [the Imperial Twin lens Reflex Camera] to take the Backyard pictures.

[Martin Weidmann]

If that is what happened, then Marina was not telling the truth when she said that she thought she had taken only one photo.  What's your point?

Oh it did happen alright, and her obviously not telling to truth is exactly the point. She can't remember how she operated the camera nor does she recall how many photos she took, but she did instantly remember to destroy the one photo she had, thus displaying an immediate awareness of it's significance.

Perhaps she never really took the pictures in the first place and was only given one. That might explain her very selective memory, might it not?

How about Michael Paine confirming in a TV interview that he had seen a BY photo shortly after it was taken (something he previously denied) or the high quality copy of one photograph (with Russian text that Marina denied writing) that ended up - and years later was found - in a storage unit belonging to George De Mohrenschildt, in a box that De Mohrenschildt believed had been placed there by Michael Paine? The Paine's claimed to not know the De Mohrenschildt's very well, so why would Michael Paine have access to their storage unit, while they were in Ha?ti? And then there was Roscoe White of course. How did he get a copy of a photo? Seems to me, none of these people would have had any connection to the photos if it was just a simple matter of a wife taking some pictures of her husband in the backyard!

And then of course, on a separate note, there was the DPD who claimed to have found the BY photos in Ruth Paine's garage during the second search (with a warrant) on Saturday afternoon, and yet Michael Paine confirmed in his testimony that he was shown a BY photo on Friday evening and asked if he could identify the location, which of course he did. We know he did, because Fritz wrote in his notes that prior to showing a BY photo to Oswald on Saturday, he already knew (from Michael Paine) where the photo was taken.
 

[Ray Mitcham]

Are you assuming that this was a moment in time for which every detail would be permanently seared in Marina's memory?   I take pictures with my camera, with cameras belonging to others. I don't necessarily remember what camera I used let alone how many photos I took. 

You wouldn't remember using a reflex as against an ordinary 35mm camera. Pull the other one, Andrew? Two totally different methods of taking a photograph.

She remembered taking a photo of her husband with his guns and that there was no one else in the backyard taking photos.  When shown that there was more than one photo that appeared to be at a very similar time and in the same location with the same conditions, she agreed that she must have taken more than one.  She still couldn't remember taking more than one but she agreed she did only because the photo was shown to her.  133A is very similar to 133C.  What makes you think she would not have said the same thing if shown 133C?

The fact that she said she held the camera up to her eye when she allegedly took  them.

Was the image reversed left to right or upside down?  Wikipedia says that TLR cameras with the waist-level finder reversed left and right.  That makes sense, because you are looking at the upside-down reflection from the mirror and the mirror is reflecting the focused image from the viewing lens which is inverted (i.e upside down and reversed left-right)But easy to not remember in the first place. Our brain does not store details that are unimportant so that it has room to store the important things. At the time, the detail of where she held the camera was of no importance to her. Why would she remember?  She admitted she took at least one of the photos. They were all taken with the Imperial Reflex 620 camera so it is apparent that she was wrong on thinking it was taken with a camera that had an eye-level viewfinder.

Yes, she was quite wrong, and that what makes it so suspicious. Of course you would remember if you had to look down at an upside down image.

[Walt Cakebread]

Oh it did happen alright, and her obviously not telling to truth is exactly the point. She can't remember how she operated the camera nor does she recall how many photos she took, but she did instantly remember to destroy the one photo she had, thus displaying an immediate awareness of it's significance.

Perhaps she never really took the pictures in the first place and was only given one. That might explain her very selective memory, might it not?

How about Michael Paine confirming in a TV interview that he had seen a BY photo shortly after it was taken (something he previously denied) or the high quality copy of one photograph (with Russian text that Marina denied writing) that ended up - and years later was found - in a storage unit belonging to George De Mohrenschildt, in a box that De Mohrenschildt believed had been placed there by Michael Paine? The Paine's claimed to not know the De Mohrenschildt's very well, so why would Michael Paine have access to their storage unit, while they were in Ha?ti? And then there was Roscoe White of course. How did he get a copy of a photo? Seems to me, none of these people would have had any connection to the photos if it was just a simple matter of a wife taking some pictures of her husband in the backyard!

And then of course, on a separate note, there was the DPD who claimed to have found the BY photos in Ruth Paine's garage during the second search (with a warrant) on Saturday afternoon, and yet Michael Paine confirmed in his testimony that he was shown a BY photo on Friday evening and asked if he could identify the location, which of course he did. We know he did, because Fritz wrote in his notes that prior to showing a BY photo to Oswald on Saturday, he already knew (from Michael Paine) where the photo was taken.

she did instantly remember to destroy the one photo she had, thus displaying an immediate awareness of it's significance.

displaying an immediate awareness of it's significance.

On the evening of 11/22/63....Marina told Lee's mother that she had a BY photo and showed it to Marguerite who told her they needed to destroy that photo....

So clearly Marina understood that the photo might be incriminating because she had seen the rifle at the DPD and knew that Lee was holding a rifle in the photo...

[Jerry Freeman]

May I suggest that we go to the backyard here?....  https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1744.0.html
And resume 399 here in this thread.