Oswald's sack in the Sniper's nest.

[Gerry Down]

Marina is unlikely because she couldn't couldn't speak English

In her first television interview, only a couple of months after the events, her English wasn't perfect but it was good enough to understand the questions and answer them.

She may have been coached for the cameras. Her hair was all done up. Its possible that the interviewer showed her the questions beforehand, helped clean up her english in her answers. Only then were the cameras turned on, the interview proper began, and the interviewer asked her the same questions again.

[Martin Weidmann]

She may have been coached for the cameras. Her hair was all done up. Its possible that the interviewer showed her the questions beforehand, helped clean up her english in her answers. Only then were the cameras turned on, the interview proper began, and the interviewer asked her the same questions again.

So the interview was a set up? If that's the case we can't trust a word that came out of her mouth, right?

Got any evidence for that beyond "it's possible"?

[Richard Smith]

Go to hell and learn to read....

Here's what I wrote....:"what I do know certainly supports that contention."

How about reading the part you omitted?  Not being very bright is not your own fault but dishonesty is.

"I'll grant you that I have no proof that George De M bought the MO"

[Walt Cakebread]

How about reading the part you omitted?  Not being very bright is not your own fault but dishonesty is.

"I'll grant you that I have no proof that George De M bought the MO"

I'll grant you that I have no proof that George De M bought the MO....., but what I do know certainly supports that contention.

So you have "no proof" but are certain?

Where do you think I expressed that I was CERTAIN? What part do you think that is a positive ( certainty) ??   

what I do know certainly supports that contention.

You may notice that that last word I wrote is "CONTENTION"   Do you know what that word means?

[John Iacoletti]

She may have been coached for the cameras. Her hair was all done up. Its possible that the interviewer showed her the questions beforehand, helped clean up her english in her answers. Only then were the cameras turned on, the interview proper began, and the interviewer asked her the same questions again.

Kinda like the way they did all the WC testimonies.

[Gerry Down]

Kinda like the way they did all the WC testimonies.

True. But you can't say there was anything suspicious about the way the WC did it. They (the questioners) needed to know how an interview would go too so as to be prepared as to what questions to ask.

[Walt Cakebread]

True. But you can't say there was anything suspicious about the way the WC did it. They (the questioners) needed to know how an interview would go too so as to be prepared as to what questions to ask.

Have you read any of the testimonies?     The Lawyers were very adept at asking leading questions  which elicited the answer they want from a witness.   And if a witness started to volunteer information, the slimy lawyers would quickly change the line of questioning, or go off the record.

[Martin Weidmann]

True. But you can't say there was anything suspicious about the way the WC did it. They (the questioners) needed to know how an interview would go too so as to be prepared as to what questions to ask.

But you can't say there was anything suspicious about the way the WC did it.

Really? They were supposed to be a fact finding mission. The facts are the facts, why would they need to be manipulated?

They (the questioners) needed to know how an interview would go

In a trial a lawyer will never ask a question he doesn't already know the answer to, but this was not a trial. There was no need to determine how an interview would go. The only reason they could have had for wanting to know in advance in which direction the testimony would go was so they could steer it away from any inconvenient facts that might come up.

so as to be prepared as to what questions to ask.

And still they failed to ask crucial questions, asked extremely leading questions, interrupted or cut of witnesses in the middle of what they were saying and were sometimes badgering witness because they did not get the information they wanted.

Two examples of their manipulation;

1. Prior to their testimony, Arlen Specter talked to FBI agents Seibert & O'Neill, who were present at the autopsy. After the conversation the WC declined to call both men. If they were on a fact finding mission, why would they do that?

2. They took the testimony from Tomlinson, the man who found a bullet on a strecher at Parkland Hospital, before they introduced the bullet into evidence as CE399. As the bullet was not in evidence when Tomlinson testified, they never showed him CE399 or asked him to identify it. The reason is obvious; they couldn't risk that Tomlinson would deny that CE399 is the bullet he found.