Was Oswald ever confronted with the physical rifle?

We know that the DPD had nothing tying Oswald to the rifle during his early interrogations, and that Oswald denied even owning a rifle. We know they paraded around the rifle in the DPD hallway for the press as well. But a thought occurred to me which is that I don't believe they actually confronted Oswald with the physical rifle. Is that accurate?

I'm wondering because I go back and forth on whether Oswald would have had any knowledge about whether his rifle was even in the TSBD during the shooting. And whether he did or he didn't, he may have changed his tune and said something more revealing (one way or the other) had the DPD showed him the physical rifle they recovered.

From my studies I know that Marina was confronted w. it after Carl Day paraded it on the 3rd floor at about 8 PM and she did not recognise it.
Nor was there any connection pointing to Oswald as the owner as the DPD did not know about Hidell until the 23rd and that is also when the order of that rifle was dug up in the morning.....

Thanks Bart, I appreciate that. The reason I ask is because, let's assume Oswald was on the steps and was unaware his (or someone elses') rifle was even in the TSBD. It is possible that he may have not even known they "recovered" a rifle in the first place. He may have just thought they were questioning him in general about owning a rifle. If they showed him the actual rifle, he may have changed his tune. He might have said "I've never seen that damn thing in my life". Or he may have said "yeah that's my rifle, how the hell did it get here? I'm being set up".

Anyway, I'm wondering if the DPD purposefully kept the actual rifle away from Oswald's eyes to avoid having to deal with him saying anything like that and potentially complaining about it to the press for example.

CastroSimp, I believe they only showed him a BYP which was 133c.
No evidence was shown to him per se.
No jacket, no bullets, no rifle, no pistol.
Fritz asking:
"IS THIS YOUR XYZ MR. OSWALD?" Never happened.

The BAG is an odd one, given partial prints on the wrapping paper, like Lee had touched the roll of paper, or a piece from that days roll. Must have touched it sometime before bag is made from the paper.

lacking full prints is whats odd, you cant just get partial prints on a bag you are fashioning bare handed. There'd be prints galore from holding and taping it together. Not a couple from weird ergonomics of handling, folding, carrying, opening and refolding.... just not possible to avoid multiple full finger and palm prints... try making that sack at the wrapping table with the wetted tape and leave such prints.
Did Linnie Mae adapt her story to the way the sack would need to be carried to create them? Did DPD help her by showing her the sack with the prints circled/pointed out, or was that all her doing?


Recall the employees make things like clipboards from scrap paper and cardboard.
Was Lee making a new clip board because his disapears before lunch? winds up on 6 on the floor over by some stock... Lee tears off a piece to make the new clipboard but excitement is heard outside so Lee leaves the paper to go out and watch P. Parade, never gets to finish the clipboard but DPD seizes it and turns it into a bag,,,,,?
I believe the prints were found on wrapping paper from Oswald, that paper is used to make a bag right there and then by DPD wearing gloves, and being shown how by Truly?
I say this because the bag, shown to reporters outside TSBD, or the paper making up the sack has been fingerprinted already, and appears to have print locations marked and Day's written statement on it.

Anyway the closest Lee got to a Carcano on 11/22 was a fake back yard picture.

The BYP on Nov 22???

You get the idea...

Mike saw it 11/22
Wink wink

Ed.Ledoux wrote:You get the idea...

Mike saw it 11/22
Wink wink

That's an interesting one isn't it Ed? He's unambiguous about the day and date as well. At least according to his testimony.
Wasn't it the Hesters? from the photo lab in Dallas who also claimed to have seen something resembling the BYP's on the Friday?

CastroSimp wrote:Thanks Bart, I appreciate that. The reason I ask is because, let's assume Oswald was on the steps and was unaware his (or someone elses') rifle was even in the TSBD. It is possible that he may have not even known they "recovered" a rifle in the first place. He may have just thought they were questioning him in general about owning a rifle. If they showed him the actual rifle, he may have changed his tune. He might have said "I've never seen that damn thing in my life". Or he may have said "yeah that's my rifle, how the hell did it get here? I'm being set up".

Anyway, I'm wondering if the DPD purposefully kept the actual rifle away from Oswald's eyes to avoid having to deal with him saying anything like that and potentially complaining about it to the press for example.

Firstly. I agree with what Bart said. Though someone did allegedly go through his history with him, as well as the contents of his pockets and wallet around the same time (I think) as Marina was being shown the rifle), and the card was allegedly among the items. But again, the report was typed up after Oswald's death, and given the lack of any mention previously, there is no reason to believe it was there as claimed in that report. 

I suspect the card really was there - but with no name or with Oswald's real name - a poor copy of his real card and one that he made at Jaggers as part of his on-the-job training.  After the name Hidell came up through the weapons, they had the bright idea to put the name on that card so they could claim he used Hidell as an alias. 

As for the interrogations, that first day, imo, was taken up largely by trying to pin commie bona fides on him so they could lay charges related to the International Communist Conspiracy (ICC) - a big ticket conspiracy with the Bircher crowd.

This was why Prof. Chucky Webster was there. He was called in (imo) to advise those clowns on federal law around the ICC.

Chucky-boy - a specialist in national labor law - tried to give give them a quick education on the Smith Act and Sedition. They were  not going to charge him initially with the murder of JFK - just with being part of the plot that planned, incited and triggered it. 

The Smith Act was named after it's main sponsor, Dem Rep Howard Smith - a leader of the anti-labor bloc in Congress. Chucky was a fan-boy used to infiltrate commie groups in Texas.

Wade tried to take credit in his testimony, for being the one who straightened the good ol' boy cops out, getting them to ditch the "international communist conspiracy" as not being a legal charge. 

Bullshit. Wade was pushing it from the get-go, claiming to the media that the assassin was a pro who had obviously been planning it for months. 

No. The person who set them straight was Webster. 

But as I said at the start, the questioning for most of that day was aimed at proving the ICC. 

This is why Oswald told the media they only picked him up because he had lived in the Soviet Union.

This was why his arse fell off and dragged his face down with it when told he had been charged with the murder of JFK. He was genuinely shocked because he knew what the questioning was aimed at. And it was not murder - at least not of JFK.

And this is why he asked for a Smith Act lawyer, John Abt who had never tried a murder case. 

So... if they ever did show him the weapon, it would only have been after they switched to a lone-nut scenario. 

Oh yeah - and this is why they were also not concerned about where the fuck he was at the time of the shots. Which is why Hosty's note (and Fritz's when it is read the right way) truly records the alibi and why the alibi was then missing or changed in various final reports. 

And yes, I have my doubts that the little comedy skit in the Paine garage at the hem of the empty blanket ever happened. 

Or that Buell was ever questioned about any bag or rifle or lunch or curtain rods - until after they went and dragged him back in. He was dragged back in only after the lone nut scenario kicked in, and that rifle had to not just be tied to Oswald but put in his hands bringing it to work.

The more you dig into this case, the thicker the smoke, the shinier the mirrors. 

We are expected to believe Marina showed them where she believed the rifle was stored.

But that then she denied he owned any rifle when taken in.

Then she is shown the weapon around the time they are switching to LN mode. She probably had a very good poker face because she would have recognized it as the same or similar rifle to the one she and her married "friend" (wink wink nudge nudge) Gary Taylor used to make fake photos of Lee to take the piss out of him the following day - aka April Fool's Day -- 


Marina - hey, George - here is the great hunter of fascists. 

George  - Lee? Really? Lee is really going to do it? We were just teasing him about it.


Marina - Oh for Chrissakes, George. It's April Fool's day! Lee couldn't hit the side of a barn with a bazooka. Ask the KGB.  

Mick_Purdy wrote:CastroSimp, I believe they only showed him a BYP which was 133c.


Not so sure it was 133c.  According to reports Fritz had the Police lab enlarge Photo exhibit 133a to an 8x10 photo. Which later became known as CE-134. This is what was claimed to have been shown to Oswald around 6.00pm on Saturday 23rd November. A short time later Oswald was claimed to have been presented with the smaller  3 and 1/2" x 3 and 1/2" photo known as CE-133b. It's claimed on both occasions Oswald stated that the photo was not of him.

I doubt it.
They mocked up 133c and never showed that to anyone again.
They stuck to story of finding A&B. 
We are dealing with untruthful cops Mick.

How do you prove which photo(s) they showed Michael Paine or Oswald?

Mick_Purdy wrote:

Ed.Ledoux wrote:You get the idea...

Mike saw it 11/22
Wink wink

That's an interesting one isn't it Ed? He's unambiguous about the day and date as well. At least according to his testimony.
Wasn't it the Hesters? from the photo lab in Dallas who also claimed to have seen something resembling the BYP's on the Friday?

It's been my contention that the cops wouldn't risk the other 2 photographs that they're gonna find on Saturday that they know about or they're going to make on Friday, if so they take/make/fake another one. They take weird weird stiluff they take Ruth and Michael's stuff, their cameras, their files, even though they don't get permission. The Cops still take Ruth and Michaels stuff and then later that day Cops have a back yard photo to show Michael.  It just seems odd.
I can see the cops risking a faked photo that they made took whatever in 133 c, as they're never gonna show it again, they're never gonna use again, they're just gonna be like oh, we just would have this one negative, well guess what Jeff Carter says about the same thing I long expoused.
 Jeff Carter says there's 11 out of 12 New Orleans images.  
 11 out of 12 on the roll so you're missing One, that's all you need right.?
 So if Ruth came to New Orleans took 11 pictures on the roll. Now she's got a negative, a blank negative. 
That's not been exposed that she can use later. That negs got edge marks scratches all the markings from that imperial reflex. 
Or ruth still has that blank negative unexposed frame on the roll and it hasn't been processed yet. It's still in the camera and cops take stuff from Michael stuff from Ruth...whatever, it gets taken. And now the cops have it, well well now the cops can make 3 photos if they want.  There will only be, in the end, one negative. But to start with you only need one blank unexposed Frame, (that's been wound through the camera)  And you can make some other photos from it, prints ...133b and c have no negative. (They cant, as they were made using a blank neg later used as 133A)

Thats my story and Im not wed to it but sure would explain a few details otherwise unexplained.


Jeff's take on it,

November 22, 1963: Michael Paine Is Shown A Backyard Photo By the Dallas Police

unless its 133c, which skirts warrants and legal requirements 
Cheers
Ed

Thank you for your response Greg, I do appreciate it, and I am humbled by its thoroughness. What you are saying makes complete sense to me, especially this thesis you make:


"As for the interrogations, that first day, imo, was taken up largely by trying to pin commie bona fides on him so they could lay charges related to the International Communist Conspiracy (ICC) - a big ticket conspiracy with the Bircher crowd."


If this is correct then my original question about whether or not Lee was confronted with the physical rifle is mostly irrelevant, as you confirm: 


"So... if they ever did show him the weapon, it would only have been after they switched to a lone-nut scenario."

If they wanted a patsy to implicate in proving an ICC then they really couldn't have picked better than Oswald huh. Your book is up next on my reading list, I am new to all of this but I just finished Bart's book a little bit ago and will dig into Oswald's Cold War soon, thanks.


-Miles

CastroSimp wrote:Thank you for your response Greg, I do appreciate it, and I am humbled by its thoroughness. What you are saying makes complete sense to me, especially this thesis you make:


"As for the interrogations, that first day, imo, was taken up largely by trying to pin commie bona fides on him so they could lay charges related to the International Communist Conspiracy (ICC) - a big ticket conspiracy with the Bircher crowd."


If this is correct then my original question about whether or not Lee was confronted with the physical rifle is mostly irrelevant, as you confirm: 


"So... if they ever did show him the weapon, it would only have been after they switched to a lone-nut scenario."

If they wanted a patsy to implicate in proving an ICC then they really couldn't have picked better than Oswald huh. Your book is up next on my reading list, I am new to all of this but I just finished Bart's book a little bit ago and will dig into Oswald's Cold War soon, thanks.


-Miles

Miles, it was a smart question to be asking - and one I don't recall being asked before.

On the general question of interrogations and techniques used, we have an enormous advantage over past researchers. Youtube, There are many many interrogations posted on there of murder suspects. The techniques have really not changed all that much except the opportunity for physical violence is now much more limited. Otherwise it is the same one-way psychological warfare - aka the Reid Technique. 

I have learned a lot watching such videos. 

It is much better than letting imagination run wild, which seems to be the preferred method of many.

If this had been an everyday mundane Dallas murder, it would have just been Fritz and Oswald in that room, and no national and international hordes of reporters outside. 

The possible outcomes in that situation: 

Oswald is worn down and eventually signs a confession. 

Oswald wears Fritz down and it goes to trial using "helpful" witnesses and bad science to get a conviction. 

Under no circumstances does Oswald walk. If he has managed to avoid a death sentence, or at least avoid the chair itself via appeals through to 1992, he becomes one of the earliest cases for the intervention of the Innocence Project.

greg_parker wrote:

CastroSimp wrote:Thank you for your response Greg, I do appreciate it, and I am humbled by its thoroughness. What you are saying makes complete sense to me, especially this thesis you make:


"As for the interrogations, that first day, imo, was taken up largely by trying to pin commie bona fides on him so they could lay charges related to the International Communist Conspiracy (ICC) - a big ticket conspiracy with the Bircher crowd."


If this is correct then my original question about whether or not Lee was confronted with the physical rifle is mostly irrelevant, as you confirm: 


"So... if they ever did show him the weapon, it would only have been after they switched to a lone-nut scenario."

If they wanted a patsy to implicate in proving an ICC then they really couldn't have picked better than Oswald huh. Your book is up next on my reading list, I am new to all of this but I just finished Bart's book a little bit ago and will dig into Oswald's Cold War soon, thanks.


-Miles

Miles, it was a smart question to be asking - and one I don't recall being asked before.

On the general question of interrogations and techniques used, we have an enormous advantage over past researchers. Youtube, There are many many interrogations posted on there of murder suspects. The techniques have really not changed all that much except the opportunity for physical violence is now much more limited. Otherwise it is the same one-way psychological warfare - aka the Reid Technique. 

I have learned a lot watching such videos. 

It is much better than letting imagination run wild, which seems to be the preferred method of many.

If this had been an everyday mundane Dallas murder, it would have just been Fritz and Oswald in that room, and no national and international hordes of reporters outside. 

The possible outcomes in that situation: 

Oswald is worn down and eventually signs a confession. 

Oswald wears Fritz down and it goes to trial using "helpful" witnesses and bad science to get a conviction. 

Under no circumstances does Oswald walk. If he has managed to avoid a death sentence, or at least avoid the chair itself via appeals through to 1992, he becomes one of the earliest cases for the intervention of the Innocence Project.

So I have spent the past week watching murder suspect interrogation videos now, and it is darkly fascinating. 

While some investigators are pretty milquetoast, others are fiercely high pressure and the tactics they use are quite something. I can't imagine many people lasting as long as these interrogations often do without breaking down. 

For actual murderers, the techniques used seem awfully effective at eliciting a confession (to the crime itself, or a lesser offense) or at the very least making the suspect look so foolish as to completely impeach him in court. 

For innocents it is really interesting. I think a lot of people don't realize that in many places police have the right to ouright lie to a suspect. Many false confessions are ellicted this way, by telling the suspect they have evidence crystal clear that they did it, and their only hope that this point is admitting it. Many people facing the situation would falsely confess, especially after having been psychologically broken down. 

Thank you for drawing my attention to this. It is also obvious to me that most likely, going back to my original question, that police would have likely never confronted Oswald with the rifle. It does nothing to actually help incriminate him. If they need to get him to confess to owning a rifle, firing a rifle, etc etc, then actually showing the rifle only weakens their case (as opposed to the BYPs, which strengthens their case). In the interrogations I have watched, physical evidence is rarely shown to suspects, only mentioned. Only at the very end of interrogations when the police have a suspect backed into a corner and want to ramp up the pressure will they bring it out. Kind of like rubbing a chewed up shoe in the face of a dog to make it feel shame. 

So, my question about Oswald being confronted by the rifle continues to be irrelevant in some sense. But I do think that if Oswald had caught a glimpse of the rifle, perhaps in the hallway when it was being paraded around, it would have been interesting. He was confronted with the BYPs of course, and his awfully specific comments thereafter were very interesting...