Questionable Chain of Evidence

[David Josephs]

The 3 cameras are as you list them: Cuera, Realist and Minox.

If the Imperial Reflex was never there, and if it was not at the rooming house, then where was it?

So what if McCabe was not part of DPD. Was there a separate inventory done for the sheriff?

With this new aspect, of McCabe's cover up action, it now appears that the DPD understood this was a problem, and tried to conceal it. And that part is not in Armstrong's book. The other part is.

Let's look at both sides...

It was there - McCabe sees it and the others either see it and decide not to bring it and the box it came in to DPDHQ with the rest of the stuff (which makes little sense if THAT camera was used by White et al to create the images it would make sense to find it in the Paine garage) or these four men did not see it and McCabe actually brings it with him to place in the garage... yet repeatedly it is said that everything of the Oswald's in that garage was taken while we find over and over items of Ozzie's that were both left there and are incriminating... the suitcase shown to Rogers and this camera... In fact all that inventory from August 64 given back to the Paines shows they took much more than what was Oswald's

Maybe the reason Ruth and Marina et al left for the store leaving these men alone in the house for hours.

or it was NOT there and McCabe is lying - whether the others searched this box and did not see a camera is a matter of faith in testimony. Good luck with that. ::thumbsup::

By Dec 8th when Robert comes there should not be a single thing of Oswald's left at the Paines... let alone a box of stuff and a suitcase Marina took with her when she left the Paines containing Mexico artifacts, only to be "discovered" in August 1964.

It does seem that Oswald saved everything he ever touched, including other people's paycheck stubs, so I guess it is reasonable to assume that this camera be with his belongings.
Obviously the events in that garage make little sense - the garage is very small so that what happens in one corner is difficult to hide.

Mr. BALL. Did you find some pictures?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right with those negatives I found a developed picture--I don't know what you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing there and he found the other picture--of Oswald holding the rifle.

So if this the same box that the camera is in, Rose must have seen it - so McCabe is filling in some much needed missing evidence by claiming it was there with Robert adding to the legend that the camera was there - still doesn't make much sense

If Robert was in the know he only needs to say he got the camera at some point in time before turning it over.
Robert could have been the model for the body just as easily as anyone else - along with his being one of the impersonators, if need be.



A brother defending his own (or knowing it was NOT his brother, he throws him under the bus):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...rt-oswald/

What do you say to people who are so convinced or are trying to believe in his innocence? I mean, you're his brother; you would want to believe more than anyone.
I think that's an understatement. … I would love to be able to say that Lee was not involved in any way whatsoever, or much less to the extent that I believe that he was. This is a struggle that has gone on with me for almost 30 years now. This is mind over heart. The mind tells me one thing, and the heart tells me something else.

But the facts are there. … What do you do with his rifle? What do you do with his pistol? What do you do with his general opportunity? What do you do with his actions? To me, you can't reach but one conclusion. There's hard physical evidence there. True, no one saw him actually pull the trigger on the president but … his presence in the building was there. What he did after he left the building is known: bus ride, taxi ride, boardinghouse, pick up the pistol, leave, shoot the police officer. Five or six eyewitnesses there. You can't set that aside just because he is saying, "I'm a patsy." I'd love to do that, but you cannot. …

He did not and would not talk to any of the interrogators about anything of substance. Anytime they brought anything up that pertained to the assassination of the president and the shooting of the police officer, he knew nothing about it. He would talk about anything else. He had the presence of mind then to do that.

[To those who say,] "He didn't own a rifle." We know he owned a rifle. You've got all kinds of documented evidence. They've gone to the extreme measures to prove that he owned that rifle. You've got the backyard picture. They've got the original negative. They've got the camera. You've got all the physical evidence that ties together.

If it was any other murder case other than the president of the United States, it would have been resolved right then. Consequently, people left it wide open. It's good that people raise questions and say, "Wait a minute, let's take a second look at this." But when you take the second look and the third and the 40th and the 50th, hey, enough's enough. It's there; put it to rest.




A side note: the photos of Oswald's in WCD443 come in a variety of sizes - many of them square like the BYPs - could one of our Ozzie's have had it in Japan?

[Albert Doyle]

A brother defending his own (or knowing it was NOT his brother, he throws him under the bus):

That's a good point. I never thought of that. I always wondered why Robert Oswald would be so helpful with the camera evidence. It would explain a lot of things if he thought he was screwing an impostor.


It would make sense if Marguerite were announcing Oswald was a CIA operative that she would have done the same with her son Robert.