Questionable Chain of Evidence

[Herbert Blenner]

It is well known that Robert Oswald took possession of Oswald's camera which he found among items removed from the Paine residence on December 8, 1963.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...eId=712915

This camera was turned over to the FBI on February 24, 1964.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...eId=712910

On March 16, 1964, the DPD officers who searched the Paine residence, Adamcik, Moore, Rose and Stovall consistently told the FBI that they would have confiscated the camera if found.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...lPageId=63

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...lPageId=65

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...lPageId=64

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...lPageId=66

Apparently this unanimous statement of intention to confiscate a found camera did not sit well with the higher echelons of the FBI. Nine days later the FBI obtained revisions of the previous statements by Adamcik, Moore, Rose and Stovall. These revisions omitted their previously stated intention to confiscate any camera if found.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...lPageId=71

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...lPageId=70

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...lPageId=68

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...lPageId=69

The FBI attempted to neutralize problems arising from the belated recovery of the Imperial Reflex camera. On March 26, 1964, they presented an unconvincing story to the WC which became CE 2557.

Source: 25H,793

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/w..._0411b.htm

CE 2557 explains that Detective McCabe found the Imperial Reflex camera during the search on November 23 and ignored it as unimportant. This explanation is difficult to accept. McCabe belonged to the Irving Police Department and was not an insider to the investigation being conducted by the Dallas Police Department. So McCabe was not prepared to decide the importance of items discovered at the Paine residence. Nevertheless the FBI expects us to believe that members of the DPD entrusted an outsider such as McCabe to decide what was important and what was to be ignored.

Detective Rose undermined McCabe's excuse for overlooking the camera in his testimony of April 8, 1964. He testified that McCabe was present during the discovery of the two negatives and a developed pictures of the backyard photographs.

Source: 7H,231

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/w..._0120a.htm

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.

End of quotation.

Since McCabe found the second backyard photograph, he could not plead ignorance of the significance of having previously found or finding a camera shortly afterwards.

[Jim DiEugenio]

I don't think most people understand how important this is.

I knew about the four statements saying the Imperial Reflex was not there, but I did not know how the DPD tried then to cover this up by getting someone to later say it was there.

That is really good stuff Herbert.

The other question is if McCabe found it, why was it not on the inventory?

See, to fully comprehend how key this is, one must understand that the other 3 cameras on the inventory could not take a photo like the BYP, since they took shots equivalent to 35 mm. The BYP were taken with 620 roll film.

If that camera was not there on the 22nd, then I think everyone understands the implication.

You just took it one step further. The DPD knew this was a key point and tried to go back and cover it up.

[Tracy Riddle]

Yes, good work, Herbert. There is a lot of buried treasure at Mary Ferrell's site.

[Albert Doyle]

What really puts this into proper context is Marina mis-describing her taking the viewfinder to her eye in order to take the backyard photo.

[David Josephs]

... cause the 3 metal boxes of phonograph records was considered to have "evidentiary value" but not a box of photos and a camera. ::

Jim... was one of the three cameras you refer to the Minox? Cause the box camera isn't there.... McCabe, being an Irving policeman would not be doing any of the DPD paperwork.
The 4 DPD men did not see a camera in this box, only McCabe. And when Ruth comes back in August to get HER stuff back... she gets all the Minox stuff, save the camera...

I'm not understanding the significance of this camera either being left at the Paines, or not being there on the 23rd and returned by Robert... I'm sure it'll come to me.







Mr. STOVALL. There was, as well as I remember---one of the brown ones was a leather appearing suitcase and the other was more of a--some kind of a paper or cardboard suitcase, as well as I remember that thing. It was partially torn, I
mean, it had been well used and was coming apart.
Mr. BALL. And were there three?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And what was the color of the third one?
Mr. STOVALL. I believe it was brown also.

Mr. BALL. You took these materials with you that you have on this list?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.

Mr. BALL. Did you take the snapshots?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, we took the snapshots.
Mr. BALL. And the negatives?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where are they listed on this exhibit--this Exhibit B?
Mr. STOVALL. I believe we listed them where we've got "Miscellaneous photographs and maps." There were several other photographs that we took when we were there.

Mr. BALL. Now, you also found a magazine advertisement from Klein's Department Store, Klein's in Chicago?
Mr. STOVALL. Yes, sir; that was in the same box with the photographs.

Funny, with so many items of inventory spelled out in great detail, the photos and negatives of the man holding a rifle, nor the Ad showing the same rifle are not listed on the inventory of items taken on 11/23 from the Paines.
Neither are the other suitcases or the duffle bags.
============



In the same vein as - the Evidence is the Conspiracy...

Thanks Herbert for confirming that 4 men searched the garage where most of Oswald's possessions were kept.

Fast forward to August 1964 and the discovery of artifacts from a Mexico trip... found, in a small brown suitcase which at the time of the assassination was in the Paine garage yet is not listed on any Inventory sheets from the 22 or 23.
CE 127 - Blue suitcase. may be the one described on the sheet from Nov 23 as found at the Paines supposedly conatining the BYPs yet was neither of the bags Eric Rogers sees Oswald leave with on the 24th of Sept. [URL="https://deeppoliticsforum.com/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0169a.htm"]Rogers Ex 1 -
Photographs of both sides of a green canvas bag.[/URL] is the bag Ruth provides the FBI as the one Ozzie took to Mexico. All sorts of bags and boxes, suitcases and such in that garage.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archiv...lPageId=29 is a report which states on Feb 19 1964 all Oswald's belongings from that garage were taken by Martin and Thorne

Except of course for this brown suitcase, left in the garage, containing all the Mexico City evidence including a bus ticket stub for a ticket that was never issued. (www.ctka.net)


At the very least this is yet another example where the FBI wrote the reports, the FBI rewrote all the reports after reinterviewing those who needed to amend their statements, and the FBI added to the Oswald inventory between Nov 22 and Nov 26th.

[Albert Doyle]

A good case for falsification of evidence to the degree of criminal conspiracy by agents of the law.

[Jim DiEugenio]

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.

[Drew Phipps]

It would be in line with standard police procedure for the "lead investigator" to write reports, incentories, etc; any other law enforcement personnel present might make a supplemental report, but I wouldn't expect Irving PD (who has been called there as a "courtesy") to write up a separate inventory while they were assisting DPD.

[Drew Phipps]

It would be in line with standard police procedure for the "lead investigator" to write reports, incentories, etc; any other law enforcement personnel present might make a supplemental report, but I wouldn't expect Irving PD (who has been called there as a "courtesy") to write up a separate inventory while they were assisting DPD.

I also note that Ruth Paine signed off on the inventory sheet, which is also some evidence that the items listed were actually found in her house. You would not expect a witness to sign off on a "misleading" search warrant inventory.

[Albert Doyle]

I also note that Ruth Paine signed off on the inventory sheet, which is also some evidence that the items listed were actually found in her house. You would not expect a witness to sign off on a "misleading" search warrant inventory.

Unless she was a CIA agent of course...