DID MARINA OSWALD LIE ?

[fobrien1]

when a person chooses for whatever reason to lie they then have credibility issues . because you then have a situation where its difficult to believe them . when a person blatantly lies many multiples of times in the fashion that marina oswald did well its then impossible to rely on anything such a person said .

and yes marina did blatantly lie , add to that we know she had a business manager in place within weeks , hence she clearly understood that money could be made . even lone nut advocates will argue with you that if a  witness lied or tried to make money or did make money that they lack credibility . but it seems the LN logic ONLY applies to CT witnesses not LN witnesses as ALL LNs will cite marina despite them being informed of the above facts .

so is there proof that marina lied ? most certainly and from both warren commission and hsca , it will and should be of little surprise to learn that our LN friends choose to ignore the WC and HSCA in this regard and also to ignore marinas blatant lies .


"The Warren Commission was aware that many of Marina Oswald’s statements were contradictory and unreliable (see, for example, her evidence about Oswald cleaning and practising with his rifle). One of the Commission’s attorneys, Norman Redlich, wrote in a memo to J. Lee Rankin that "

“neither you nor I have any desire to smear the reputation of any individual. We cannot ignore, however, that Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the [Secret] Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world” (HSCA Report, appendix vol.11, p.126).

Redlich expanded on this when testifying before the HSCA:

“She may not have told the truth in connection with the attempted killing of General Walker. … I gave to Mr Rankin a lengthy document. … I indicated the testimony that she had given, the instances where it was in conflict” (ibid., p.127).

so there is no doubt that marina oswald lied blatantly , and we have that information right as they say from the horses mouth the WC and the HSCA . yet our LN friends choose to ignore this . why ? because they understand that a lot of their argument relies upon the say so of marina . honest people with nothing to lose would just admit that they were wrong and that marina indeed has a serious credibility issue . LNs of course who want to cling to their lone nut scenario have something to lose  , even it seems if that means citing the word of a liar to do so , that is dishonest . in my next post here ill detail some of the lies she told .

[Geoff Johnstone]

Its not just Marina, its virtually every witness. They want to believe Frazier about a package but then say he is wrong about that packages length, how it was carried and that it wasnt the large package supposedly found on the 6th floor.

Helen Markham is a wonderful witness when she says the shooter was Oswald but then is wrong about the time of the shooting, the number of shots, the shooters shirt and the shooters jacket.

You can pick almost any witness they rely on and they say the same witness was mistaken about something else.

[fobrien1]

your correct geoffrey . with our lone nut advocate friends there are multiples of witnesses that they cite as reliable only to then in some way or another they end up attacking that very witness . there is no logic there .

you will be aware of david emerling . he has wrote many times that the pathologists who performed jfks autopsy are the VERY BEST PEOPLE TO TEL US ABOUT JFKS WOUNDS . while in almost the same breath telling us that he does not accept the conclusion of these pathologists that jfk had an entry wound low on the rear of his head , just off center to the right in an area of the skull called the EOP .LN are of course aware that this position is too low in terms of trajectory . hence the reason they refuse to accept it , if its too low oswald didnt fire it from the 6th floor window . clark panel and hsca also knew this , which is why they lied and moved the wound up 4 to 5 inches to the crown area . this despite the vehement protest by pathologist humes that THERE NEVER WAS ANY SUCH WOUND UP THERE .

LN including our friend mr emerling continue to cite marina oswald as a reliable and credible witness .this despite the FACT that both warren commission and hsca admitted that she lied through her teeth . but the problem that LN have is that they know that to admit marina is a liar and thus unreliable would mean that they lose her as a witness . that means they lose all her claims about walker , about seeing a rifle and oswald practicing . but then we already know that she contradicted her self .

i am at a loss as to how any LN can claim the sort of things as above and hope to  sound logical and honest ? .

[Geoff Johnstone]

They also dont believe Humes when he states that he doesnt think CE399 was the bullet that went through both Connally and JFK.

I read a book (cant remember which) and it said that during his HSCA testimony, Humes was adamant that the wound was where he stated it was in the autopsy report, but they threatened to exhume JFKs body and he suddenly changed his mind. I dont remember reading that in the HSCA Report and I am going to have to try and find the book I read it in. Finck and Boswell never changed their mind though.

[fobrien1]

this is true geoffrey . as i said in another post here david emerling one day says the 3 pathologists are the best people to tell us about jfks wounds , that includes humes . but then david tells us HE DOESNT BELIEVE HUMES about the EOP head wound entry location , nor apparently the other two pathologists that said they saw the same thing lol . we can add to that that humes testified that he could not conceive of where all the fragments in evidence came from ce399 , given that it lost all most none of its mass . and LN dont accept that either .

i believe it was the clark panel geoffrey but im going from memory . they tried to tell humes he was wrong about the head wound . they tried to tell him in effect that he saw an entry wound by the EOP that they said DID NOT EXIST (all 3 pathologists apparently imagined seeing the same wound lol ) , and further to that that all 3 pathologists failed to see an entry wound 4 to 5 inches higher up in the crown area . the autopsy photos show that there was no wound in the crown area , its a spot of dry blood that even has hairs in it . humes vehemently protested that there never was any wound up there . but that fell on deaf ears . but as we know humes and boswell were quite pliant , later humes would go along with the crown entry . i think essentially all 3 originally were honest men , as was earl warren , for what its worth i think they were likely told something similar to what LBJ told warren , WW3 .

this is the same humes who took home the autopsy notes , then re wrote them , burned the original , then heard on sunday that oswald had died and then re wrote them again . oswald living or dying doesnt change jfks autopsy findings so why would news of oswalds death lead humes to again re write the autopsy report ?  . the only answer i can come up with is that NOW THERE WONT BE ANY TRIAL , humes can write pretty much what he wants on the autopsy report and it wont be questioned .