Not in Your Lifetime: The Defining Book on the J.F.K. Assassination by Anthony Summers Page B
Authors: Anthony Summers
Ads: Link
statement that she took them for herhusband, have been persuasive evidence that this was so. It may be no coincidence that one of the left-wing newspapers held by Oswald contained, in its correspondence column, a letter from Dallas signed “L. H.” The pictures of Oswald with the suspect rifle are probably what they appear to be. That probability, however, does not end the puzzle surrounding the photographs—why and when were they taken, and with what purpose in mind?
Marina Oswald, the reader will recall, first claimed she remembered taking only one photograph of Oswald with the rifle, in the backyard. Then, when there turned out to be two different poses, she said she might have taken two. Later, in 1978, she said she could not remember how many had been taken, and that seems to be her safest tack. Oswald’s mother Marguerite referred in her testimony to seeing another photograph, in which Oswald held the rifle over his head with both hands. That picture, said Marguerite, was destroyed by her and Marina just after the assassination to protect Oswald. Marina was never asked by the Warren Commission about this third photograph, though it made her claim to have “forgotten” taking more than one photograph less plausible. In fact, there was a fourth photograph.
In 1976, when the Senate Intelligence Committee was probing the role of the intelligence agencies in investigating the assassination, it found another pose in the same series of pictures. This was in the possession of a Dallas policeman’s widow, the former Mrs. Roscoe White. She said her husband had told her it would be very valuable one day. As the polite prose of the Assassinations Committee was to put it later, Policeman White had “acquired” the picture in the course of his duties after the assassination. A fellow officer has mentioned having made “numerous” copies of the Oswald pictures for his colleagues. However, even if this particular print was intended merely as a keepsake, why wasthere no copy of it in the evidence assembled for the official inquiry? It reflects, at best, sloppy handling of evidence. Several officers must have known about this version of the photograph in 1963, for it shows Oswald in a stance that was copied in police reenactment experiments. Perhaps, indeed, they once knew of more copies. The last act of this comedy of police work did nothing to still the suspicions of those who suspected hanky-panky with the rifle poses.
Oswald’s outburst suggesting that the Dallas police were trying to frame him with the photograph remains just that—an accusation. Yet there is the nagging possibility that there was some sort of cover-up—not necessarily involving the police but other, possibly unknown, Oswald associates.
The backyard photographs raise the ambivalent role of Oswald’s Russian-born wife, Marina. In 1977, her authorized biography suggested that the deliberate destruction of copies of the pictures was the act of a loyal wife misguidedly trying to protect her husband—not knowing whether he had really killed the President or not.
Before burning the pictures, however, Marina did tell the police that Oswald owned a rifle. As the weeks went by, she was to be responsible for a mass of testimony incriminating her husband. 7 As Oswald’s wife, of course, she was potentially in an excellent position to supply information about him. As a frightened foreigner caught in the eye of the cyclone of America’s tragedy, she may have felt bound to cooperate in every way possible.
Nevertheless, while the Warren Commission used her testimony to help convict her husband in the public mind, its staff did not trust her. They felt, sometimes knew, that Marina had on occasion deceived them. One Commission lawyer wrote in a memorandum, “Marina Oswald has lied to the Secret Service, the FBI, and thisCommission repeatedly on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world.” As late as 1979, the
Marina Oswald, the reader will recall, first claimed she remembered taking only one photograph of Oswald with the rifle, in the backyard. Then, when there turned out to be two different poses, she said she might have taken two. Later, in 1978, she said she could not remember how many had been taken, and that seems to be her safest tack. Oswald’s mother Marguerite referred in her testimony to seeing another photograph, in which Oswald held the rifle over his head with both hands. That picture, said Marguerite, was destroyed by her and Marina just after the assassination to protect Oswald. Marina was never asked by the Warren Commission about this third photograph, though it made her claim to have “forgotten” taking more than one photograph less plausible. In fact, there was a fourth photograph.
In 1976, when the Senate Intelligence Committee was probing the role of the intelligence agencies in investigating the assassination, it found another pose in the same series of pictures. This was in the possession of a Dallas policeman’s widow, the former Mrs. Roscoe White. She said her husband had told her it would be very valuable one day. As the polite prose of the Assassinations Committee was to put it later, Policeman White had “acquired” the picture in the course of his duties after the assassination. A fellow officer has mentioned having made “numerous” copies of the Oswald pictures for his colleagues. However, even if this particular print was intended merely as a keepsake, why wasthere no copy of it in the evidence assembled for the official inquiry? It reflects, at best, sloppy handling of evidence. Several officers must have known about this version of the photograph in 1963, for it shows Oswald in a stance that was copied in police reenactment experiments. Perhaps, indeed, they once knew of more copies. The last act of this comedy of police work did nothing to still the suspicions of those who suspected hanky-panky with the rifle poses.
Oswald’s outburst suggesting that the Dallas police were trying to frame him with the photograph remains just that—an accusation. Yet there is the nagging possibility that there was some sort of cover-up—not necessarily involving the police but other, possibly unknown, Oswald associates.
The backyard photographs raise the ambivalent role of Oswald’s Russian-born wife, Marina. In 1977, her authorized biography suggested that the deliberate destruction of copies of the pictures was the act of a loyal wife misguidedly trying to protect her husband—not knowing whether he had really killed the President or not.
Before burning the pictures, however, Marina did tell the police that Oswald owned a rifle. As the weeks went by, she was to be responsible for a mass of testimony incriminating her husband. 7 As Oswald’s wife, of course, she was potentially in an excellent position to supply information about him. As a frightened foreigner caught in the eye of the cyclone of America’s tragedy, she may have felt bound to cooperate in every way possible.
Nevertheless, while the Warren Commission used her testimony to help convict her husband in the public mind, its staff did not trust her. They felt, sometimes knew, that Marina had on occasion deceived them. One Commission lawyer wrote in a memorandum, “Marina Oswald has lied to the Secret Service, the FBI, and thisCommission repeatedly on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world.” As late as 1979, the
Similar Books
