Evidence of witness tampering in the case against Oswald
Witness intimidation is a Federal crime, whether it is done by a defendant or by the prosecution.
Among the examples of 18 U.S. Code § 1512 Witness Intimidation are:
Offering a bribe to a witness.
Making threats to a witness or their family with physical harm or property damage.
Asking a witness to not provide testimony, or to testify in a specific way.
Preventing a witness from attending a court hearing, or any legal proceeding
Federal witness intimidation is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000.
Witness intimidation can take many forms and can include any action that falls into the following categories:
Corrupt Persuasion: Prohibited behavior includes persuading a witness to change their testimony, and blackmailing or bribing a witness and attempts to keep a witness from testifying.
Physical Force: Using any type of physical force to keep a witness from testifying is prohibited, and is a felony. Confinement is considered a use of force.
The confinement of a witness
After the assassination, the Oswald family was taken into “protective custody”. It was confined to a room at the Inn of the Six Flags outside Dallas.
While Margarite Oswald was allowed to go home on November 28th, Marina remained confined. Margarite complained to the Warren Commission:
“Marina Oswald was brainwashed by the Secret Service who have kept her in seclusion for 8 weeks– 8 weeks gentlemen, with no one talking to Marina.” ( 1 H 175 )
She questioned whether that was even legal:
“Because for 8 weeks, no one has been allowed to see Marina. I do not believe in my mind that that is an American way of life. I question the fact that it is even legal, that they can keep her in strict seclusion with no one seeing her for 8 weeks, gentlemen.” ( ibid. )
In an ordinary criminal trial, Marina would have never been allowed to testify against her husband.
We should also keep in mind that Marina was never a suspect in assassination, only a witness. That fact makes the longevity of her confinement inexcusable.
Margarite called it “brainwashing” but there may have been another reason for it.
The threatening of a witness
Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.
The bribing of Marina Oswald had more to do with her status as a non-citizen more than anything else.
Her desire to remain in the US with her daughters was the “item of value” used to solicit her cooperation.
Marina Oswald testified that:
“I was afraid that after everything that had happened I could not remain to live in this country, and they somewhat exploited that for their own purposes, in a very polite form, so you could not say anything after that. They cannot be accused of anything. They approached it in a very clever, contrived way. ( 1 H 80 )
Marina originally refused to cooperate with the FBI. She testified that a representative of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service was brought all the way from New York to advise her that, “it would be better for me if I were to help them.” And she understood that, “I would have more rights in this country.” ( ibid. )
More rights in this country than in Russia, where she was going to be headed if she didn’t cooperate.
That they would bring an INS man all the way from NY just to advise Marina to cooperate with the FBI is silly.
They brought him down there to explain to her the immigration laws and the consequences if she didn’t cooperate.
Since her two daughters were born in this country and were American citizens and she was not, if she were deported, her daughters would remain in the US and she’d never see them again.
The bribing of a witness
But since Marina, “had not commited any crime against this Government” and ” had very right to live in this country” if she cooperated with the FBI, “it would be better for me if I were to help them” because it would allow her to stay in the US, where she, “would have more rights”. ( ibid. )
While Marina testified that she did not take these statements as a threat of deportation ( ibid. ), it should be observed that she didn’t speak English and everything that was said to her was being relayed through an interpreter.
The harshness of what she understood may have been lost in the translation, but was clearly understood by her brother-in-law, Robert Oswald.
He did speak and understand English and the statements made to Marina were not lost in translation to him.
He testified that, “it was quite evident there was a harshness there, and that Marina did not want to speak to the FBI at that time. And she was refusing to. And they were insisting, sir.” ( 1 H 410 )
He described the conversation as, “they were implying that if she did not cooperate with the FBI…that perhaps they would deport her from the United States and back to Russia.” ( ibid. )
Truth vs. keeping your kids
The threat was that if she didn’t cooperate, she’d be deported and her family would be destroyed.
The promise that if she DID cooperate, she could stay in this country with her children amounted to a bribe.
Given the choice of losing your children forever or burning your dead spouse, which would you choose ? Would you have told the FBI whatever they wanted to hear, even if it wasn’t the truth ?
Marina admitted as much in a telephone interview with Jesse Ventura, she reportedly asked Ventura, “would you sacrifice your children for the truth ?”
That question alone should tell you everything about where her head was at.
ANY statements she made were made under duress.
Persuading a witness to change their testimony
W.W. Litchfield was a witness who claimed to have seen Oswald in Jack Ruby’s Carousel Club. He told his story to the FBI, who he claims, convinced him to change it through the threat of “a federal charge.”
Litchfield testified that the agents told him, “you know that if you say you are positive and it wasn’t him, it’s a federal charge.” ( 14 H 107 )
He told the Commission that the FBI explained to him that, “if I say I’m positive, that’s a statement” ( ibid. )
Litchfield testified that it was this threat of a “federal charge” that made him change his mind that he was positive it was Oswald he saw, and go on the record as saying the less certain, “bears a close resemblance”.
Mr. HUBERT. But what has caused you to weaken in your opinion it was Oswald, as you tell it to me, is the fact that you got the impression that if you gave a positive identification and it proved it to be false, that it would be a Federal offense, is that correct ?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes; They said that, giving false information to the FBI, and I’m not 100 percent pure positive. I say, “it bears a close resemblance” , and this is all I can say.Mr. HUBERT. And that’s all you did tell them ?
Mr. LITCHFIELD. Yes sir; that’s the statement I signed. ( 14 H 108 )
The issue
Whether or not Mr. Litchfield was correct in his identification of Oswald in the Carousel Club is not the issue here.
What is the issue, is that a witness is reporting something that he is positive about but he is being coerced by authorities to change his statement under the threat of being charged with a Federal crime, then signing a statement for the public record that is a lie.
Under these circumstances, one must wonder how many other witness accounts on the public record were changed by using this tactic of intimidation.
Making threats to a witness
Orest Pena was the owner of the Habana Bar and Lounge in New Orleans. He allegedly saw Lee Harvey Oswald together with an FBI agent named Warren DeBrueys. He told the HSCA that shortly before his appearance before the Warren Commission, he was visited by Debrueys, who threatened to kill him.
Pena claimed to have been an informant for Debrueys and suggested that Oswald was as well.
Of course, Debrueys denied he threatened Pena and said that neither Oswald nor Pena had been informants for him.
But the House Select Committee found otherwise, that Pena DID provide information and WAS a confidential source to the New Orleans office of the FBI.
The significance of this document is that it lends credibility to Pena’s allegations and lays Debrueys’ denials to waste.
Warning a witness to remain silent
Acquilla Clemons was a witness to the Tippit murder who saw two men, one with a gun, fleeing in different directions from the murder scene.
Mrs. Clemons told Mark Lane in 1966 that shortly after the Tippit murder, she was visited by a “man with a gun” and warned not to talk about what she saw.
Not only was she told to keep her mouth shut, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover ordered that the Dallas FBI office NOT interview her.
Acquilla Clemons was never called to testify for the Warren Commission.
Demanding a witness, “keep his mouth shut”
Another witness who was told by the FBI to keep his mouth shut was Richard Randolph Carr. Carr allegedly saw a man running from the TSBD after the shooting and claimed to have reported it to authorities.
The FBI, however, tried to suppress this information. In its January 14, 1964 interview of Carr, they make no mention of a man running from the building and make it a point to report that Carr, “denied observing anyone leaving the entrance of the TSBD and getting into a grey car.”
Just a couple of weeks later he was re-inteviewed and told the FBI that he saw a man “walking very fast” on Houston Street and the man got into a grey 61 or 62 Rambler station wagon that was being driven by a young negro.
Carr testified on February 19, 1969 during the Clay Shaw trial that he was advised by the FBI to keep his mouth shut about what he saw. And he did.
Richard Randolph Carr was never called to testify for the Warren Commission.
Conclusion
Keep in mind these were tactics that authorities used against witnesses, not suspects. That should be a red flag for any reasonable person to ask: what the hell is going on here ?
Marina Oswald was confined and threatened with deportation unless she told the FBI what they wanted to hear. She was bribed with the promise that she could remain in the country with her children if she cooperated. She told the FBI what they wanted to hear and sacrificed the truth to keep her children.
W.W. Litchfield was threatened with “Federal charges” unless he changed his story from being positive that he saw Oswald in Ruby’s club to only seeing a man who resembled him.
Orest Pena’s life was threatened by FBI agent Warren DeBrueys, who said that he’d “get rid of my ass” if Pena testified to the Warren Commission that he saw DeBrueys and Oswald together.
Richard Randolph Carr was told by the FBI to “keep my mouth shut” about seeing a man fleeing the Texas School Book Depository building after the shooting.
Acquilla Clemons, who saw TWO men running from the Tippit murder scene, was warned by a “man with a gun” to keep her mouth shut about what she saw.
And J.Edgar Hoover made it a point to order the Dallas FBI office to NOT interview her.
These types of tactics are NEVER used by investigators against witnesses in a normal criminal investigation.