JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

As I have pointed out before, the HSCA noted that the witness descriptions of Oswald were nothing like him.

Duran said later that she was sure the man was not Oswald.

Lopez testified that the man could not be Oswald.

Diaz said that he did not pay the man much attention.

I do not see how, after quoting Lopez's description of the man he saw, you can continue to claim that he was Oswald.

I see you're still dodging the questions.

Why would the Conspiracy send an imposter to Mexico? The government hadn't even decided what cities JFK would be visiting, let alone the routes. Oswald hadn't applied anywhere in Dallas yet.

Why is there no evidence of Oswald being anywhere else at the time?

Why would a Conspiracy pedaling a single gunman theory forge evidence that Oswald had contacted both the Cuban and Soviet embassies? Why would they undermine their own theory that way?

[Fiver]

I don't need actually to do something I have already done!

Wade would not identify the policeman or policemen who had reported the rifle to be a Mauser.

Commission Counsel obligingly failed to ask him to identify them.

Weitzman obviously gave false testimony after having been instructed to change his story.

He testified that, based on merely glancing at the rifle, he had guessed it to be a Mauser, but that he had been wrong.

Having stated on the day of the assassination that the rifle WAS a Mauser, identifying the precise calibre of the rifle as well as the specification of its scope, and even describing its sling, he obviously had not merely glanced at the rifle.

Both the questioning and answering were tailored to make it look as though there was no credible evidence that the rifle found had been a Mauser.

The best evidence - that given on the day of the assassination and broadcast by several television and radio stations - is that the rifle found was a Mauser.

IF you've actually watched the video, then why do you keep saying things that the video proves are wrong?

Multiple sources repeating the same initial misidentification of the rifle is not evidence that the rifle was a Mauser.

TV news filmed the discovery of the rifle and showed that it was a Carcano. Weitzman, Wade, and everybody except Craig accepted that the rifle had initially been misidentified.

[Fiver]

Plenty of important witnesses were not called by the Warren Commission.

If this is true, you should easily be able to list several of these important witnesses who weren't called by the WC.

[Fiver]

For the WC to be 100 per cent correct and Oswald according to many was the man who shot and killed both Kennedy and officer Tippit, required ever person who ever gave evidence direct to the contrary of this was of the opinion of the WC apologist

1 , A Liar
2 Was mistaken
3 DIdnt exist
4 Was an idiot and a moron.

What are the odds of that happening?

A list of these name has already been given,and its a biggggg list .

Oswald being a patsy requires every person who gave evidence to the contrary was part of a murderous Conspiracy to kill JFK, even though it would gain them nothing and they would have to live in fear of discovery for the rest of their lives.

And it's a lot longer list.

What are the odds of that happening?

[Fiver]

The fact that Boone too signed an affidavit that it was a Mauser shows that Weitzman, who owned a gun shop, knew what he was talking about.

The only business that Weitzman said he owned made ladies garments.

Wietzman was then District Supervisor of Holly's Dress Shops for 15 years, then helped shut down the Lamont Corporation, a discount outfit, after which he joined the Dallas Police.

Weitzman also mentioned working in a sporting goods store, but not a full-fledged gun shop, and he never owned it. He doesn't mention when or for how long, but based pn the rest of his work history, Weitzman either worked in the sporting good store very briefly, or some time before 1945, nearly 2 decades before the JFK assassination.

[Fiver]

You seem to be suggesting that Brennan suffered from a peculiar form of colour blindness which allowed him to see white clothing but not brown.

No, I am pointing out that your claim that "He was not wearing light-coloured clothes." is wrong. Oswald was wearing a white undershirt, easily visible due to the shirt worn over it being mostly unbuttoned.

Or are you claiming that white isn't a light color?

[Fiver]

*Error*

[FISHY1118]

Oswald being a patsy requires every person who gave evidence to the contrary was part of a murderous Conspiracy to kill JFK, even though it would gain them nothing and they would have to live in fear of discovery for the rest of their lives.

And it's a lot longer list.

What are the odds of that happening?

No it doesn't,

But then this has been explained previously .

So I won't go there again .

[FrankO]

1. I can't recall where I read that statement, but if it was available to Lifton in 1966 I must have mis-remembered the classified part. Was it in the Warren Report?

Hi George,

I don’t remember where I originally found it, but re-found it here:
AARC Public Digital Library - MD 172 - Letter To: Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, Director From: David S. Lifton (dated November 9, 1966) Re: Sibert-O'Neill FD-302 Report on JFK Autopsy, pg (aarclibrary.org)

2. Before he was made aware of the SBT.

Humes and his colleagues may have been influenced by the news that 3 shots had been fired from the 6^th floor of the TSBD from behind, but, as far as I know, no SBT had crossed anyone’s mind, yet, when Humes & Co. finished the autopsy (report). As, at that point, Humes didn’t have the layout of Dealey Plaza or the exact positions of Kennedy and Connally with all the right measurements and angles involved. In other words, he didn’t know that the president and governor Connally were lined up perfectly for one shot to hit them both where they were hit between Zapruder frames 207 and 225.

3. I didn't realise this was in dispute.

I didn’t say it’s in dispute, I just hadn’t studied it yet to be able to say anything solid on the subject. Now that I have, I’m certainly not disputing that there were more witnesses who claimed to have heard a shorter pause between the 2^nd and 3^rd shots than there were witnesses who remembered the shots evenly spaced or with a shorter pause between the 1^st and 2^nd shots.

What is or can be in dispute, as far as I’m concerned, is how many witness actually got it right, as to the number of shots, the spacing between them, the timing of the shots (which one hit the president’s head/throat?). And, of course, witnesses who have given two or more versions with regards to one or more of the 3 aspects above. Like Mary Moorman, who gave one version in which she thought 3 or 4 shots were fired and another in which she thought there had been only 2 or 3 shots. Or Lee Bowers, who in one version stated that he heard “at least 3 shots very close together” and another in which he stated that after the first shot there was a pause and then two more shots very close together. And what’s interesting in this regard as well is that Tom Dillard, who was in the car with Robert Jackson and James Underwood, stated the 3 shots were evenly spaced, whilst Jackson claimed there was a pause after the first shot and then the 2^nd & 3^rd in rapid succession. In other words, the acoustics were close to identical for these two, yet, one heard, or perhaps better, remembered hearing it differently than the other. What, of course, also has to be taken into account is that quite a large number of witnesses who heard 3 shots didn’t express any recollection of how far apart the shots were.

Then, in post #1561 you wrote this:
“The testing of how fast the rifle could be cycled was irrelevant as the critical factor was the number of witnesses claiming that the second and third shots were close to simultaneous, and therefore could not have been fired by the same bolt action rifle.”

I assume that by “close to simultaneous” you mean that the 3^rd shot was fired within 2.3 seconds from the 2^nd. If that’s indeed what you mean, then could you say how many witnesses claimed to have heard the 3^rd shot follow within 2.3 seconds of the 2^nd?

I myself have looked into some 220 witness and only come across Frazier, Greer and Hickey, who said the 2^nd and 3^rd were almost simultaneously or words to that effect. So they would fit. Then there’s Craig who said there were no more than 2 seconds between the last 2 shots, John Solon who stated there was a pause between the 1^st and 2^nd shot and that the time between the first and last shots was approximately 5.5 seconds, and there was senator Yarborough who stated that the 3^rd shot came about 1.5 seconds after the 2nd. And there are 9 others whose testimony might fit with less than 2.3 seconds. But there are also 29 that don’t fit with that in the sense that they don’t give any estimate for either the first or the second pause or both and most of them only say that the 2^nd & 3^rd were closer.

Of course, everything hinges on how accurate the witnesses were with their observations and estimates and we know human memory is not a recording device.

4. The goal in shifting the Dining car from the railway yard (where Boone placed it) to the car park behind the picket fence was so the man standing at the back of the Pullman would have a close-up unobstructed view of the area behind the picket fence and be able to deny that anyone was there when the head shot was fired.

Presuming that the man standing on the Pullman was standing where the red dot is on the map below, then he would still have an unobstructed view of the area behind the picket fence from, maybe, some 60 yards away.

And, again, if the pullman wasn’t where a witness placed it, it would stick out like a sour thumb as it wasn’t something that could be easily overlooked.

All the best,
Frank

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

There was plenty of evidence against Oswald.

* The Caracano was Oswald's.


That is irrelevant because the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD was a Mauser, as certified on the day of the assassination.


* An eyewitness, Howard Brennan, saw a white man of Oswald's approximate weight and build firing from the snipers nest.


He saw a man whose age he estimated to be eight years older than Oswald's, whose weight he estimated to be nearly three stone heavier than Oswald's, and who was wearing much lighter-coloured clothing than the shirt Oswald was wearing when subsequently arrested.


When he saw a police lineup, Brennan said that Oswald looked like the man he saw, but could not positively identify him.


Because the man was older and heavier than Oswald.


* Several other eyewitnesses saw a man in the snipers nest or a rifle extending from it, but none provided as good of a description.


Robert Edwards described a man wearing a white or yellow sport shirt.

Oswald was wearing a brown shirt when arrested.


* Oswald had no alibi. He claimed to have been in the domino room, but several of his coworkers testified to being in the domino room during that time and said that Oswald was not there.


There is no evidence that Oswald ascended towards the sixth floor shortly before the assassination, that he descended from them following the assassination, nor that he ever carried a rifle inside the building.


Oswald's behavior was not that of an innocent man.


I agree, but that does not mean that he fired any shots nor that he was behind the assassination.

It means only that he may have been an accessory, with foreknowledge of the assassination, but who was intended to be framed for the shooting.



The case against Oswald in the killing of Officer Tippett is even stronger.


* Tippet asked the police dispatcher to repeat the description of JFK's killer just before he pulled over the man who killed him.


I think that is incorrect.


* Multiple witnesses who saw the killing of Officer Tippet or the killer fleeing the scene picked Oswald out of a police lineup.


Two witnesses, Helen Markham and Barbara Jeanette Davis, testified that the jacket worn by the murderer was noticeably darker than the one allegedly discarded by Oswald, and that the murderer wore a lighter shirt than Oswald's.

Mrs Markham told Mark Lane that the killer was short and had slightly bushy hair.

Acquilla Clemons described the murderer as short with bushy hair.

Patrolman Roy W. Walker radioed a description of the killer which included his having wavy hair.

Domingo Benavides said the assassin had curly hair, which needed cutting, and a ruddy complexion.

William Smith testified that the murderer had dark hair.

Barbara Jeanette Davis and William Smith testified that the killer wore a sport jacket.

FOUR WITNESSES TESTIFIED THAT THE JACKET ALLEGEDLY WORN BY OSWALD WAS NOT WORN BY THE MURDERER AND A FIFTH WITNESS TESTIFIED THAT OSWALD NEVER WORE IT.

[Fiver]

Five people did not even turn up that day and many who were outside were not allowed back inside the building following the assassination.

We're still waiting for you to provide any evidence that supports these claims.

[Fiver]

Yes "some ". Others who were discarded contradicted the WC so were never heard from.

Feel free to list these supposed discarded witnesses.

[cobalt]

'* Oswald had no alibi. He claimed to have been in the domino room, but several of his co-workers testified to being in the domino room during that time and said that Oswald was not there.'

There is no requirement for the accused to have an alibi any more than there is for the prosecution to provide a motive, although it clearly helps if they can be established.

I think Oswald has a pretty good alibi which relates to his seeing Junior Jarman and Harold Norman pass by (or pass through) the domino room at 12.23. Their testimony explained that they came through the back door rather than push past the crowds at the front door to enter the building. Oswald's description of them was accurate as he knew them by sight, and is on a different planet of credibility when compared with the descriptions given by witnesses looking up at windows and claiming to see a person they did not know.

Two other points can be made here. The two workers had agreed to watch the motorcade with Bonnie Rae Williams, who at this point according to his testimony was about to make his way down to the 5th floor where he soon came across Jarman and Norman. This means that Williams was up on the 6th floor later than he believed, in fact he was only leaving the 6th floor a couple of minutes before the intended time of the motorcade passing. And since the three had agreed to watch the parade together, and probably hung about together regularly, if Oswald was plucking some faces at random to create an alibi he would quite likely have put Williams into the mix: but he didn't.

Neither Jarman nor Norman said they had noticed Oswald in the domino room, but that is not the same as clearly denying that he was there. I have no doubt they were encouraged to make this latter point since there is clear evidence of coaching in their WC testimony, but from memory I do not think they were so precise. Incidentally, had they held to their original plan to watch the motorcade from the 6th floor, as understood by Williams, then an entirely different narrative of the JFK assassination would be required.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We're still waiting for you to provide any evidence that supports these claims.

Roy Truly testified that he noticed that Oswald was missing, that he was not the only employee missing, and that he did not check how many were missing.

He testified further that although Norman and Jarman claimed they returned to the TSBD, he was not aware of their return and not at all sure that Charles Givens returned.


(Warren Commission Volume 7, pp 382-283, 386)



I believe I left the TSBD building between 2 pm and 2.30 p.m. on 22 November 1963 and I went home.


(Statement of Victoria Elizabeth Adams, 23 March 1964)


I believe I left the TSBD at approximately 2:00 PM on November 22 1963.


(Statement of Sandra Styles, 19 March 1964)


I left the TSBD between 2:00 and 2:30 PM on 22 November 1963.


(Statement of James Earl Jarman, 18 March 1964)


I left the building on 22 November 1963 at about 2 pm.


(Statement of Harold Norman, 18 March 1964)


On 22 November 1963, I did not come to work.

[Following the assassination] I was not able to get inside as the door was locked.


(Statement of Helen L Palmer, 20 March 1964)


After President Kennedy had been shot I stayed outside the building and when I tried to get back inside the door was locked.


(Statement of Betty Jean Dragoo, 20 March 1964)


Following the assassination of the President I tried to return to work in the TSBD but was told by other employees that no one would be allowed in the building so I did not return to work that day.


(Statement of Stella Mae Jacob, 18 March 1964)


After President Kennedy was shot I returned to the building but was unable to get inside as the front door of the building was locked... i remained in the area just outside the building until approximately 2:00 PM when I left to go to my home.


(Statement of Judy Marie Johnson, 23 March 1964)


I left the TSBD between 2:00 and 3:00 PM on 22 November 1963 to the best of my recollection.


(Statement of Ruth Smith Nelson, 23 March 1964)


I left the TSBD at about 12:20 PM on 22 November 1963 and never returned to this building on that date.


(Statement of Sharon Nelson, 18 March 1964)

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

I see you're still dodging the questions.


There are so many that I doubt whether anyone else would answer them to the extent that I do.


Why would the Conspiracy send an imposter to Mexico? The government hadn't even decided what cities JFK would be visiting, let alone the routes. Oswald hadn't applied anywhere in Dallas yet.


Then why would Oswald be planning his escape to Cuba when HE had no idea as to whether Kennedy would be visiting Dallas, nor whether he would be working in a building on the motorcade route?


Why is there no evidence of Oswald being anywhere else at the time?


There is, or at least of someone impersonating Oswald in Dallas.


Why would a Conspiracy pedaling a single gunman theory forge evidence that Oswald had contacted both the Cuban and Soviet embassies? Why would they undermine their own theory that way?


Because the original conspiracy was to blame the communists for the assassination, but LBJ and Hoover overruled the idea.