JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[cobalt]

What is a 'life long loser?' I'm familiar with the crudities of American English but I struggle to see how a man in his mid 20s, married to an attractive Russian lady and father of two children, and who has taken the plunge and worked in the USSR is a 'life long loser.' Is it the American tendency to value a man by his bank book? If so, I suppose JD Tippit, Sam Holland and Acquila Clemmons were 'life long losers' as well.

Cui bono as the saying goes. We would be better employed looking at those who benefitted from the assassination, not those who perished as a result.

I don't think the majority of the WC sceptics believe that LHO was a sniper on the 6th floor that day. He would have been a poor choice for a number of reasons. That's why we are sceptics.

[FISHY1118]

Excellent points.

Oswald was certainly guilty of all the above.

The only thing he didn't do...

...was fire the final "kill" shot that obliterated the president's head.

That shot was instead carried out by a professional sniper located just east of the bridge underpass; located in the opposite direction to Oswald's position.

When the president's car sped off, it essentially drove towards the sniper.

Except the rifle found on the 6th floor TSDB wasn't the rifle ordered by Oswald.

[scottnapa]

* Printing on order coupon for the rifle matched Oswald.
* Printing on order envelope for the rifle matched Oswald.
* Printing on money order for the rifle matched Oswald.
* Handwriting for the application of the PO Box the rifle was shipped to matched Oswald.
* Handwriting for change of address form for that PO Box matched Oswald.
* On arrest, Oswald was carrying a forged Selective Service notice of classification with the name the rifle was ordered under.
* On arrest, Oswald was carrying a forged Marine certificate of service with the name the rifle was ordered under.
* Oswald's photos of himself with the rifle.
* Marina Oswald's testimony that she took the pictures.
* Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony about Oswald bringing the package to work that day.
* Linnie Mae Randle's testimony about Oswald bringing the package to work that day.
* Fibers found on the rifle matched Oswald's shirt.
* Right palm print on stock of the rifle.
* Right middle and ring finger prints on trigger guard.
* Left index finger and palm prints on paper bag.
* Right palm print on box in snipers nest.
* Eight index finger print on another box in sniper's nest.
* Left palm print on corner of third box in sniper's nest.
* Howard L. Brennan's description of the shooter.
* Ronald Fischer's description of the shooter.
* Robert Edwards's description of the shooter.

So not as clearcut as the evidence that Oswald killed Tippet, but pretty good.

Thank you for your answer.

None of the items you list are legal evidence.

“At trial” is the key phrase.

1. The body of John Kennedy was removed from Dallas before an autopsy was performed. Therefore, no murder happened legally in Texas, because the evidence has been tampered with by removing it from its jurisdiction. No body no crime.
2. The FBI forced the local police to send the gun bullets and rifle, all the evidence to be examined overnight in Washington DC then returned to Dallas the following morning. There is no valid chain of evidence. Just as the Warren commission is not a court room.
3. Remember what Hosty said when he flushed the Oswald note down the toilet, there will no trial. “…on Nov. 24, two to four hours after Oswald was pronounced dead, he said he was again called into Mr. Shanklin's office. Mr. Shanklin reached down into the lower right‐hand drawer of his desk and took out the memorandum and note in question and said “Oswald is dead now; there can be no trial,” Mr. Hosty testified.
4. After the assassination of Oswald in the Dallas police station, the autopsy is rewritten by Humes. ( this is possible only because no* trial.) But very much a key to understanding the conflict between The truthful Dallas doctors at Pakland Hospital and the Bethesda team. .
5. The FBI decided to misidentify a spy camera as a light meter. Dallas police had a photo of the camera on the blanket. We will never know how much “ evidence” was many manipulated. When the Mexico City recordings were listen to, it was realized the Mexico City Oswald voice was not the Dallas Oswald’s voice. Tape is “misplaced” after a typed transcript created.
6. The FBI manipulated press coverage. The first interview of the doctors at Parkman hospital published by the Dallas Times Herald where Dr Perry describes the throat wound as an entrance wound, was NOT published as written by staff writer, Connie Kritzberg. The editor of the paper was instructed to insert the following sentence by the FBI; a doctor admitted that it was possible there was only one wound. The reporter listed and quoted individual doctors in the surgery. FBI sentence doesnt to name the doctor since no doctor said this. Likely it was “Dr. Hoover”
7. The JFK assassination is complex topic. It takes years of study to grasp the big picture. A ever step forward in the learning process causes the researchers to ask better questions. If the only question one asks is whether Oswald guilty or innocent, you are not asking the right question. Nothing is about justice. Everything is political. CYA is standard operating behavior of governments. These agencies, CIA, FBI, SS and the US military have secret files. And where these papers are filed are secrets as well. I hope the Joannides file is released.

[Fiver]

Excellent points.

Oswald was certainly guilty of all the above.

The only thing he didn't do...

...was fire the final "kill" shot that obliterated the president's head.

That shot was instead carried out by a professional sniper located just east of the bridge underpass; located in the opposite direction to Oswald's position.

When the president's car sped off, it essentially drove towards the sniper.

Your option requires:
* The three motorcycle cops preceding JFK's limo do not see or hear the underpass assassin directly in front of them.
* The driver of JFK's car and the detail head sitting next to him do not see or hear the underpass assassin directly in front of them.
* The four motorcycle cops flanking JFK's limo do not see or hear the underpass assassin directly in front of them.
* No one approaches the underpass from behind the underpass assassin.

To have any chance of pulling this off, both Service Service agents and all 7 police need to be part of the Conspiracy. Plus you probably need at least 2 Conspirators to watch the assassin's back, plus another getaway driver.

But that's not enough. Any person in Dealey Plaza with a still or film camera might get a picture that shows the fatal shot came from the front. And the Conspiracy has no idea of how many people will have a camera that day, so they need at least a dozen agents in the crowd, watching all the photographers. Then every one of those photographers who might have gotten a photo of JFK being shot has to be followed and silenced.

We're up to about 30 conspirators now, just for the underpass shot.

But that's still not enough. To hide evidence for a frontal shot every bit of autopsy evidence has to be faked - physical exam, x-rays, removal of all bullet fragments from the front shot, etc. That's going to require at least another dozen Conspirators at the hospital. But even then the plan fails if JFK's body isn't sent to the right hospital. The person who makes the\at decision had to be part of the Conspiracy or the plan will almost certainly fail.

Jackie Kennedy chose which hospital performed the autopsy on her husband.

But the Conspiracy doesn't need any of those 40+ Conspirators if that pro assassin is in the 6th floor sniper's nest, using Oswald's rifle.

[Fiver]

For clarification, I never disputed that Oswald was in possession of a revolver when arrested inside the cinema. I doubted that he had one in his possession when the assassination of JFK took place.

You're missing my point. Any Conspiracy that could put a half-dozen men and Oswald's rifle, undetected, on the 6th floor of the Book Depository could have smuggled Oswald's pistol in as well. A patsy dead on site of a "self-inflicted" gunshot from his own pistol is the smart thing for the Conspiracy to do.

Whether Oswald collected said revolver from his rooming house (he must have had some reason to return there briefly) or was handed one inside the cinema is unknown.

We have a dozen or more people that saw Oswald shoot officer Tippet or saw Oswald fleeing the scene. Oswald either had the pistol on his person all day or he collected it from his rooming house.

The patrons of the cinema would have been unable to determine whether Oswald attempted to shoot his arresting officers since the police were crowded round him at the time. All dramatic accounts of firing pins jamming or fingers blocking the mechanism come from LE sources.;

Incorrect.

George Jefferson Applin, Jr. He worked at a service station.
"this boy took a swing at the officer and then the next thing I could see was this boy had his arm around the officer's left shoulder and had a pistol in his hand. I heard the pistol snap at least once."

Johnny Calvin Brewer. he was assistant manager at a shoe store.
Mr. BREWER - McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun." And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holier, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him.

John Gibson. He managed a camera store.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. GIBSON. Well, he had this pistol in his hand.
Mr. BALL. Was anybody near him?
Mr. GIBSON. Just the officers.
Mr. BALL. What was the officer doing--did you say officers or police officer?
Mr. GIBSON. Officers.
Mr. BALL. Plural, officers?
Mr. GIBSON. Yes; there were more than one.
Mr. BALL. What were they doing?
Mr. GIBSON. Well, they were going toward him.
Mr. BALL. Did they have ahold of him at the time?
Mr. GIBSON. No; I don't believe so.
Mr. BALL. Did anyone have ahold of him at that time?
Mr. GIBSON. I don't think so.
Mr. BALL. Did you see any officer grab hold of Oswald?
Mr. GIBSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Which one can you describe where he was and what he did--just tell us in your own words what you saw him do?
Mr. GIBSON. Well, just like I guess you have heard this a lot of times--the gun misfired--it clicked and about the same time there was one police officer that positively had him.

[cobalt]

I don't think I'm missing your point at all. I think what you're doing is weaving a very tangled web indeed. The notion of an Presidential assassin who commits suicide immediately afterwards is less plausible than what actually unravelled, and that has stretched credulity for 60 years.

The motivation for Oswald killing JFK does not really exist as it stands. The nobody who wanted his place in history? So why deny he had done the deed? A hard boiled Marxist intent on subverting USA capitalism? Well, the Soviets never reckoned he had much knowledge of Marxism and Oswald never bothered to join the USA Communist Party or any of its splinter groups. A right wing fanatic who thought JFK had lost Cuba? Not likely since, unlike many rednecks in Texas who wanted JFK dead, Oswald spoke quite well of the President. Now you are offering the possibility of spontaneous martyrdom to the mix. Or maybe sudden contrition. I think the plotters did well to avoid that ludicrous scenario.

That cinema must have had terrific acoustics if, amidst all the hollering and wrestling with Oswald, witnesses could hear gun clicks. Even better, they seem confident the clicks came from Oswald's revolver and not a police one. Brewer, the man who can spot ticket dodgers whilst out on the street, provides a 'Kill the President would you!' flourish that really undermines the narrative. Surely the arresting officers thought they were arresting a suspect for the murder of their colleague Tippit, nearby. Oswald, when paraded before the media, claimed not to know he was being arrested in relation to JFK until he heard reporters speak inside Dallas police station.

The plotters did not need Oswald on the 6th floor. If he had wandered outside and been photographed they could still tie him to the rifle and the paper sack. Another TSBD employee with 'subversive' contacts was interviewed in the aftermath and he could easily have been entered into the narrative. Ditto for any one of the black lads on the floor below, one of whom was actually on the 6th floor around 12.15.

[Lewis C]

- The fact that the way that Oswald got the job, through his wife attending a random coffee morning that Buell Fraser’s sister attended. There’s also record of his very recent attempts to get jobs elsewhere (anyone of which would have precluded him from being the assassin at the TSBD) His convenient location at the TSBD was entirely fortuitous as the route had been recently altered to include passing that building.

Yes, Oswald was hired long before it was decided that the motorcade would go past the SBD. Originally, a different route was planned, but it was Kennedy that wanted to use the route that they finally went with. IIRC, that was about 6 days before the assassination, not much time to put a conspiracy together. This is well explained in Lemmino's Youtube video about the assassination.

- Oswald was seen with a large package on the day of the murder for the first time ever and the wrapping paper was found on the 6th floor.

Oswald told the man who brought him to work that he had curtain rods inside the wrapping. So he had curtain rods that he wanted to install after work, wrapped then in a package, but then unwrapped them on the SBD 6th floor, that is, before leaving work? And the place where he said he wanted to install them already had curtain rods.

[FISHY1118]

Hi Frank,

Just a couple of points. I guess you would have seen this report:

FBI agents James F. Sibert and Francis X. O'Neill attended the autopsy of John Kennedy and submitted a report, part of which follows:

"During the latter stages of the autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle of the spinal column.

This opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with the finger".

Humes reported to Hoover that the projectile found on the stretcher was from this wound and had fallen out during the heart massage, and Hoover reported this to LBJ.

If the end of the wound could be felt with the finger, the bullet did not exit the body, and may have fallen out as suggested by Humes. I bear in mind that both LBJ and Hoover gave instructions that all evidence not pointing to Oswald as the lone shooter firing only three shots was to be suppressed. 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.

Best regards, George

Not only that, but make ''AT ALL COST'' any evidence fit a lone gunman theory . [.I.E ] Change , Invent , Create , Formulate ,Juggle, Manoeuvre any such evidence.

[The Rookie Detective]

Your option requires:
* The three motorcycle cops preceding JFK's limo do not see or hear the underpass assassin directly in front of them.
* The driver of JFK's car and the detail head sitting next to him do not see or hear the underpass assassin directly in front of them.
* The four motorcycle cops flanking JFK's limo do not see or hear the underpass assassin directly in front of them.
* No one approaches the underpass from behind the underpass assassin.

To have any chance of pulling this off, both Service Service agents and all 7 police need to be part of the Conspiracy. Plus you probably need at least 2 Conspirators to watch the assassin's back, plus another getaway driver.

But that's not enough. Any person in Dealey Plaza with a still or film camera might get a picture that shows the fatal shot came from the front. And the Conspiracy has no idea of how many people will have a camera that day, so they need at least a dozen agents in the crowd, watching all the photographers. Then every one of those photographers who might have gotten a photo of JFK being shot has to be followed and silenced.

We're up to about 30 conspirators now, just for the underpass shot.

But that's still not enough. To hide evidence for a frontal shot every bit of autopsy evidence has to be faked - physical exam, x-rays, removal of all bullet fragments from the front shot, etc. That's going to require at least another dozen Conspirators at the hospital. But even then the plan fails if JFK's body isn't sent to the right hospital. The person who makes the\at decision had to be part of the Conspiracy or the plan will almost certainly fail.

Jackie Kennedy chose which hospital performed the autopsy on her husband.

But the Conspiracy doesn't need any of those 40+ Conspirators if that pro assassin is in the 6th floor sniper's nest, using Oswald's rifle.

The sniper wasn't at, under or on the underpass; they were hidden in the raised area leading up to the road bridge running from East to West.

So, when I say the car sped off towards the assassin; I refer to geographical direction and not literally towards a man with a sniper rifle hanging around near the bridge.

The location of the sniper was to the east of the road bridge and on the north side of that road; so as the car sped towards the underpass, the sniper had been positioned to the diagonal front left of the car as it drove south towards the underpass.

The sniper could have walked up the embankment to the road running over the bridge, but headed east so that he would not have been visible from the car's position as it drove off.

When hiring a sniper for a professional hit; a client wouldn't want their asset firing from a building overlooking the kill site; within close radius and within site of multiple witnesses.

A sniper would fire from a completely hidden and concealed position, with an easy escape route, laying down with just the tip of the muzzle of the weapon exposed.

There is another issue that you may not have considered...

12.30pm

The sun was situated almost directly in front of the car at the moment the kill shot was fired.

All of the individuals you mention would not necessarily have been able to observe the muzzle flare of a sniper rifle if the sniper was located towards the south.

In other words, the motorcade was facing the sun, and that would have reduced the service agents line of sight as they faced south.

From a snipers perspective; positioning yourself between the target and the midday sun, is another technique adopted by professionals to increase success rate.

The time of day didn't help the president, and having a sniper between the car and the sun was something that would have been considered and implemented when the sniper planned the hit.

To ensure success, the sniper would have been a highly trained and accurate shooter.

It would be interesting to look for any service records for any ex-service military snipers, who went on to work in the private sector; possibly as a mercenary.

Even snipers who served in WW2 could be considered, because hiring an experienced and accurate veteran sniper from WW2 may have been a viable option for whoever payed for the hit.

WW2 service records for snipers who were known for their accuracy would be a good place to start.

They don't have to be American, but they do need to have been considered an elite sniper.

[Fiver]

Ask yourself this (knowing the kind of person Lee Harvey Oswald was) if you were part of some powerful government cabal planning to assassinate the Commander-in-Chief in broad daylight, knowing the catastrophic, earth-shattering consequences (both personal and national) if it went wrong and your part in it was revealed - would you leave anything to chance before signing off on it? Would you just ‘hope for a bit of luck?’ And would you have chosen the lifelong loser, defector and complete failure that was Lee Harvey Oswald?

A competent Conspiracy wouldn't touch Oswald with a twenty foot pole. At least, not as a member of the Conspiracy. He might work as a patsy - a socially isolated failure with radical political views, mentally abused and physically abusive, and with more skill with firearms than all other attempted assassins of US Presidents combined.

But Oswald cannot be a patsy, there's too much evidence that he killed JD Tippet.

[Fiver]

What is a 'life long loser?' I'm familiar with the crudities of American English but I struggle to see how a man in his mid 20s, married to an attractive Russian lady and father of two children, and who has taken the plunge and worked in the USSR is a 'life long loser.' Is it the American tendency to value a man by his bank book? If so, I suppose JD Tippit, Sam Holland and Acquila Clemmons were 'life long losers' as well.

Oswald being a loser has nothing to do with his income. He's was a loser based on his poor life choices, mental instability, and abuse of his wife.

Cui bono as the saying goes. We would be better employed looking at those who benefitted from the assassination, not those who perished as a result.

The chief beneficiaries of JFK's death were black people. LBJ was able to use JFK's martyrdom and his own Senate experience to get civil rights laws passed that JFK never could have. LBJ got to be President, but who would commit treason and murder for LBJ?

And the reasoning itself is faulty.
Who benefited from the assassination of Lincoln? VP Andrew Johnson.
Who benefited from the assassination of Garfield? VP Chester Arthur.
Who benefited from the assassination of McKinley? VP Theodore Roosevelt.

LBJ didn't change any of JFK's policies. He didn't even change any of JFK's Cabinet. Nobody else gained a thing from JFK's death.

I don't think the majority of the WC sceptics believe that LHO was a sniper on the 6th floor that day. He would have been a poor choice for a number of reasons. That's why we are sceptics.

Oswald had more skill with firearms than every other presidential assassin and attempted assassin combined. He was easily capable of getting off three shots in the available time.

[Fiver]

There is another issue that you may not have considered...

12.30pm

The sun was situated almost directly in front of the car at the moment the kill shot was fired.

At 12;30pm. the sun was situated almost directly overhead. It wouldn't be almost directly in front of the car until sunset.

[cobalt]

Oswald made some interesting life choices but the one he got wrong was signing up to the US fake defector programme. He singularly failed to convince the USSR authorities and, worst of all, became expendable baggage within the US security apparatus. LHO's mental stability comes across as rather impressive. He managed to survive fairly well in Belarus- despite no one buying his cover story- and was quite well regarded by fellow workers. Oswald also held his nerve remarkably well when in Dallas police custody, something which was remarked on by a few of his interrogators. Abuse of his wife is anecdotal obviously, but I doubt he treated his wife any more shabbily than either JFK or LBJ did theirs.

The benefactors of the JFK assassination were those who wished LBJ to replace him. They were prepared to accommodate civil rights causes so long as LBJ could guarantee their own interests, prosecuting the Vietnam War being one of them. When no 'victory' was possible in Vietnam LBJ was no longer required, much as Biden/Harris became expendable when the reality of Ukraine's perilous position became impossible to conceal any longer.

The greatest benefit was something far more damaging however. The oligarchs who largely controlled political offices in the USA showed that they could kill an elected President in broad daylight and get away with it. Since then their influence has grown as was shown at Trump's inauguration where 3 billionaires sat in the front row, one of them the unelected Musk who seems closely involved with daily government.

[C. F. Leon]

Oswald made some interesting life choices but the one he got wrong was signing up to the US fake defector programme. He singularly failed to convince the USSR authorities and, worst of all, became expendable baggage within the US security apparatus. LHO's mental stability comes across as rather impressive. He managed to survive fairly well in Belarus- despite no one buying his cover story- and was quite well regarded by fellow workers. Oswald also held his nerve remarkably well when in Dallas police custody, something which was remarked on by a few of his interrogators. Abuse of his wife is anecdotal obviously, but I doubt he treated his wife any more shabbily than either JFK or LBJ did theirs.

The benefactors of the JFK assassination were those who wished LBJ to replace him. They were prepared to accommodate civil rights causes so long as LBJ could guarantee their own interests, prosecuting the Vietnam War being one of them. When no 'victory' was possible in Vietnam LBJ was no longer required, much as Biden/Harris became expendable when the reality of Ukraine's perilous position became impossible to conceal any longer.

The greatest benefit was something far more damaging however. The oligarchs who largely controlled political offices in the USA showed that they could kill an elected President in broad daylight and get away with it. Since then their influence has grown as was shown at Trump's inauguration where 3 billionaires sat in the front row, one of them the unelected Musk who seems closely involved with daily government.

So, you are saying that at the age of 17, Donald Trump was the Blofield of the whole Conspiracy?

You know, the way Things are going, I almost could believe THAT. But what completely destroys that theory is that the Donald doesn't have a cat. ALL evil Masterminds have to have a cat. It's in the charter.

[cobalt]

Trump nearly became a victim of the system himself just a few months back. There has been a curious lack of media interest in the two persons apparently out to assassinate him, so I assume some sort of modus vivendi has been hammered out after that warning shot and that an agreement has been made to let the matter rest.

I re-read the statements made by the Texas Theatre witnesses Applin and Gibson. They are useful witnesses in that they corroborate the version of events described by LE, namely that Oswald drew a revolver while trying to resist arrest and was then overpowered. Although the details are sometimes at variance, they are no more than one would expect in such a dramatic incident and the overall story tallies. I have cast doubt on their ability to hear revolver hammers clicking in such a situation and I think the WC suggested that what they heard may have been the metal of the revolver being struck as Oswald was disarmed. Going by their testimony there seems to have been a fair bit of interaction in the lobby between other cinema patrons and some police following the arrest, so perhaps some merged narrative was unconsciously formed before they made their statements.
Nonetheless these statements were made very soon afterwards- one of the men hoped he might be able to return to the theatre in time to see the second feature!

The case of Johnny Brewer is very different. Brewer is a key witness, for it is he alone who leads LE to the Texas Theatre. Without his intervention Dallas police might have struggled to chase Oswald down before he left town (if that was his intention.) Yet Brewer's first statement was made almost 2 weeks after the assassination, which is odd. It is also quite a bald statement since it offers little rationale, save the enthusiasm of youth, as to why he would closely pursue a man he suspected of shooting dead a policeman into the bowels of the Texas Theatre. Once he had seen Oswald enter the cinema then a timely phone call to the police would have been more than adequate. Guarding exits to contain a police killer, all the while unarmed, seems beyond the call of active citizenry.

Brewer's later statement provided to the WC in April 1964 never really gets round this nagging problem although it introduces several embellishments. In dialogue which perhaps inspired scenes from the film Fargo, he tells us on several occasions that Oswald seemed, 'a funny looking guy.' The 'Kill the President will you!' line, from an arresting officer, went unheard by anyone else and could hardly have been welcomed by the WC since it muddied the reason for the police being in the cinema in the first place. Brewer's account has him pretty much directing operations and, literally taking centre stage, all but overseeing the police arrest.

Which makes me wonder if Brewer's original statements, made in the immediate aftermath of the arrest, were so full of self-important nonsense as to cast doubt on his version of events. That might explain why it took almost two weeks to get a coherent statement out of him.