JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Lewis C]

I accept that Scott meant successful all along, as it could be argued that one isn't really an assassin unless he is successful. However, I do think that unsuccessful assassination attempts are just as relevant to the matter at hand as successful ones, and without considering them, we have a smaller sample size, and therefore a less reliable stat.

The shooter in the Kennedy assassination was much further away from Kennedy than the shooters in the other 3 presidential assassinations were from their targets, which accounts for 2 of the things that Scott mentioned. The other 3 assassins were so close to the president that they could hardly deny that they did it. And it stands to reason that the shooter would use a different kind of weapon if he's shooting from a considerable distance from the president than if he's standing right next to him. We can be sure that whoever was shooting at Kennedy was shooting with a rifle or something like it, can't we? If you think someone was shooting at him from the grassy knoll, you don't think he was using a weapon similar to the one that shot Lincoln, do you? So I see no importance at all in the fact that Oswald was the only successful presidential assassin to use a rifle.

[scottnapa]

The guy at the Embassy wasn’t an imposter. He was a man who was mistakenly identified. This has been explained in detail.

I await your explanation. I have never seen an explanation. I did not say Oswald was not in Mexico City.
The HSCA looked at the WC and decided that Oswald traveled to Mexico.
Fiver had made the comment that Oswald was not a spy and I said which Oswald? and offered the picture of the Mexico City mystery man. The comment that it was a mistake is a weak argument. Why is Oswald not photographed. How is Oswald not seen. (a question we add about the Ripper.) How are you sure the stocky mystery man is not a spy? Do you have a name and address? Why would they release the picture? It is public for a reason.

[scottnapa]

So you're claiming that the lack of any evidence of LHO working for any intelligence service is proof that LHO worked for an intelligence service?

Nobody is doubting that the CIA and FBI might lie, but that doesn't prove that either organization had anything to do with Oswald or the assassination.

The CIA will lie to you. Oswald worked for the CIA and Oswald worked for the FBI according to a reliable source that communicated with DPD in the early days of the investigation. The CIA and FBI meet with Dallas officials to squash the 'rumor". It is clear to everyone that we do not know. Oswald connected with Cuban groups in NO and worked for Guy Bannister. Went to Russia and returned without arrest or questioning. Lots of loose ties in this case. Most would consider Oswald a tool, an asset not an agent? Which of course would allow the CIA to say, truthfully, Oswald is not a CIA agent.

[scottnapa]

I accept that Scott meant successful all along, as it could be argued that one isn't really an assassin unless he is successful. However, I do think that unsuccessful assassination attempts are just as relevant to the matter at hand as successful ones, and without considering them, we have a smaller sample size, and therefore a less reliable stat.

The shooter in the Kennedy assassination was much further away from Kennedy than the shooters in the other 3 presidential assassinations were from their targets, which accounts for 2 of the things that Scott mentioned. The other 3 assassins were so close to the president that they could hardly deny that they did it. And it stands to reason that the shooter would use a different kind of weapon if he's shooting from a considerable distance from the president than if he's standing right next to him. We can be sure that whoever was shooting at Kennedy was shooting with a rifle or something like it, can't we? If you think someone was shooting at him from the grassy knoll, you don't think he was using a weapon similar to the one that shot Lincoln, do you? So I see no importance at all in the fact that Oswald was the only successful presidential assassin to use a rifle.

The use of the rifle implies a desire to escape, hence the distance from Kennedy. Oswald could have taken a handgun to the Trade Mart or Love Field and indeed that is why most assassins chose a concealed weapon, to get close to the target. Ruby was not going to miss.He waited for Will Fritz to move then he fired into Oswald's belly. Yes a rifle would be used on the grassy knoll as well, distance means planned escape. The shooter escaped the building. Think of James Earl Ray, rifle then escape. Why is it interesting that Oswald used a rifle? A sample size is the point. There are unique things about this assassination. I am not a patsy is unique. Oswald was planning to escape. He didn't have much of a plan. Go to the movies? There are many points of mystery that defy our ability to sort everything into neat boxes. The planning Oswald isn't showing us much. Russia? Mexico City? Odio Twist Party? Starting his own FPCC? How much planning is he doing or does he have an assignment. We know he knew and worked with Bannister in N.O. He would be a provocateur at Tulane and when handing out pamphlets and then calling the FBI from jail. (This is a Ripper forum and I do ask the same question at every crime scene-- did the Ripper have a plan or was he passive.)

[scottnapa]

Waldman Exhibit 10 shows an itemized form dated 3-13-63 for a total deposit of $13,827.98. It also shows a summary labeled EXTRA COPY for a total deposit of $13,827.98 dated 2-13-63.

If the 2-13-63 is correct, then dozens of money orders were cashed before they were issued, not just Oswald's money order. Obviously, this makes no sense. Neither Oswald's money nor the dozens of other money orders could have been cashed before they were issued.

Clearly the 3-13-63 date is correct and the 2-13-63 date is an error.

;

Hello "
"if the Waldman exhibit is correct. then dozens of money orders.." that is a incorrect guess. Why comment about other money orders when you do not know?
Clearly is not a word that belongs in your response. You assume the solution that pleases you. There is no clearly when both documents are in evidence.
The proof of a money order was cashed before it was issued does't mean the slip is wrong.
The Money Order is the questionable document. As I said, the money order doesn't have a bank stamp on the back. This indicates the M.O. was never sent to the bank.
In an other thread I am being challenged about how honorable and diligent the Warren Commission is. but according to you they make errors.

[Fiver]

Oswald worked for the CIA and Oswald worked for the FBI according to a reliable source that communicated with DPD in the early days of the investigation.

So who is this "reliable source"? What is your proof?

The CIA and FBI meet with Dallas officials to squash the 'rumor".

Feel free to provide any evidence to support your claims.

Oswald connected with Cuban groups in NO....

Oswald got a membership card from Fair Play for Cuba Committee and told them he was starting a New Orleans chapter. FPCC never issued a charter for a New Orleans branch and the supposed branch appears to have consisted solely of Oswald.

...and worked for Guy Bannister.

According to Jim Garrison, who was hardly a reliable source. Garrison also told a lot of lies about Bannister.

Went to Russia and returned without arrest or questioning.

FBI Agents John Fain and B. Tom Carter interviewed Oswald in Fort Worth on June 26, 1962. He was questioned again by Fain and Arnold Brown on August 15. Fain then closed the file. On March 31, 1963 Agent James Hosty recommended reopening Oswald's file. In June, the New Orleans FBI Office reported that Oswald had moved there. Agent John Quigley interviewed Oswald at the New Orleans Jail August 10, 1963. After the Oswald;s moved back to Dallas, Hosty spoke to Marina on November 1.

[Fiver]

Oswald is the only one to say he was a patsy.

Overwhelming evidence shows that Oswald killed JD Tippit, so Oswald's claim to be a patsy is a lie.

[scottnapa]

It is true that some of the commissioners missed some of the meetings, but the commissioners were just well-known influential figures intended to give the commission some sort of integrity or gravitas. They were primarily figureheads to discuss and consider the information provided by their appointed team who certainly did investigate "in the field".

studying all documentary evidence from the Secret Service, the FBI, CIA, and Dallas police, they identified the fact that some evidence had been withheld, and obtained it.

The team of lawyers were not on the ground.HSCA had investigators. They were in Washington and Dallas interviewing witnesses and processing and reviewing.that testimony. Many of them worked very hard, Liebeler had some good points and brought up corrections and issues concerning the correct and clear language. Some of the Liebeler ssues you will recall, were brought up in Epstein's Inquest. They were lawyers. Lawyers have clients. The Warren Commission presented a prosecution case against Oswald.
Ten days before the Warren Report was published, Liebeler wrote a memorandum noting that Odio may well be right,** and that the Commission will look bad if it turns out she is. J. Lee Rankin,was quoted as saying, in regard to such objections, At this stage, we are supposed to be closing doors, not opening them.”
The word "supposed" is used for a reason. There was a political deadline. The client wanted a conclusion.

WC did not get all the documents they asked for.
The "Church Committee" found that allegations of CIA plots to assassinate Cuban Premier Fidel Castro during John F. Kennedy's presidency went unreported to the Warren Commission even though CIA director Allen Dulleswas a member of the Commission
AARB did not get the documents they asked for. "Congress passed the JFK Act of 1992. One month later, the Secret Service began its compliance efforts. However, in January 1995, the Secret Service destroyed presidential protection survey reports for some of President Kennedy's trips in the fall of 1963. The Review Board learned of the destruction approximately one week after the Secret Service destroyed them, when the Board was drafting its request for additional information. The Board believed that the Secret Service files on the President's travel in the weeks preceding his murder would be relevant.

The HSCA did not get the documents they asked for. G. Robert Blakey, former Chief Counsel to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, said
“I now no longer believe anything the Agency [CIA] told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity…. “
Blakey learned t CIA liaison George Joannides had been case officer for an anti-Castro group whose members had contact with accused assassin Lee Oswald in 1963.
“We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp.”
Thanks for your comment.

[Fiver]

Because the body was removed from Dallas, there is no assassination crime to prosecute without a body. NO evidence from the Bethesda autopsy that would be permissible in court.

You repeating false opinions doesn't make them true. "No body no crime" has never been the law. Again, look at John Haigh in 1949.

And you have yet to provide any reason that the Bethesda autopsy would be inadmissible in court.

[scottnapa]

Overwhelming evidence shows that Oswald killed JD Tippit, so Oswald's claim to be a patsy is a lie.

Oswald killed Tippet with a handgun and Oswald denied killing Kennedy with a rifle.Those are compatible statements.

[Fiver]

If the Bethesda autopsy probed the back wound this could well be a civil conversation. They did not.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you proceed, now then to the other major wound of entry which you have already noted and described?
Commander HUMES - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - Its point of origin, where it hit the President.
Commander HUMES - I--our previously submitted report, which is Commission No. 387, identified a wound in the low posterior neck of the President.
The size of this wound was 4 by 7 mm., with the long axis being in accordance with the long axis of the body, 44 mm. wide, in other words, 7 mm. long.
We attempted to locate such wounds in soft tissue by making reference to bony structures which do not move and are, therefore, good reference points for this type of investigation.
We then ascertained, we chose the two bony points of reference we chose to locate this wound, where the mastoid process, which is just behind the ear, the top of the mastoid process, and the acromion which is the tip of the shoulder joint. We ascertained physical measurement at the time of autopsy that this wound was 14 cm. from the tip of the mastoid process and 14 cm. from the acromion was its central point--
Mr. SPECTER - That is the right acromion?
Commander HUMES - The tip of the right acromion, yes, sir, and that is why we have depicted it in figure 385 in this location.
This wound appeared physically quite similar to the wound which we have described before in 388 "A," with the exception that its long axis was shorter than the long axis of the wound described above. When the tissues beneath this wound were inspected, there was a defect corresponding with the skin defect in the fascia overlying the musculature of the low neck and upper back.
I mentioned previously that X-rays were made of the entire body of the late President. Of course, and here I must say that as I describe something to you, I might have done it before or after in the description but for the sake of understanding, we examined carefully the bony structures in this vicinity well as the X-rays, to see if there was any evidence of fracture or of deposition of metallic fragments in the depths of this wound, and we saw no such evidence, that is no fracture of the bones of the shoulder girdle, or of the vertical column, and no metallic fragments were detectable by X-ray examination.
Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful without fear of making a false passage.
Mr. SPECTER - What do you mean by that, Doctor?
Commander HUMES - Well, the defect in the fascia was quite similar, which is the first firm tissue over the muscle beneath the skin, was quite similar to this. We were unable, however, to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point.

[scottnapa]

You repeating false opinions doesn't make them true. "No body no crime" has never been the law. Again, look at John Haigh in 1949.

And you have yet to provide any reason that the Bethesda autopsy would be inadmissible in court.

John Haigh is interesting. However, we are talking about the chain of evidence is broken. So evidence is not admissible. Dr Earl Rose confronted SS stating, " Texas state law requires the autopsy to be performed in Texas" In a 1992 interview published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Rose said, "The law was broken" and that "[a] Texas autopsy would have assured a tight chain of custody on all the evidence."^[1] In 2003, Rose said he still believed that he and his staff should have been allowed to perform the post-mortem examination of Kennedy and that many conspiracy theories about the assassination would have been quelled had he examined the President. Rose did the autopsy for Oswald, Tippet and Ruby. All excellent work. (Wish he did JFK. We would be just talking about the Ripper then... Ah wishful thinking.)

When the Humes called the Dallas doctors they implored him to track the neck wound. Something Humes did not do.

Equally, the FBI secretly examined items of evidence shipped overnight to WASHINGTON DC before they had any official role in the investigation. That is why there duel between the FBI and DPD; a Light meter (FBI) vs Spy Camera) Dallas Police of course photographed the camera. Thanks for asking the question.

[FISHY1118]

"I feel that the sequence of the bullets is as follows:

1- The first bullet went through JFK's neck and this is the so-called pristine bullet

2- The second bullet went through Governor Connaley's [sic] chest and wrist and the film clearly demonstrates that Connaley's wrist was against his chest wall. I feel that this is the bullet that is missing



I feel that Oswald was the sole assassin who fired the three shots." - Dr Joseph Dolce.

Dolce, like Connally, believed Oswald was the lone assassin.

Dr Joseph Dolce was not the US Army's most senior expert in wound ballistics. He was a Consultant to the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, a civilian reporting to Doctors Olivier and Dzimean, who did testify to the Warren Commission.

You need to post all the facts , ive said all along the Warren Commission report was set up for one purpose only , ''A lone shooter and that shooter must be Oswald, everything else that is in direct contradiction of this , was ignored and the 100s of descrepencies were just simply dismissed .

ITs safe to say Dr Joseph Dolce was indeed an army Ballistic EXPERT [ see below.]


The red and black bold kinda rules out any Warren Commission testimony as fact by The two DRs . Eeverywhere we look we see over and over and over , Contradictions and Descrepencies .



1- The first bullet went through JFK's neck and this is the so-called pristine bullet , Yet the pristine bullet[c399] was the one that supposedly went throught connally ???

3- The third bullet struck JFK in the head and one fragment of this bullet struck Connaley in the left thigh and also struck the windshield of the car ????




By Joseph R. Dolce, MD, FACS


I am the Chief Consultant for the US Army in wound ballistics at the Edgewood Arsenal and Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. I have been dealing with high velocity missles for the Army for the past twenty–five years and I feel that there are no forensic pathologists in this country who have had the experience I have had with this type of missile. The forensic pathologist in civilian life, deals primarily with homicides caused by slow velocity missiles.

I appeared before the investigating team of the Warren Commission at the VA Building in Washington, D.C. on April 21, 1964. At that time, I reviewed all the X–rays and Zapruder film along with Governor Connaley [sic], his wife and his doctors. At that time, Governor Connaley sat on my right, while reviewing the Zapruder films and he (Governor Connaley) specifically told me, that he did not know that his wrist was injured until he reacted fully from anesthestia [sic] and noted a plaster cast on his right hand and forearm — but, in an interview with Life magazine — he goes on to say how his wrist was injured.

I am disturbed as to why I was not asked by the Warren Commission to give final testimony, even though Doctors Olivier and Dzimean [sic], to whom I serve as their Consultant were called, to give final testimony. I had advised these doctors to conduct certain experiments at Edgewood — which they did — and their findings were not consistent with their testimony.

Dr. Olivier accepts Dr. Gregory’s impression of what was the entrance and what was the exit wounds of Connaley’s right wrist, in spite of the fact, that his experiments on ten (10) cadaver wrists proved just the opposite — yet, he is willing to accept the conclusions of Gregory, who has no wound ballistic experience. This is extremely important, as he then tries to fit the yaw and the tumbling effects to coincide with Gregory’s interpretations — this is wrong and this is the part of the investigation that has been criticized so bitterly in medical circles. Personally, I strongly believe that the wrist wound in a separate and distinct wound made by one of the shots by Oswald. Also — this bullet is not deformed and yet, the bullets that struck the cadaver wrists are badly deformed, and these same bullets did not go through a neck or through a chest wall. In the experiments on ten cadaver wrists, all the exit wounds are larger than the entrance wounds — this is a known fact — yet, Dr. Olivier chose to accept Gregory’s thoughts of Connaley’s wound as just the opposite.

I feel that the first bullet fired by Oswald went through the President’s neck and caused him to become paralyzed even though the bullet did not strike the spine. This is due to the fact that you can have an injury to the spinal cord with high velocity missiles without the missiles striking the cord, because of the large temporary cavity produced by high velocity missiles. I can demonstrate amd [sic] prove this fact by several films which we have developed at the Edgewood Arsenal. The autopsy should have included a section of the cervical spinal cord, which I am sure would have demonstrated a hemorrhage.

I am convinced that the one bullet theory is wrong, because of the fact, that one bullet striking the President’s neck, the Governor’s chest and wrist, should be badly deformed, as our experiments at the Edgewood Arsenal proved. There never was a bullet in Governor Connaley’s left thigh, but just a small fragment which I feel came from the third bullet which struck J.F.K. in the head. My testimony on the one bullet theory are [sic] clearly written in Dr. Thompson’s book — “Six Seconds in Dallas” on pages 152 and 206.

I feel that the sequence of the bullets is as follows:

1. The first bullet went through JFK’s neck and this is the so–called pristine bullet
2. The second bullet went through Governor Connaley’s chest and wrist and the film clearly demonstrates Connaley’s wrist against his chest wall. I feel that this is the bullet that is missing
3. The third bullet struck JFK in the head and one fragment of this bullet struck Connaley in the left thigh and also struck the windshield of the car

I feel that Oswald was the sole assassin who fired the three shots.

This is not an unusual deduction with high velocity missiles and we are compounding this investigation because it happens to be the President of the U.S. who was assassinated.

I have waited so long to express my thoughts, because I did not realize that the testimony given by my colleagues at Edgewood, was so different from what we had discussed and proved by experiments at Edgewood.

I am in the private practice of General Surgery & trauma and have had a great deal of experience in my private practice with gun shot wounds, also I served 37 years in the U.S. Army and Army reserves and have had wide experience with wounds caused by high velocity missiles.

I am a retired colonel of the U.S. Army Medical Corps.

I am a board certified surgeon and a Fellow and the American College of Surgeons and also, the Army’s ballistics expert and I feel that I should be given the opportunity to express my thoughts before a responsible group of people.

I have been awarded the following decorations for my work in Wound Ballistics

1. The Distinguished Civilian Service Medal — the Army’s highest civilian service award
2. The Legion of Merit — the Army’s fifth highest military award.

Joseph R. Dolce, M.D. F.A.C.S.

[C. F. Leon]

I accept that Scott meant successful all along, as it could be argued that one isn't really an assassin unless he is successful. However, I do think that unsuccessful assassination attempts are just as relevant to the matter at hand as successful ones, and without considering them, we have a smaller sample size, and therefore a less reliable stat.

The shooter in the Kennedy assassination was much further away from Kennedy than the shooters in the other 3 presidential assassinations were from their targets, which accounts for 2 of the things that Scott mentioned. The other 3 assassins were so close to the president that they could hardly deny that they did it. And it stands to reason that the shooter would use a different kind of weapon if he's shooting from a considerable distance from the president than if he's standing right next to him. We can be sure that whoever was shooting at Kennedy was shooting with a rifle or something like it, can't we? If you think someone was shooting at him from the grassy knoll, you don't think he was using a weapon similar to the one that shot Lincoln, do you? So I see no importance at all in the fact that Oswald was the only successful presidential assassin to use a rifle.

Even most of the unsuccessful ones used handguns and shot close-up. (Limiting to AMERICAN assassinations, Europeans apparently prefer to use bombs.) The only one that were not close up (Is 50 feet a good limit? I'll set the range limit at the distance Fromme and Moore were from Ford- basically across a street.) and used long guns were MLK and the 2 recent alleged attempts on Trump. (I don't know how close Zangara was from FDR in 1933 and Beck apparently intended to crash the plane into the White House.) I KNOW that I'm missing several assassinations on the loco* level.

Oops, forgot Raymond Shaw used a rifle from a distance.

* should be "local"

[Doctored Whatsit]

You need to post all the facts , ive said all along the Warren Commission report was set up for one purpose only , ''A lone shooter and that shooter must be Oswald, everything else that is in direct contradiction of this , was ignored and the 100s of descrepencies were just simply dismissed .

I don't doubt for one moment that Oswald as the lone gunman was the convenient conclusion, but the team set up to investigate was never advised of this.