JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

Let's ignore that paraffin wax evidence used to "prove" he fired a gun that day also showed that he hadn't fired a rifle. And lets forget that historically, being thrown in the bag of a police car is one of the main ways false positives are created in nitrate and gunpowder evidence being on an innocent persons hands.

The paraffin test proves nothing for or against Oswald, as the Warren Commission established.

Mr. EISENBERG. So the paraffin acts as a base to pick up--
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It acts as a medium in which the foreign material is picked up from the hands.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you add the reagent, what is considered to be a positive reaction?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It turns a blue color.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is the cast? When you say "it," it is the cast?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, specks on the cast.
Mr. EISENBERG. Dots?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, or an area of the cast. The theory of the test is that it is a test for gunpowder residues. Now, that is the theory, and it is fallacious, inasmuch as the reagents used in these two tests are not specific for gunpowder residues. Now, it is true that the nitrates and nitrites in gunpowder residues will react positively with diphenylamine and diphenylbenzidine, but they are not specific. They will react--these two reagents will react with most oxidizing agents.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you give us a few examples?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes. Urine, tobacco, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, soil, fertilizer--I have a list here of the different families or classes of compounds that will react. In addition to nitrates and nitrites, substances such as dichromates, permanganates, hypochlorites, periodates, some oxides, such as selenium dioxide and so forth. Also, ferric chloride and chromates and chlorates. The list of oxidizing agents is so large that will react--that you cannot specifically say it was a gunpowder residue.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Supposedly it is to determine whether or not a person has fired a weapon. In actuality, in chemistry it is a good indication that an oxidizing agent is present. The reagents have a valid use in a chemistry laboratory.
Representative BOGGS. Let me put the question this way. Given a dozen ordinary people in the ordinary walk of life, what would be the chance of a positive reaction on any one of these 12 people?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Excellent, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Has the FBI performed an experiment to determine this?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; we have. The early sets of tests we ran with diphenylamine. And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands. That was the first test we ran.

Mr. EISENBERG. A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, sir; I personally wouldn't expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes; this time we ran a control. We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands.
We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not fired a gun that day.
Mr. EISENBERG. This was before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, sir. That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek.
Mr. EISENBERG. Also before firing the rifle?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.
We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.
Mr. EISENBERG. So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber--in other words, so he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.

[Fiver]

Richard Russell tried to voice his concerns at the final meeting of the Commission with concerns that they weren't addressing. He called Johnson to raise the point that he didn't believe Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, and Johnson agreed with him. He went on to become the first. and loudest, member of the commission to criticise its findings and said that he believed there was a conspiracy, but that the FBI were not interested in investigating any further than Oswald, and were not forthcoming with any evidence that might point even tangentially away from their initial findings in November 1963 that "he did it and he did it alone" and that they were more interested in protecting their own public profile than finding the truth.

Russell and LBJ both doubted the Single Bullet Theory. At no point in the recording does Russell express any belief in a Conspiracy or any doubt that Oswald shot JFK.

[Fiver]

Junior counsel Wesley Liebeler sent a raft of concerns in the detailing of both Oswalds ability to do the shooting as presented in the report as well as its inability to put him in the window at the time of the shooting,

Liebeler made a lot of recommendations for rewording the report. Many were nitpicky, but some were more significant.

"The palmprint section must be changed to reflect the latest findings of the FBI that the palmprint had to have been lifted from the barrel because of the marks that appear on the lift that correspond to those on the rifle barrel itself."

"As to any attempt to explain Mrs. Markham's description (so-called) of Oswald as having bushy hair by showing the world a picture of Oswald "taken at the time of his arrest." I suggest that even the slowest of readers would imagine that their hair might be in an uncombed state--which is the suggested explanation of the bushy condition--after they had fought with a dozen policemen in an attempt to resist arrest. In fact Pizzo exhibit 453-C, the evidence for this proposition, shows Oswald with cuts and bruises on his face. I don't think Mrs. Markham's testimony needs much comment and neither does her statement to Lane. Any attempt such as is presently in the report will merely play into Lane's hands and make the Commission look naive."

"This conclusion to this heading reaches the crushing result that "Oswald disposed of his jacket as he fled from the scene of the Tippit killing." I submit that that is really not the conclusion we worked toward. Why not : "Those facts strongly support the finding that it was Lee Harvey Oswald who killed Patrolman Tippit and then fled through the parking lot adjoining Jefferson Boulevard, disposing of his jacket as he did so."

He explained any fingerprint or fiber evidence only showed that he had touched the rifle at some point, not that he had fired it and certainly nothing to show he had fired it that day. He pointed out that no one saw the rifle in the Paine's garage, only that there had been a blanket that had at some point held the rifle.
He pointed out that the argument that his room HAD curtains rods did not take into account that Oswald said they were for a new apartment, and was looking to move himself and his family into a new apartment.

Liebeler does say those things about fingerprint and fiber evidence, as well as te curtain rods.

He pointed out that if they were to believe Frazier about the existence of the package and the way Oswald carried it, they should not discount his repeated statement abut the size of the package.

Liebeler did not say that.

"The last sentence states: "Frazier could easily have been mistaken when he stated that Oswald held the bottom of the bag cupped in his hand, or when he said that the upper end was tucked under the armpit." On the very next page of the galleys, in the discussion of the prints that appeared on the paper bag, it is stated that the palmprint was "found on the closed end of the bag. It was from Oswald's right hand in which he carried the long package as he walked from Frazier's car to the building." I am advised that the palmprint is right on the end of the bag, just where it would be if Oswald had carried it cupped in his hand. If we say in the discussion of prints that that print was put on the bag when he carried it to the TSBD (which we don't quite do) and if the print is where it would be if he carried it cupped in his hand, then we must face up on the preceding page and admit that Frazier was right when he said that that is the way Oswald carried it. If the print story is right and the implication left there as to when the print was put on the bag is valid, Frazier could not have been mistaken when he said Oswald carried the bottom of the bag cupped in his hand."

My favourite line from his memos is this "...the testimony of the employees as set forth in that paragraph is also consistent with Oswald having been in Ethiopia at the time of the assassination,"

Here's the Ethiopia quote in context.

"Last paragraph on page 38 (galley), the testimony of the employees as set forth in that paragraph is also consistent with Oswald having been in Ethiopia at the time of the assassination, or with his having used the elevators to get down from the sixth floor. Since those employees did not see either Oswald or Dougherty, their testimony says nothing on the point under discussion. The whole paragraph should be cut."

He tries to get them to address the matter of why Victoria Adams did not see Oswald on the staircase... for some reason the commission requested her filed statements and tape of her evidence be returned to the Commission for "distruction" (It seems that he filing department were either unhappy with this or weren't on the same page, because they replaced the file with the Warren Commissions written request to destroy it... oops) so the report never provided her testimony and based their appraisal of her testimony on a story they created from whole cloth.

Here's what Liebeler said about Victoria Adams.

"When I left the bottom of page 38 I was looking for additional testimony showing that Oswald came down the stairs and not the elevator. After two paragraphs of excellent analysis I am convinced that Victoria Adams either came down the stairs before or after Oswald did and it is clear that that is so because we know that Oswald came down the stairs and not the elevator. I do not understand, however, how the fact that Victoria Adams came down the stairs before or after Oswald did shows that Oswald came down the stairs. If the idea is to show that Adams was not on the stairway when Oswald was I am not convinced by the analysis or speculation in these two paragraphs. Furthermore, if that is the idea it is not clearly set forth. How about a first sentence like: "Victoria Adams testified that she came down the stairway, within about 1 minute after the shots, from the fourth floor to the first floor where she encountered two depository employees--Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady. If Miss Adams was on the stairway at that time, the question is raised as to why she did not see Oswald .... "

But his boldest comment, that tells us everything we need to know about the commissions actual business and purpose was... after tearing holes in the evidence used to support Oswald's ability to do the shooting... this;
"The Commission could then conclude that the best evidence that Oswald could fire his rifle as fast as he did and hit the target is the fact that he did so."

Here is Liebeler's statement in context.

"It seems to me that the most honest and the most sensible thing to do the present state of the record on Oswald's rifle capability would be to write a very short section indicating that there is testimony on both sides of several issues. The Commission could then conclude that the best evidence that Oswald could fire his rifle as fast as he did and hit the target is the fact that he did so. It may have been pure luck. It probably was to a very great extent. But it happened. He would have had to have been lucky to hit as he did if he had only 4.8 seconds to fire the shots. Why don't we admit instead of reaching and using only part of the record to support the propositions presently set forth in the galleys. Those conclusions will never be accepted by critical persons anyway."

And here is some very key testimony by Liebeler.

Mr. LIBELER - I think that the Commission's conclusion as to the identity of the assassin and as to the facts that occurred in Dallas on that day, that is to say there was only one person killing the President and it was Oswald and he used that rifle and so on, are correct beyond any doubt, beyond any plausible doubt. It is not possible to reach the conclusion that Oswald did not have contacts with other people, the knowledge of which would be relevant to this matter, about which the Commission did not learn, and the Commission of course never stated that there was no conspiracy. It only stated that it had not been able to develop evidence that suggested the existence of a conspiracy. I debated this issue with Mark Lane at UCLA and many other critics. I don't have any reason to doubt the basic conclusions in the report including the conspiracy question, and even this business of the FBI supposedly destroying a note that Oswald left at the office and that sort of thing does not cause me to have any questions about that. To me it is perfectly clear what was going on in the Bureau at that time. It was clear to most of us st the time.
Mr. FAUNTROY. So that your view is that he acting alone killed Kennedy?
Mr. LIBELER - Yes, sir.
Mr. FAUNTROY - Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McKINNEY - Was it ever discussed by you or by others that there was a possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald could have been a CIA agent or informant or FBI informant?
Mr. LIBELER - Yes, sir.
Mr. McKINNEY - Did you think it would have been possible for the CIA and the FBI to keep this information sway from the Commission?
Mr. LIBELER - No.
Mr. McKINNEY - Why?
Mr. LIBELER - I think that that is the kind of issue on which it is quite conceivable that the only persons who would have knowledge of it if that were true would be Oswald who is dead and a very few, presumably as many as only one, but very few people within these organizations and I think that it is quite conceivable that if they wanted to withhold that information they could do so and we would not have any direct way of finding out. One of the ways that the Commission did approach that question was to examine Oswald's financial history and do a financial audit of it which hopefully would have, if there had been unaccounted revenues that he had spent, that would have lent credibility to the proposition that he had been in the employ of these agencies on the assumption that he was not doing it for nothing. The Internal Revenue Service people that worked for the Commission were able to account for all of the expenditures out of the income that he received or was known to have received during this period of time.

[scottnapa]

I have repeatedly cited Texas law showing you are wrong about this.

Oswald was arraigned for the murder of President Kennedy before Justice of the Peace David Johnston at 1:35 a.m., November 23.

Mr. HUBERT. Now, let's pass to the arraignment concerning President Kennedy, and I wish you would dictate into the record the same information you did as to the first one.
Mr. JOHNSTON. All right, sir. This was the arraignment of Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder with malice of John F. Kennedy, cause No. F-154, The State of Texas versus Lee Harvey Oswald. The complaint was filed at 11:25 p.m., was accepted by m e at 11:26 p.m. It was filed at approximately 11:25 p.m. by Capt. J. W. Fritz, homicide bureau of the Dallas Police Department, and was accepted by Henry Wade, criminal district attorney, Dallas County, Tex., and was docketed as cause No. 154, F-154 at 11:26 p.m.
Shortly after this is when the defendant was taken to the detail room or the assembly room.
Mr. HUBERT. What happened at this arraignment--was it the same as before?
Mr. JOHNSTON. He was not arraigned at this time. He was then arraigned after he was removed to the detail room where the press was allowed to have their first interview with the defendant, with Lee Harvey Oswald.
Subsequently in a conference between Captain Fritz, Mr. Wade, and two or three of his assistants and myself, and Chief Curry--it was decided to go ahead and arraign him and that arraignment was held at 1:35 a.m., November 23, 1963, in the identification bureau of the Dallas Police Department, and once again I appraised him of his constitutional rights, read the affidavit, and advised him again that I remanded him to the custody of the sheriff, Dallas County, denying bond as capital offense. He was also told at both of these instances that he would be given the right to contact an attorney of his choice.

Care to explain why you think you know more about Texas law than DPD Chief Curry, Captain Fritz of the DPD Homicide Bureau, Dallas District Attorney Wade, and Justice of the Peace Johnston?

Golly, you are the only one that doesn't understand. Again.
Is arraignment the same as a trial.? No. Is cutody the same as
Did you read the Wade comment in the post from Henry Wade? No
Do you argue for the sake of argument? Yes.
The body is evidence. EVERYONE understands this but you
if there is no body, there is no evidence from that body admissable at a trial. The point of the post is that the Dallas understand the issue
And you do not. Just as you think the Betheda autopsy was top notch.
Here is what you did not comment on: Evidence removed to the 'FBI was manipulated.
" After Oswald is killed, previously inadmissible evidence can now presented as “facts” for the political WC trial by committee.
Evidence that would be dismissed at a real trial is accepted by WC apologists.
There is sufficient proof of FBI intervention. One, insertion; changing newspaper story in Times Herald. Two, substitution; the Minox camera fraud .3) Destruction; where are Sandra O’Conner’s color autopsy photos?: FBI also presents a photocopy as an original evidence. The Oswald money order only exists as a photograph copy .

[Lewis C]

No. Oswald lies often. Curtain rods seems to be just something he's saying to say something. I do not know why would Oswald buy curtain rods for an tiny room he doesn't own? On the other hand the WC lies about the bag. The MC dissassembled is 34". . Linnie Mae Fraizer saw Oswald carrying it holding it at the top and the bottom not hitting the ground; Buell Fraizer saw Oswald carry it cupped in his right hand with the top under his right shoulder.
The FBI measurement in Frazier's car's back seat 27”. WC gave Fraizer a lie dectector test which he passsed and so the WC elected to not publist the results of a test they did not like. To this day Fraizer insists there was no rifle in his car

If the truth was that he wasn't carrying a rifle, it seems odd that he wouldn't just tell the truth about what was in the package.

[Lewis C]

Hello Scott.

First…my apologies for not taking into consideration your eye problems. I hope that the surgery goes well.

Second…yes there was ‘snark’ in my comment and yes I shouldn’t really have aimed it in your direction.

Third…you honestly don’t have to bother answering it’s my intention not to post on this subject again (if I can show a little will power)

Fourth…you say that nothing will change my mind as if I’m being bloody-minded whilst the conspiracy side are the open minded ones. I’d accuse the conspiracy side of being bloody minded. Of starting out from a position of conspiracy and then seeing everything in terms of it.

Ill finish by saying….all of those wider questions that I put to you….not one single poster has ever answered but, more importantly, no matter how confident conspiracy supporters on here claim to be, I have TWICE asked them to tell us what they actually believe…Oswald plus GK gunman, Unknown 6th floor gunman plus GK gunman, gunman firing from elsewhere and GK gunman, not one of them had the courage of their convictions to state something so simple.

Anyone would think that they were uncomfortable with scrutiny.

Herlock, since no one seems to want to answer this, I'll tell you what I believed years ago when I thought that there was a conspiracy. I believed that it was Oswald plus one other gunman, probably shooting from the grassy knoll, but I was open to the possibility that he could be shooting from somewhere else. I thought that the JFK headshot came from this other shooter, and that there were 3 other shots, all of which came from Oswald.

EDIT: George, I see now that you've answered this too.

[OneRound]

Scottnapa's comments on Bugliosi's breathless account of the impasse at Parkland were interesting. Bugliosi is clearly a man who likes to 'gild the lily' which presumably served him well in the theatre of the courtroom. However Bugliosi would have understood that the law is only a reflection of political forces within a society; and Bugliosi strikes me as man who likes to be on the side that is winning.

Bugliosi presented himself as a fighter for 'the little man,' familiar enough schmaltz spouted by politically ambitious lawyers. His record suggests otherwise. During a California University 'sit in' in the late 1960s students held chief administrators captive within an office and coerced them into agreeing policies that would now be considered run of the mill in respect of race etc. Despite promises of no recriminations, around two dozen students were put through the legal process and Bugliosi managed to get four of them jail time for 'kidnap.' All perfectly legal I'm sure but not exactly the act of a Robin Hood.

Bugliosi's best known case is the one that made him a recognised public figure and spawned a book and a film entitled 'Helter Skelter.' Taking Charles Manson off the streets was undoubtedly for the good of society but there were few men more 'little' in their lives than Manson. Since Manson had not actually killed anyone himself, Bugliosi had to resort to a Conspiracy Theory to lock him up for life. This CT was wilder than anything dreamt up by JFK CTs, revolving around drug fuelled recollections of Manson's interpretation of a Beatles' soundtrack. Some of Manson's gang have dismissed it all as nonsense but it made for good cinema. This was a boost to Bugliosi's career as his high profile prosecution was heralded by conservative America as an expose of the dark reality behind the counter culture.

Bugliosi's commitment to the 'little man' did not apparently extend to his milkman, who he suspected of stealing around 300 dollars from him. This may sound like a Monty Python sketch or something conjured up by Benny Hill but Bugliosi did attempt to use his office to pursue the man and later paid out a settlement of about 12,000 dollars.

Bugliosi's labelling of George W Bush as a war criminal is sometimes claimed as evidence of him fearlessly seeking justice. But Bugliosi had thrown in his lot politically with the Democratic Party and his book would have gone down favourably with the incoming Obama administration. Had he put Bush in the dock, as Garrison did with Clay Shaw, then that would have been a different matter. I doubt Bugliosi would have welcomed that prospect.

So Bugliosi arguing for the state (or the Warren Commission) against the little man - Lee Harvey Oswald- is par for the course. It was his lifetime work and doubtless paid extremely well. Having said that I am sure Bugliosi was a very competent lawyer and, if forced to take on the Oswald defence, would have no doubt achieved a swift acquittal.

Hi again cobalt - interesting (to me anyway) that you mention Charles Manson. One of the murders for which he and some of his group was convicted was that in 1969 of Donald ''Shorty'' Shea. Although convicted in 1972, the victim's body was not found until 1977.

Just one of several examples in the USA and worldwide, both before and after John Kennedy's killing, where the absence of a body, let alone an autopsy, did not prevent a murder trial contrary to Fishy's repeated assertion.

Best regards,
OneRound

[Fiver]

CE 843 is proof of fraud in the JFK autopsy evidence. CE 843 consists of three fragments that were supposedly removed from JFK's skull during the autopsy. However, these fragments look nothing like the fragments that Dr. James Humes said he removed from the skull and that appear on the autopsy skull x-rays. The 7x2 mm fragment is plainly visible on the AP x-ray, and it looks nothing like any of the fragments seen in CE 843. Moreover, Humes said he only removed two fragments, one 7x2 mm and the other 3x1 mm, not three.

The fraud is on the part of your source.

Warren Commission Exhibit 843 was always two fragments.

Commander HUMES - I refer to my notes for the measurements of that fragment.
I find in going back to my report, sir, that we found, in fact, two small fragments in this approximate location. The larger of these measured 7 by 2 mm., the smaller 3 by 1 mm.

Mr. SPECTER - Moving back to 843 will you describe those fragments indicating their weight and general composition?
Mr. FRAZIER - These fragments consisted of two pieces of lead, one weighed 1.65 grains. The other weighed .15 grain. They were examined spectrographically so their present weight would be somewhat less since a very small amount would be needed for spectrographic analysis.

Mr. WOLF - Dr. Guinn, if we could again start with the items that we have placed in group 1 of the items, all found in or near the occupants of the President's limousine, and if you could give their Commission exhibit numbers and the location where they were allegedly found.
Dr. GUINN - The first of the five was CE-399. That is the so-called pristine bullet reportedly found on a stretcher at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. The second was Commission exhibit 567. That was a mashed large bullet fragment still in its jacket reportedly recovered from the front seat of the Dallas limousine. The third one, CE-843, consisted of one larger fragment and one smaller fragment reportedly recovered from President Kennedy's brain at autopsy. The fourth one was CE-842, one larger fragment and two smaller ones reportedly recovered from Governor Connally's wrist during surgery. And the fifth one was CE-840, fragments reportedly recovered from the rear floor of the Dallas limousine.

[scottnapa]

Hi again cobalt - interesting (to me anyway) that you mention Charles Manson. One of the murders for which he and some of his group was convicted was that in 1969 of Donald ''Shorty'' Shea. Although convicted in 1972, the victim's body was not found until 1977.

Just one of several examples in the USA and worldwide, both before and after John Kennedy's killing, where the absence of a body, let alone an autopsy, did not prevent a murder trial contrary to Fishy's repeated assertion.

Best regards,
OneRound

Hello and thanks for your response. You almost got it
This is not a conversation about having a trial about a body. This is about what would be allowed as evidence in Dallas Texas where the trial would take place.. Because the chain of evidence is broken. No “evidence” obtained by the Bethesda autopsy would be accepted by a Texas court as it was performed out of state in Maryland. Texas has jurisdiction.
I posted multiple examples of quotes about jurisdiction and evidence. the last one from a conversation Wade has with Robert Oswald.

I didn’t say there couldn’t be a trial. Sure have a trial. If there was an autopsy performed in Dallas who has jurisdiction, all evidence from the legal autopsy is admissible. But because the body was NOT autopsied in Dallas, any “evidence “ from the body been contaminated.
(I am sure everyone remembers the defense in OJ trial concerning mishandled evidence.)
Dr Rose performed the Tippet autopsy. That is a legal procedure that produces evidence that can and would have used in a Dallas court to convict Oswald of Tippet’s murder. .

[Patrick Differ]

80,000 pages of documents are being released tomorrow 3/18/2025. Unredacted.

That's alot of documents compared to 13,000 released in 2022.

We hopefully at least learn why they were withheld. Hey is this finally it? Who knows?

[Fiver]

CE 843 is also HSCA JFK Exhibit F-258.

HSCA JFK Exhibit F-258 is Zapruder film frame 316.

[Fiver]

''ACTUAL EVIDENCE''

For me, the problem with the Tippit shooting has always been the ID of the shells as being from an automatic pistol, by DPD Sgt. Gerald Hill.

It's not a problem if you read the actual evidence.

Mr. HILL. Then we went back over to the house next door, which would have been the first one east of this one, and made sure it was securely locked, both upstairs and downstairs. There was no particular sign of entry on this building at all. At this point we came back out to the street, and I asked had Owens received any information from the hospital on Tippit.
And he said they had just told him on channel 2 that he was dead. I got back in 105's car, went back around to the original scene, gave him his car keys back, and left his ear there, and at this point he came up to me with a Winston cigarette package.
Mr. BELIN. Who was this?
Mr. HILL. This was Poe.
Mr. BELIN. You went back to the Tippit scene?
Mr. HILL. Right.
Mr. BELIN. You went back to 400 East 10th Street?
Mr. HILL. Right. And Poe showed me a Winston cigarette package that contained three spent jackets from shells that he said a citizen had pointed out to him where the suspect had reloaded his gun and dropped these in the grass, and that the citizen had picked them up and put them in the Winston package.
I told Poe to maintain the chain of evidence as small as possible, for him to retain these at that time, and to be sure and mark them for evidence, and then turn them over to the crime lab when he got there, or to homicide.

Mr. POE. I talked to a Spanish man, but I don't remember his name. Dominique, I believe.
Mr. BALL. Domingo Benavides?
Mr. POE. I believe that is correct; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did he tell you?
Mr. POE. He told me, give me the same, or similar description of the man, and told me he was running out across this lawn. He was unloading his pistol as he ran, and he picked the shells up.
Mr. BALL. Domingo told you who was running across the lawn?
Mr. POE. A man, white man.
Mr. BALL. What was he doing?
Mr. POE. He was unloading his pistol as he run.
Mr. BALL. And what did he say?
Mr. POE. He said he picked the two hulls up.
Mr. BALL. Did he hand you the hulls?
Mr. POE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you put any markings on the hulls?
Mr. POE. I couldn't swear to it; no, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the hulls?
Mr. POE. I turned the hulls into the crime lab, which was at the scene.

Mr. BARNES. I photographed the scene; yes. There was a couple of hulls that was turned over to me.
Mr. BELIN. Do you mean empty shell casings?
Mr. BARNES. Empty .38 caliber hulls was turned over to me at the scene by patrolman--I believe I would be safe in saying Poe, but I am not sure about that.
Mr. BELIN. How do you spell that?
Mr. BARNES. P-o-e, I believe is the way he spells it.
Mr. BELIN. You think he was the one that turned over some shells?
Mr. BARNES. I believe it is. I am not too sure right now, but I believe that is what is on the report. I would have to check it to be sure.

Mr. BELIN. Sergeant, I will ask you to examine Commission Exhibits Nos. Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, and ask you to state whether or not there appears to be any identification marks on any of these exhibits that appear to show that they were examined or identified by you?
Mr. BARNES. I placed "B", the best that I could, inside of the hull of Exhibit 74---I believe it was Q-74 and Q-75, as you have them identified.
Mr. BELIN. Now all four of these exhibits appear to be cartridge case hulls, is that correct?
Mr. BARNES. .38 caliber.
Mr. BELIN. .38 caliber pistol?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. They are kind of silver or chrome or grey in color? You can identify it that way?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. How many of these hulls, to the best of your recollection, did you identify out there?
Mr. BARNES. I believe that the patrolman gave me two, and Captain Doughty received the third.
Mr. BELIN. The two that the patrolman gave you were the ones that you put this identification mark on the inside of?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What instrument did you use to place this mark?
Mr. BARNES. I used a diamond point pen.
Mr. BELIN. You put it on Q-74 and Q-75?
Mr. BARNES. It looks like there are others that put their markings in there too.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have anything to do with identifying either the slugs that were eventually removed from Officer Tippit's body, or the pistol?
Mr. BARNES. No.
Mr. BELIN. You never put any identifying marks on those. Is there anything else that you did out at the crime scene?
Mr. BARNES. We made a crime sketch of the scene.
Mr. BELIN. You made a crime sketch of the scene?
Mr. BARNES. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else?
Mr. BARNES. No; not that I can recall at this time.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do with those cartridge case hulls, Q-74 and Q-75?
Mr. BARNES. We placed them in our evidence room, and turned them over to the FBI. I believe Special Agent Drain of the FBI was the agent that took them.

[Fiver]

Oswald was seen on the ground floor at a few minutes before 12:15 eating his lunch. H

James Jarman testified he was in the domino room/lunch room, but that Oswald was not.

Harold Norman testified he was in the domino room/lunch room, but that Oswald was not.

Jack Edwin Dougherty testified he was in the domino room/lunch room between 12 and 12:30 and that the last time he had seen Oswald was around 11am on the 6th floor.

Danny G. Arce testified that he had lunch with Dougherty in the domino room/lunch room and that the last time he had seen Oswald was before that, with Oswald on the 5th or 6th floor.

That leaves a couple possibilities.
* Oswald was telling the truth, but forgot there were two more people in the domino room that could give him alibis and Jarman, Norman, Dougherty, and Acre were all lying.
* Oswald was lying about being in the lunch room.

Neither option gives Oswald an alibi for the shooting. Jarman and Norman had enough time to get to the 5th floor before the assassination, so clearly Oswald had enough time to get to the 6th floor before the assassination.

[Fiver]

Of course, of there's nothing to cut and paste from the Warren Report on this as rather than try and clear this up, that witness - Carolyn Arnold, whose FBI statement gave Oswald an alibi, was never brought to the Warren Commission or re-interviewed by anyone connected to investigating the assassination.

Lets look at the actual statements.

"Mrs. R. E. ARNOLD, Secretary, Texas School Book Depository, advised she was in her office on the second floor of the building on November 22, 1963, and left that office between 12:00 and 12:15 PM, to go downstairs and stand in front of the building to view the Presidential Motorcade. As she was standing in front of the building, she stated she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse, located on the first floor. She could not be sure that this was OSWALD, but said she felt it was and believed the time to be a few minutes before 12:15 PM."

So sometime before 12:15 Carolyn Arnold might have seen Oswald, but not in the lunch room.

Arnold was re-interviewed by the FBI.

"On November 22, 1963, at the time President Kennedy was shot, I was standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building. I was with Mr. O. V. Campbell, 7120 Twin Tree Lane, Dallas; Mrs. L. C. (Bonnie) Richey, 220 South Marsalis, Apt. 117, Dallas; Mrs. Barney (Betty) Dragoo, 2705 West Brooklyn, Dallas; Mrs. Don (Virgie) Baker née Rackley, 3600½ Live Oak, Dallas; and Miss Judy Johnson, 915 Sunnyside, Dallas, at the time President Kennedy was shot.

I did not see Lee Harvey Oswald at the time President Kennedy was shot."

The Warren Commission had access to both statements made by Carolyn Arnold.