JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ahh, humour. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Why are sandwiches and curtain rods of any relevance? The point is that it doesn't matter whether the package was the right or wrong size for either. The point is that both witnesses stated that the package was no where near long enough to contain a rifle.

Ruth Paine’s garage, from which he is supposed to have retrieved the rifle, did contain curtain rods that were about the right size to fit in the bag described by Frazier and Randle. Against this, there is no record of any curtain rods having been discovered in the TSBD, and Ruth Paine claimed that no curtain rods were missing (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.9, pp.424f), although her husband Michael was less sure (ibid., p.461).

No George, the point is that neither Frazier or Randle had the remotest reason for lying about the curtain rods story therefore Oswald lied and hardly for the first time. Innocent people don’t lie. Another relevant point is that Frazier noticed that Oswald didn’t have his lunch box. This stood out because it hadn’t occurred before and shows that the package couldn’t have been mistaken for his lunch box.

And against this all that you have is the length. Disassembled the longest component was 34.8 inches. The 2 witnesses gave their estimates as to its length. Frazier, who only saw it briefly when he glanced on the back seat, estimate around 2 feet give or take a few inches. So as far as he was concerned, from a brief glance, it couldn’t have been a few inches longer than 24 inches. Randle gave her estimate as a little bit more than 24 inches.

So against the fact that Oswald made up a story about the curtain rods, and the fact that he went to the Paine’s a day earlier than he usually did, and the fact that he left his wedding ring and $170, all that you have is the fact that 2 people who saw an item briefly and had no reason to pay particular attention to it or to closely gauge its size, were a few inches out in their estimation of its length?

I can’t see how you can favour Oswald over Frazier and Randle? Everything points to him.

[cobalt]

HS has decided not to respond to the acknowledged fact that a conspiracy was taking place regarding LHO in Mexico City just over a month before the assassination. Bugliosi struggled on this problem as well, so resorted to claiming that Oswald was indeed in Mexico City. He may have been. So why was it necessary- this Bugliosi I think shies away from explaining- for someone to impersonate a man who was already in the city visiting the Soviet and Cuban embassies?

Frazier was threatened in his early interviews as being in cahoots with Oswald. He was a teenager. But he was adamant, and is to this day, about the length of the package. He emerges with much credit from the JFK case.

The wedding ring and 170 dollar story comes from Marina Oswald. Put herself in her shoes for a moment and imagine her situation. How on earth Oswald working dead end jobs had that much spare cash is difficult to understand although perhaps Bugliosi had an explanation. Did Bugliosi know that Oswald was a CIA asset or did he not establish that as part of his magnus opus?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Never mind the quality, feel the width seems to be HS’s contribution.

Conspiracy took place in Mexico City but HS has never dealt with this any more than Bugliosi wished to do in his TV courtroom hearing. It is a very important point. If Oswald was indeed in Mexico City as Bugliosi claimed, ‘sheep dipping’ himself by visiting the Russian and Cuban embassies, then why on earth was it necessary for anyone to impersonate him? He was doing a damn good job all on his own. Why was this necessary? Why was someone impersonating the so called ‘no mark’ Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City little more than a month before the assassination?

Why are people like Jesse Curry, LBJ, Governor Connally, J. Edgar Hoover and Bertrand Russell who suspected a conspiracy ‘moronic’ whilst HS is not? They all have a public record of achievement which I suspect he cannot match. Could it be that the accuser is revealing more of himself than the accused?

Bugliosi writes pages on Mexico in his book that none of the ‘fair-minded’ posters on here has bothered read except for me.

Jesse Curry simply expressed his ‘doubts’ when he was trying to promote his book. Bertrand Russell was a philosopher so I fail to see what weight his opinion carries on the assassination. Johnson and Hoover might have considered the possibility of a conspiracy at some point but so what, they weren’t alone in that. Governor Connally believed that he and Kennedy were hit by different bullets but he didn’t believe in a second gunman.

Thats a strange dig about their level of public achievement that I can’t match. What about the level of public achievement of Earl Warren, Richard Russell, John Sherman Cooper, Hale Boggs, Gerald Ford, Allan Dulles and John McCoy.

Just check one. Look at Warren’s achievements in legislature and in other areas.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren

But according to you and the conspiracy crowd he was just a traitor willing to cover up the murder of the President.

Its about as believable as anything coming from the mouth of David Icke. It would be funny if it want such a sad reflection on the obsessiveness, gullibility and sheer dishonesty of conspiracy theorist.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS has decided not to respond to the acknowledged fact that a conspiracy was taking place regarding LHO in Mexico City just over a month before the assassination. Bugliosi struggled on this problem as well, so resorted to claiming that Oswald was indeed in Mexico City. He may have been. So why was it necessary- this Bugliosi I think shies away from explaining- for someone to impersonate a man who was already in the city visiting the Soviet and Cuban embassies?

Frazier was threatened in his early interviews as being in cahoots with Oswald. He was a teenager. But he was adamant, and is to this day, about the length of the package. He emerges with much credit from the JFK case.

The wedding ring and 170 dollar story comes from Marina Oswald. Put herself in her shoes for a moment and imagine her situation. How on earth Oswald working dead end jobs had that much spare cash is difficult to understand although perhaps Bugliosi had an explanation. Did Bugliosi know that Oswald was a CIA asset or did he not establish that as part of his magnus opus?

Clownish crap. Stick to shape shifting aliens.

[cobalt]

HS, an imaginative name, prefers not to engage with points raised. Insults ad hominem are his stock in trade it would seem. He has still not explained why he wants to close down the discussion on JFK but continues to contribute. Schizophrenia is the medical term I believe.

Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City. If Bugliosi wrote pages about this I would be interested to know why he thought it was necessary for someone to impersonate Oswald. His pages on Oswald's proficiency in Russian, as summarised by HS, amounted to no more than a statement. Bugliosi could apparently offer no explanation for the absurd difference in Oswald's linguistic competence.

And the final point point for today, again unanswered so far, is did Bugliosi know that Oswald was a CIA asset? Oswald's
mother knew and stated this in 1964 so that should have been a clue. In Bugliosi's masterful account does he reveal this or not?

[GBinOz]

HS, an imaginative name, prefers not to engage with points raised. Insults ad hominem are his stock in trade it would seem. He has still not explained why he wants to close down the discussion on JFK but continues to contribute. Schizophrenia is the medical term I believe.

Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City. If Bugliosi wrote pages about this I would be interested to know why he thought it was necessary for someone to impersonate Oswald. His pages on Oswald's proficiency in Russian, as summarised by HS, amounted to no more than a statement. Bugliosi could apparently offer no explanation for the absurd difference in Oswald's linguistic competence.

And the final point point for today, again unanswered so far, is did Bugliosi know that Oswald was a CIA asset? Oswald's
mother knew and stated this in 1964 so that should have been a clue. In Bugliosi's masterful account does he reveal this or not?

Hi cobalt,

Excellent posts. You have gauged the situation well, but it is Sir HS....if you don't mind.

Bugliosi established a technique that has been adopted by his acolytes. Raise a minor point and then extrapolate in an endeavour to make it a major point. He tried this on Edwin Lopez in "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD"
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w_v...%27sJFKChannel) and Lopez reduced him to a bumbling fool who eventually skulked away with his tail between his legs.

It can be seen that Bugliosi's technique is being employed here. Those who insist that Oswald conveyed the rifle to the TSBD in a package ask, why would the two witnesses lie. But the two witnesses testified that the package wasn't long enough to accommodate a rifle. Ahh, they say, but maybe the witnesses (Texans) didn't know the length of a rifle. (After all, it is obvious to all non-shooters that a rifle can fit into a package the size of a brief case). Then the subject is suddenly shifted to discussing sandwiches and curtain rods. They never let facts interfere with their speculation and conjecture. Next, repeat the previous ramblings containing nothing but speculation and conjecture with a few unsubstantiated claims that do not withstand fact checks.

On your last point, I think that the recent release of documents has clarified the extent of Bugliosi's lack of knowledge about most aspects of the case.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Clownish crap. Stick to shape shifting aliens.

What an eloquent reply. Masterful in its introduction of facts to dispute the opponents debate. Who could fail to be convinced by this compelling argument? When you have nothing to say, say it verbosely.

[FISHY1118]

You haven’t answered a single one of my questions so I’m not going to continue answering yours.

Humes opinion trumps Bell’s.

About an autopsy not the''Magic Bullet!!!! '' Which makes the Warren Commission wrong .

[FISHY1118]

You haven’t answered a single one of my questions so I’m not going to continue answering yours.

Humes opinion trumps Bell’s.

Post 549 , 555 , I must of continually missed these answers, can you show me the post for them ?

[GBinOz]

Post 549 , 555 , I must of continually missed these answers, can you show me the post for them ?

And of course my post #505 where I asked for proof of the identity of this witness:
Like the witness who was in the car park area who saw no one behind the fence.

We are castigated for not answering endlessly repetitive speculations but when challenged on one of a myriad of unsubstantiated claims, no answer is the stern reply. It is easy to make unsubstantiated claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. Bugliosi 101.

[GBinOz]

The following contains the actual transcripts of cross examinations, including references, as well as showing the the technique used by Posner, Bugliosi and some forum contributors on this thread to distort and adjust evidence for their own purpose:


Did Oswald’s Paper Bag Resemble the CE 142 Bag?

Posner’s interpretation:

Initially, Randle said the package was approximately 27 inches long, and Frazier estimated a little over two feet. The disassembled Carcano is 35 inches long. … The bag [supposedly found on the sixth floor] was 38 inches long. Both Randle and Frazier said it looked like the same one Oswald carried that morning.

(ibid., pp. 223–4)

What the witnesses actually said:

Mr Frazier : Well, I will be frank with you. I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long.
Mr Ball : It was, what part of the back seat was it in?
Mr Frazier : It was in his side over on his side in the far back.
Mr Ball : How much of that back seat, how much space did it take up?
Mr Frazier : If, if you were going to measure it that way from the end of the seat over toward the center, right. But I say like I said I just roughly estimate that that would be around 2 feet, give and take a few inches.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, p.226)

Mr Ball : Now we have over here this exhibit for identification which is 364 which is a paper sack made out of tape, sort of a home made affair. Will you take a look at this. Does this appear to be anything like the color of the sack you saw on the back seat?
Mr Frazier : Yes, sir; I would say it was, it was more a color like this.
Mr Ball : It was more like this color, correct?
Mr Frazier : Yes.
Mr Ball : Did it have tape on it or did you notice it?
Mr Frazier : Well, like I say, I didn’t notice that much about it as I didn’t see it very much. Mr Ball : Will you take a look at it as to the length. Does it appear to be about the same length?
Mr Frazier : No, sir.
(ibid., p.239)

Mr Ball : We have got a package here which is marked Commission Exhibit No. 364. You have seen this before, I guess, haven’t you, I think the FBI showed it to you?
Mrs Randle : Yes, sir.
Mr Ball : Now, was the length of it any similar, anywhere near similar?
Mrs Randle : Well, it wasn’t that long, I mean it was folded down at the top as I told you. It definitely wasn’t that long.
Mr Ball : How about the width?
Mrs Randle : The width is about right.
Mr Ball : The width is about right. Can you stand up here and show us how he was carrying. Using this package as an example only?
Mrs Randle : What he had in there, it looked too long.
Mr Ball : This looks too long?
Mrs Randle : Yes, sir.
Mr Ball : About how long would you think the package would be, just measure it right on there.
Mrs Randle : I would say about like this.
Mr Ball : You mean from here to here?
Mrs Randle : Yes, sir; with that folded down with this much for him to grip in his hand.
Mr Ball : This package is about the span of my hand, say 8 inches, is that right? He would have about this much to grip?
Mrs Randle : What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I told you it was folded down so it could have been this long.
Mr Ball : I see. You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?
Mrs Randle : A little bit more.
Mr Ball : A little more than 2 feet. … What about length?
Mrs Randle : You mean the entire bag?
Mr. Ball Yes.
Mrs Randle : There again you have the problem of all this down here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the bottom —
Mr Ball : Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
Mrs Randle : This is the bottom here, right? This is the bottom, this part down here.
Mr Ball : I believe so, but I am not sure. But let’s say it is.
Mrs Randle : And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
Mr Ball : Yes.
Mrs Randle : About this.
Mr Ball : Is that about right? That is 28½ inches.
Mrs Randle : I measured 27 last time.
Mr Ball : You measured 27 once before?
Mrs Randle : Yes, sir.
(ibid., pp.249f)

Frazier is clear that the bag he saw was not, in Ball’s words, “a paper sack made out of tape, sort of a home made affair” (ibid., p.239) but a normal paper bag from a grocery store. One might expect Frazier to have mentioned the existence of tape from the Depository, had there been any on the bag he saw on the back seat of his car.

Both Frazier and Randle are adamant that:

• the bag they saw was much shorter than the bag supposedly found on the sixth floor,
• and that the only sense in which the replica bag “looked like the same one Oswald carried that morning” (Case Closed, p. 224) was the trivial one that both bags were made of brown paper.

Were the Witnesses Mistaken?

Posner’s interpretation:

Frazier later admitted the package could have been longer than he originally thought: “I only glanced at it … hardly paid any attention to it. He had the package parallel to his body, and it’s true it could have extended beyond his body and I wouldn’t have noticed it.”

(ibid., p. 224)

What Wesley Frazier actually said:

Mr Ball : Will you take a look at it [CE 364, the replica bag] as to the length. Does it appear to be about the same length?
Mr Frazier : No, sir.
Mr Ball : When you were shown this bag, do you recall whether or not you told the officers who showed you the bag — did you tell them whether you thought it was or was not about the same length as the bag you saw on the back seat?
Mr Frazier : I told them that as far as the length there, I told them that it was entirely too long.
Mr Ball : What about the width?
Mr Frazier : Well, as I say, like I say now, now I couldn’t see much of the bag from him walking in front of me. Now he could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because I didn’t see it from the front. The only time I did see it was from the back, just a little strip running down from your arm and so therefore, like that, I say, I know that the bag wouldn’t be that long. So far as being wide like I say I couldn’t be sure. …
Mr Ball : Now, you said that some of the bag might have been beyond his hands, did you say?
Mr Frazier : Yes, sir; I said it could have, now I am not saying it was.
Mr Ball : In other words, it could have been longer than his hands?
Mr Frazier : Right. … Like I said, I remember I didn’t look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that.
Mr Ball : But you said a moment ago you weren’t sure whether the package was longer or shorter.
Mr Frazier : And his hands because I couldn’t see that about the package.
Mr Ball : By that, do you mean that you don’t know whether the package extended beyond his hands?
Mr Frazier : This way?
Mr Ball : No; lengthwise, toward his feet.
Mr Frazier : No; now I don’t mean that.
Mr Ball : What do you mean?
Mr Frazier : What I was talking about, I said I didn’t know where it extended. It could have or couldn’t have, out this way, widthwise not lengthwise.
Mr Ball : In other words, you say it could have been wider than your original estimate?
Mr Frazier : Right.
Mr Ball : But you don’t think it was longer than his hands?
Mr Frazier : Right.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, pp.239–242)

Frazier clarified his ambiguous reply to Ball’s question about the package extending beyond Oswald’s hands: he was insistent that the package could have been wider, but not longer, than he originally thought, and nowhere near long enough to have contained the rifle.

By taking only the ambiguous reply and ignoring the unambiguous clarification, Posner’s statement that “Frazier later admitted the package could have been longer than he originally thought” (Case Closed, p. 224) was the precise opposite of the truth.

Oswald’s Prints on the Sixth–Floor Bag

Linnie Mae Randle saw Oswald before he began his journey to work. She described him gripping the top of the paper bag in his right hand as the bottom of the bag “almost touched the ground” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, p.248). Buell Wesley Frazier described Oswald about half an hour later, holding the bag “cupped in his [right] hand”, with the top of the bag under his armpit (ibid., p.239). It would be reasonable to suppose that the weight of a rifle may have caused at least Oswald’s right fingerprints and right palm print to become attached to one or both ends of the package.

Lieutenant Day used fingerprint powder on the bag, but found “no legible prints” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.267). Robert Studebaker also failed to identify any worthwhile prints:

Mr Ball : Did you lift any prints?
Mr Studebaker : There wasn’t but just smudges on it — is all it was. There was one little ole piece of a print and I’m sure I put a piece of tape on it to preserve it … just a partial print. Mr Ball : The print of a finger or palm or what?
Mr Studebaker : You couldn’t tell, it was so small.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.144)

The rifle was sent to the FBI laboratory, where Sebastian Latona found that “there was nothing visible in the way of any latent prints on there” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.3). Latona applied silver nitrate to the bag, and discovered two partial prints that were matched to records of Oswald’s prints (ibid., p.6):

• a part of a right palm print (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.17, p.286 [Commission Exhibit 632]);
• and a part of a left index fingerprint (ibid., p.287 [Commission Exhibit 633]).

Although the bag, or at least the paper that was used to make the bag, appears to have come into contact with Oswald’s hands at some point, the fingerprint and palm print evidence was insufficient to prove that Oswald had carried the bag in the manner described by Randle and Frazier, or that he had assembled the bag by hand.

The Bag and the Sixth–Floor Sniper’s Nest

There is a good deal of uncertainty about whether the police had actually discovered a bag by the supposed sniper’s nest.
Police Descriptions of the Paper Bag

Of the officers who were first on the scene, three gave conflicting descriptions of the bag:

• Richard M. Sims described seeing “some wrappings”, “a brown wrapping”, “some loose paper” and “a wrapper” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.161)
• Marvin Johnson saw a paper bag: “L.D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it …. It was folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package …. The sack was folded up here and it was east of the pipes in the corner. To the best of my memory, that is where my partner picked it up. I was standing there when he picked it up.” (ibid., pp.103f)
• Montgomery also saw a bag but denied picking it up (ibid., p.98).

Was There a Paper Bag on the Sixth Floor?

Four other officers did not notice a bag:

• Gerald Hill stated that “the only sack that I saw” was one that was later shown to have contained a TSBD employee’s lunch (ibid., p.65; he describes his discovery of the lunch bag on p.46).
• Elmer Boyd also saw the lunch bag, and stated that “I don’t believe I did” see any brown wrapping paper near the window (ibid., p.122).
• Roger Craig stated that “I don’t remember seeing” a paper bag on the floor (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, p.268).
• Luke Mooney, who appears to have been the first officer to examine the south–east corner of the sixth floor, “didn’t see anything over in the corner” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.286).

J.B. Hicks, of the Dallas police crime laboratory, did not remember a paper bag:

Mr Ball : Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building?
Mr Hicks : Paper bag?
Mr Ball : Paper bag.
Mr Hicks : No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up.
Mr Ball : Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it? Mr Hicks : No, sir; I don’t believe I did. I don’t recall it.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.7, p.289)

More importantly, the paper bag is not present in any of the photographs made by the police of the area around the south–east window. The Warren Commission helpfully published one such photograph, Commission Exhibit 1302, with a dotted outline to indicate the supposed location of the bag.

The earliest known photograph of the bag dates from about three hours after the police had entered the building. William Allen of the Dallas Times Herald photographed Detective Montgomery on the front steps of the TSBD, holding the bag; see Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain, Yeoman Press, 1994, p.552.

There were problems with the testimony of the two detectives who were in charge of photographing the scene and dusting pertinent items for fingerprints. Robert Studebaker and Carl Day each claimed to have been the officer who discovered the bag (Commission Document 5, pp.128f). Day claimed that Roy Truly, the manager of the TSBD, had been the only other person to see the bag, a claim which Truly denied (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.231). The testimony of the other officers quoted above implies that they reached the scene before Studebaker and Day arrived.

Did the Sixth–Floor Paper Bag Contain the Rifle?

According to Wesley Frazier, Oswald said that the bag he carried to work contained curtain rods. Oswald denied this, and claimed that the bag contained only a sandwich and an apple (Warren Report, p.622). The Warren Commission claimed that the bag contained a rifle.

Evidence from the FBI suggested that the sixth–floor bag had not come into contact with the rifle that Oswald was alleged to have used. The bag was too short to accommodate the rifle in its assembled state, and it contained none of the markings that could be expected to be left on the bag by the loose parts of the disassembled rifle, which was in a “well–oiled condition” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.26, p.455 [Commission Exhibit 2974]). According to James Cadigan of the FBI laboratory:

I was also requested … to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle. … And I couldn’t find any such markings.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.97).

Manufacturing the TSBD Paper Bag

Two Types of Paper Bag

Frazier was certain that the bag he had seen Oswald carry was a standard paper bag, manufactured commercially and obtained from a store:

Mr Ball : What did the package look like?
Mr Frazier : Well, I will be frank with you. I would just, it is right as you get out of the grocery store, just more or less out of a package, you have seen some of these brown paper sacks you can obtain from any, most of the stores, some varieties, but it was a package just roughly about two feet long. …
Mr Ball : The paper, was the color of the paper, that you would get in a grocery store, is that it, a bag in a grocery store?
Mr Frazier : Right. You have seen, not a real light color but you know normally, the normal color about the same color, you have seen these kinds of heavy duty bags you know like you obtain from the grocery store, something like that, about the same color of that, paper sack you get there.
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.2, p.226)

Frazier stated that Oswald usually carried his lunch to work in “a little paper sack you get out of a grocery store” (ibid., p.220).

The bag produced by the Dallas police had been assembled from wrapping paper, and sealed with tape. It was an ad hoc, home–made bag, not one from a shop.

TSBD Wrapping Paper and Tape Machine

The bag was made from the Texas School Book Depository’s stock of wrapping paper, and sealed with the TSBD’s tape. The paper and the tape each contained markings from one particular tape dispensing machine in the shipping room on the first floor of the building. Because the dispensing machine, which was too sturdy to have been removed from the TSBD, moistened the tape at the same time as it applied the markings, the bag must have been assembled on the premises (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, pp.90–93).

The person who assembled the bag was unlikely to have been Lee Harvey Oswald. The machine was under constant supervision by Troy West, who testified that he spent his entire working day at the wrapping table, and implied that Oswald never had the opportunity to manufacture the bag (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, pp.360ff).

When Was the Bag Assembled?

James Cadigan of the FBI laboratory testified that the paper and tape of the bag possessed “identical” physical characteristics to samples of wrapping paper and tape taken by the Dallas police on the afternoon of 22 November (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.93).

The TSBD used approximately one roll of paper every three working days (ibid., p.96). For each consignment of 58 rolls of paper, the company ordered a consignment of 500 rolls of tape (Commission Document 897, p.163), the equivalent of using one roll of tape roughly every three working hours.

The tape on the paper bag supposedly found on the sixth floor seems to have been applied within about three working hours of the samples being taken by the Dallas police. The bag is likely to have been constructed during the period between Oswald’s arrival at the TSBD, four and a half hours before the assassination, and the bag’s first public appearance in the hands of Detective Montgomery later that afternoon.
************************************************** ******

Can I request that the inevitable rebuttals be confined to actual factual evidence, including references? Please don't bother with wasting everyone's time with the same repetitious speculation, conjecture, supposition and unsubstantiated so called "facts". Please keep in mind that the above is from the Warren Commission and includes evidence from the police and the FBI.

[GBinOz]

This is to acknowledge that the transcripts of cross examinations in my post #581 were cut and pasted from the website http://22november1963.org.uk/. This acknowledgement conforms to that site's conditions of use.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HS, an imaginative name, prefers not to engage with points raised. Insults ad hominem are his stock in trade it would seem. He has still not explained why he wants to close down the discussion on JFK but continues to contribute. Schizophrenia is the medical term I believe.

Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City. If Bugliosi wrote pages about this I would be interested to know why he thought it was necessary for someone to impersonate Oswald. His pages on Oswald's proficiency in Russian, as summarised by HS, amounted to no more than a statement. Bugliosi could apparently offer no explanation for the absurd difference in Oswald's linguistic competence.

And the final point point for today, again unanswered so far, is did Bugliosi know that Oswald was a CIA asset? Oswald's
mother knew and stated this in 1964 so that should have been a clue. In Bugliosi's masterful account does he reveal this or not?

Ad Hominen insults? What about the snide digs that I’ve had to put up with from you, George and Fishy? In the same paragraph you even accuse me of having a mental illness. As is often the case on here, some posters are blind to their own faults.

This is what has actually occurred in this ‘discussion’ Cobalt. I’ve been bombarded with question after question after question on the worlds most complex true crime ever - a subject that I haven’t read anything on for close on 10 years and that was one book, before that it was probable 20 years since I read another. I’ve taken the considerable time and effort to refresh my memory as to the details before responding to every one. Most of these questions I’ve responded to in considerable detail. If i missed one or two it wasn’t deliberate but I get the ‘aha!’ insinuate that I’m deliberately ducking questions. Also during this discussion I’ve asked numerous questions and have made numerous points….not of which has earned a response. So, I don’t think that it should be surprising that yes, I’m a bit irritated by this thread. Perhaps we should re-title it “Ask Herlock.”?

Another point of irritation is the constant denigration of Bugliosi from people who haven’t even had the decency to actually read the book before slating it. And why is that we might ask? Imagine if one of the country’s leading lawyers over here announced that he’d been researching the ripper case (or the A6 for that matter) for 20 years and had produced the most in depth (1600+ pages) analysis of a true crime in the history of true crime books how many ripperologists (or people interested in the A6) would simply refuse to buy or read it? I think that we know the answer to that one but it’s not the case here is it. And why is that? It’s because people are so wedded to, and obsessed by, their conspiracy fantasy that they just can’t bring themselves to read anything to the contrary. And no, I can’t be accused of reading only ‘lone human’ books either. I prefer to look into both sides of a debate before forming my opinions.

So I’m not trying to ‘close down’ the discussion. For page after page I’ve been trying to start one but some people (3) only want to ask questions and to discuss why there must have been a conspiracy. You’ll have to excuse me for tiring of this ‘one rule for one…’ game.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi cobalt,

Excellent posts. You have gauged the situation well, but it is Sir HS....if you don't mind.

Bugliosi established a technique that has been adopted by his acolytes. Raise a minor point and then extrapolate in an endeavour to make it a major point. He tried this on Edwin Lopez in "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD"
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w_v...%27sJFKChannel) and Lopez reduced him to a bumbling fool who eventually skulked away with his tail between his legs.

It can be seen that Bugliosi's technique is being employed here. Those who insist that Oswald conveyed the rifle to the TSBD in a package ask, why would the two witnesses lie. But the two witnesses testified that the package wasn't long enough to accommodate a rifle. Ahh, they say, but maybe the witnesses (Texans) didn't know the length of a rifle. (After all, it is obvious to all non-shooters that a rifle can fit into a package the size of a brief case). Then the subject is suddenly shifted to discussing sandwiches and curtain rods. They never let facts interfere with their speculation and conjecture. Next, repeat the previous ramblings containing nothing but speculation and conjecture with a few unsubstantiated claims that do not withstand fact checks.

On your last point, I think that the recent release of documents has clarified the extent of Bugliosi's lack of knowledge about most aspects of the case.

Cheers, George

Have the integrity to read a book before assassinating the character of the author George.

The recent release has done exactly nothing. It hasn’t proven that Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy in any way. As you well know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

About an autopsy not the''Magic Bullet!!!! '' Which makes the Warren Commission wrong .

The single bullet theory is proven and has been recreated by computer graphics. It’s not even worth discussing. The Allies won WW2, William the Conqueror invaded in 1066, King John signed Magna Carta and Kennedy and Connally were hit be the same bullet. No further debate required.