JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[jmenges]

There were certainly critics as the report shows but I’d consider it a strong point that it was Ruby himself who asked for it, or even a truth serum Jon. That points either to his belief (for whatever reason) that he could somehow beat the test or that he was confident that he was telling the truth.

Well, we know he lied during his polygraph, thanks in no small part to poor questioning. He says he went to Cuba in 1959 “for pleasure” when even the Warren Commission knew he went on behalf of Lewis McWillie to negotiate gambling opportunities on the island. I’ve no doubt the trip was “pleasurable” for him, but it wasn’t a vacation, as the WC decided to characterize it.

Even you must admit that the number of times and ways Ruby was asked if he was a communist, associated with Communists or supported Castro is mind boggling naive given he was rabidly anti-communist and anti-Castro. They didn’t ask him about that did they? Lucky Jack.

JM

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well, we know he lied during his polygraph, thanks in no small part to poor questioning. He says he went to Cuba in 1959 “for pleasure” when even the Warren Commission knew he went on behalf of Lewis McWillie to negotiate gambling opportunities on the island. I’ve no doubt the trip was “pleasurable” for him, but it wasn’t a vacation, as the WC decided to characterize it.

Even you must admit that the number of times and ways Ruby was asked if he was a communist, associated with Communists or supported Castro is mind boggling naive given he was rabidly anti-communist and anti-Castro. They didn’t ask him about that did they? Lucky Jack.

JM

But there’s nothing unusual about being less than reticent about something that might have been seen as disreputable or even illegal. The point is that on the question about whether anyone told him to kill Oswald or whether he’d known him his ‘no’ passed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's not entirely clear what you're attempting to argue, Herlock, but I personally find this line of inquiry somewhat passé in the year of our Lord, 2023. Many people in the U.S. believe there was a widespread conspiracy to overthrow the U.S. election in 2020 up to an including the President himself, and yet three years later no one of any consequence has gone to prison or has even been charged. The only ones charged have been the out-and-out looneys who wore buffalo horns on their heads, etc.

Pretty much everyone--right and left--believes there was a conspiracy, they just disagree who was behind it.

Surely these were just people who desperately wanted Trump in office combined with a few conspiracy theorists who can’t walk past a conspiracy theory without stopping to embrace it?

Whichever way I look at it Roger I can’t see even the smallest chance of a huge conspiracy. Many disagree of course but I haven’t seen a single thing that would lead me to change my opinion at this point. Why go complex, convoluted and with hundreds of pitfalls requiring massive coordination and swathes of luck when it could easily have been avoided with a simple, more effective, easy to coordinate plan?

[Doctored Whatsit]

The HSCA selected 3 independent experts to review Ruby’s polygraph exam their less than flattering opinions of the procedure can be found here:

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/pdf/HSCA_Vol8_RubyPolygraph.pdf

JM

Whilst I accept the reservations expressed, my view was that Ruby demonstrated his clear understanding of the difference between right and wrong by his responses to the test questions at the beginning, and the questions he didn't answer at the end. Maybe he regarded the Cuba visit as both business and pleasure.

[rjpalmer]

Surely these were just people who desperately wanted Trump in office combined with a few conspiracy theorists who can’t walk past a conspiracy theory without stopping to embrace it?

Who were spreading those conspiracy theories, Herlock? In part, it was right-wing groups that were in contact with people high up in the Administration. Only this week, one of the world's richest men, Rupert Murdoch, voiced regret that he had his media outlets give voice and credence to these claims. Thus, we have a millionaire conspiring with dozens of journalists, as well as elected officials, some of whom were in contact with militia groups who had gathered at the Capitol. That sounds like a conspiracy. I am getting off-topic, but no less a figure than the Vice President of the United States refused to get into a Secret Service vehicle that was to take him to the U.S. Capitol to certify the results. He was willing to believe that the Secret Service itself had been compromised, and he wouldn't have made it, so he refused to get into the vehicle. That, in itself, is scary as hell.

Under U.S. law, a conspiracy only requires two participants. Not a vast network: two.

I have no particular pony in the Kennedy Assassination debate, mainly because I haven't read enough about it, but I do know Newman is no wide-eyed kook. He was a Professor in Maryland and had a stellar military career. He was a consultant on a PBS "Frontline" documentary about Oswald, and they are hardly known for off-the-wall yellow journalism. I would hesitate to call anyone who questions the standard narrative a "conspiracy theorists" because there are regimes all over the world where law enforcement, politicians, media outlets, etc. do conspire together. Whether this could have been true in the United States in 1962 might be open to doubt, but the way we are currently headed, I don't think it is entirely implausible now. The United States is becoming more like a Russian-style oligarchy with every passing year, where billionaires call the shots, and the politicians snap to attention. I suppose that makes me a conspiracy theorist, too.

[GBinOz]

The United States is becoming more like a Russian-style oligarchy with every passing year, where billionaires call the shots, and the politicians snap to attention. I suppose that makes me a conspiracy theorist, too.

I think this applies to most western cultures RJ. The subjugated voting for the privileged few to become even more privileged. Like sheep voting for the wolf because they've been told the shepherd is a conspiracy theorist.

Cheers, George

[cobalt]

I always think that HS’ imagined account of the perfect assassination is actually what happened. He asks why Oswald had to be hauled in as a ‘patsy’ and I offered an explanation before: the FBI and CIA could hardly have survived such a catastrophic failure without finding a plausible suspect. They were handed one on a plate.

Caz has asked about the difficulty of placing Oswald at the scene of the crime if he was a ‘patsy.’ I don’t think it’s quite so difficult as she thinks. The important thing was to place an (alleged) Cuban sympathiser inside the TSBD and link him to a rifle on the 6^th floor. If Oswald had wandered outside and been photographed on the front steps then his role would simply have been changed to that of an associate of the gunman. There were a few dark complected men seen at TSBD windows by some witnesses so instead of a LG theory we would have been served up something slightly better: a conspiracy by Castro sympathisers.

I say ‘better’ because I assume the original motivation behind the assassination involved the USA being pressured to invade Cuba and depose Castro. This part of the conspiracy was the one which failed.

[GBinOz]

I found this interesting:



So we have
1. Roger Craig stating that he saw Mauser 7.65 stamped on the barrel of the rifle.
2. Weitzman signing a statutory declaration that the rifle was a Mauser 7.65
3. The CIA memo stating that the rifle was a Mauser 7.65 and that the announcement that it was a Mannlicher Carcano in the Italian press was an error.
4. Evidence that a 7.65 shell was found in Dealey Plaza.

Interesting.

Cheers, George

[FISHY1118]

I found this interesting:



So we have
1. Roger Craig stating that he saw Mauser 7.65 stamped on the barrel of the rifle.
2. Weitzman signing a statutory declaration that the rifle was a Mauser 7.65
3. The CIA memo stating that the rifle was a Mauser 7.65 and that the announcement that it was a Mannlicher Carcano in the Italian press was an error.
4. Evidence that a 7.65 shell was found in Dealey Plaza.

Interesting.

Cheers, George

Theyd rather drink poison than admit there wrong George . A Mauser it was .

[GBinOz]

It's a red letter day folks. A point of agreement with Sir HS. I too encourage everyone to watch the London Trial. Here's the description and the link to the Wecht part: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (PART 18) (CYRIL WECHT)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On17...VonPein%27sJFK Channel

Bugliosi opened his cross examination and was immediately admonished by the Judge for a demeaning remark. He was later admonished by the judge for showing disrespect to the witness. His questions to Wecht were misleading in their presentation and he tried to cut off Wecht's answers. Bugliosi asked if he agreed with the autopsy conclusion that the bullet to the back and the bullet to the head were entry wounds and therefore came from the rear, Wecht said yes. But Bugliosi then claimed that Wecht had come to the same conclusion and Wecht said no, that's just a part. He had already stated that the first head shot was consistent with a shot from the grassy knoll. Bugliosi then waved an article authored by Wecht in 1974 where he said all shots came from the rear, and Wecht replied that that was based on the medical evidence available at the time. He had to repeat this qualification later when Bugliosi repeated the question. The defence lawyer then objected that Bugliosi wasn't being fair to the witness saying "when he gives an answer he doesn't like he admonishes the witness and scolds him" and the judge replied that he thought the witness was handling himself alright. Doesn't sound like "squirming". But Bugliosi kept badgering until the judge ordered the jury to disregard his remark (at about 17 min). Bugliosi badgered Wecht, as he did all the witnesses, with questions requiring speculation. IMO his performance was thoroughly amateurish.

Now look at some of the evidence presented.

Here is the diagram of the magic bullet:


Note that Connolly's jump seat is offset. Bugliosi asked - If the bullet went straight through (i.e. it didn't change direction multiple times) then why wasn't it found in the car (calls for speculation). Wecht correctly replied that he didn't conduct the investigation, so how could he know.

But of course that bullet didn't exit from JFK, as there was no exit wound. To exit the throat it would have had to change to an upward trajectory as shown here:



The WC skipped around this problem by simply shifting the back wound up to the neck, contrary to the autopsy and the holes in JFK's shirt and coat.



Here's the ZP at frame 230. This is between one and one and a half seconds after the President has been hit. Notice that Connolly is showing no signs of distress and is still holding his white Stetson in the hand that has allegedly just had the wrist smashed. Connolly never desisted in insisting that both he and his wife were sure he was hit with a separate bullet.



Wecht introduced this graphic (I cropped out a part that Wecht said did not relate to this case):


These were 6.5 projectiles from tests commissioned by the WC.

From the left, bullets 2 and 3 were fired into cotton wading, bullet 4 was fired through a goat carcass breaking one rib. Bullet 5 was fired into the wrist bone of a human cadaver. Bullet 1 is CE 399, the bullet that is alleged to have broken both Connolly's rib and his wrist bone without any significant damage to its shape. I find it hard to believe that it could have passed through two men's bodies, a rib bone and a wrist bone (in Maxwell Smart voice - well, would you believe a bowl of jello and some whipped cream?)

When Wecht was asked his opinion of the autopsy he said "one of the most incomplete, superficial, inadequate, inept, forensic pathologically incompetent medical legal autopsies I've ever seen". He gives his reasons for this opinion, but you'll have to watch the video for those.

I re-watched the testimony of Buell Frazier. He struck me as a nice guy. He thought Lee was a nice guy, and he thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. I also re-watched the testimony of Ruth Paine. She struck me as having dead eyes. She didn't like Lee. She said he spoke with derision about other people, was proud of himself and his ability, that he thought he was pretty special and that others didn't see him that way, and that he was apt to take offense if you disagreed with him......Don't we all encounter people like that? The testimony of Tom Tilson, a highly decorated police officer, was also interesting. He saw a man who he said he looked like Ruby, a man he knew well, running from a grassy area under the overpass after the shooting. Abby, you may have been right in your opinion. Tilson was another witness ignored by the police, CIA and the WC. Curiouser and curiouser.

Watch the trial folks. It's very informative.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

Theyd rather drink poison than admit there wrong George . A Mauser it was .

Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

[FISHY1118]

It's a red letter day folks. A point of agreement with Sir HS. I too encourage everyone to watch the London Trial. Here's the description and the link to the Wecht part: "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (PART 18) (CYRIL WECHT)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=On17...VonPein%27sJFK Channel

Bugliosi opened his cross examination and was immediately admonished by the Judge for a demeaning remark. He was later admonished by the judge for showing disrespect to the witness. His questions to Wecht were misleading in their presentation and he tried to cut off Wecht's answers. Bugliosi asked if he agreed with the autopsy conclusion that the bullet to the back and the bullet to the head were entry wounds and therefore came from the rear, Wecht said yes. But Bugliosi then claimed that Wecht had come to the same conclusion and Wecht said no, that's just a part. He had already stated that the first head shot was consistent with a shot from the grassy knoll. Bugliosi then waved an article authored by Wecht in 1974 where he said all shots came from the rear, and Wecht replied that that was based on the medical evidence available at the time. He had to repeat this qualification later when Bugliosi repeated the question. The defence lawyer then objected that Bugliosi wasn't being fair to the witness saying "when he gives an answer he doesn't like he admonishes the witness and scolds him" and the judge replied that he thought the witness was handling himself alright. Doesn't sound like "squirming". But Bugliosi kept badgering until the judge ordered the jury to disregard his remark (at about 17 min). Bugliosi badgered Wecht, as he did all the witnesses, with questions requiring speculation. IMO his performance was thoroughly amateurish.

Now look at some of the evidence presented.

Here is the diagram of the magic bullet:


Note that Connolly's jump seat is offset. Bugliosi asked - If the bullet went straight through (i.e. it didn't change direction multiple times) then why wasn't it found in the car (calls for speculation). Wecht correctly replied that he didn't conduct the investigation, so how could he know.

But of course that bullet didn't exit from JFK, as there was no exit wound. To exit the throat it would have had to change to an upward trajectory as shown here:



The WC skipped around this problem by simply shifting the back wound up to the neck, contrary to the autopsy and the holes in JFK's shirt and coat.



Here's the ZP at frame 230. This is between one and one and a half seconds after the President has been hit. Notice that Connolly is showing no signs of distress and is still holding his white Stetson in the hand that has allegedly just had the wrist smashed. Connolly never desisted in insisting that both he and his wife were sure he was hit with a separate bullet.



Wecht introduced this graphic (I cropped out a part that Wecht said did not relate to this case):


These were 6.5 projectiles from tests commissioned by the WC.

From the left, bullets 2 and 3 were fired into cotton wading, bullet 4 was fired through a goat carcass breaking one rib. Bullet 5 was fired into the wrist bone of a human cadaver. Bullet 1 is CE 399, the bullet that is alleged to have broken both Connolly's rib and his wrist bone without any significant damage to its shape. I find it hard to believe that it could have passed through two men's bodies, a rib bone and a wrist bone (in Maxwell Smart voice - well, would you believe a bowl of jello and some whipped cream?)

When Wecht was asked his opinion of the autopsy he said "one of the most incomplete, superficial, inadequate, inept, forensic pathologically incompetent medical legal autopsies I've ever seen". He gives his reasons for this opinion, but you'll have to watch the video for those.

I re-watched the testimony of Buell Frazier. He struck me as a nice guy. He thought Lee was a nice guy, and he thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. I also re-watched the testimony of Ruth Paine. She struck me as having dead eyes. She didn't like Lee. She said he spoke with derision about other people, was proud of himself and his ability, that he thought he was pretty special and that others didn't see him that way, and that he was apt to take offense if you disagreed with him......Don't we all encounter people like that? The testimony of Tom Tilson, a highly decorated police officer, was also interesting. He saw a man who he said he looked like Ruby, a man he knew well, running from a grassy area under the overpass after the shooting. Abby, you may have been right in your opinion. Tilson was another witness ignored by the police, CIA and the WC. Curiouser and curiouser.

Watch the trial folks. It's very informative.

Cheers, George

Great information George , thank for posting, I watch the link later tonight .

Its astonishing with all this contradictory evidence to the WC ,that its still seen as the gospel truth according to the lone gunman apologist . I haven't checked but have the fake jfk autopsy head photo and the fake series of Zfilm photos been removed?

[FISHY1118]

Don't drink the Kool-Aid.

Hi George, just thought you be interested in a book the was recently reccommended to me.? I wonder if youve heard of this gentlman ''John Liggett'' and the role he played in the JFK Assassination. My friend believes its a game changer . ''The Presidents Mortician'' you can find it on Amazon. Just thought you might find it interesting given the recent discussion regarding fake photos .

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok we’re back to spouting the same old guff. Bugliosi was admonished but let’s get the details right shall we? He was told off for being to forceful after Gerry Spence complained. Spence and Bugliosi had a different approach. Bugliosi was to the point, often abrupt, whilst Spence was an actor who spoke slowly and over-dramatically to the jury as if Oswald was some kind of fallen hero. At one point when talking to Ruth Paine he held a board with a large photo of Oswald as if it was his dead son. Paine more than most knew what Oswald looked like. Bugliosi was also admonished for called Dr. Wecht, Cyril. He accepted the admonition then, whilst talking, he said ‘Cyril’ again but immediately apologised. But during that trial, as is apparently the case on here, there was one rule for Spence and one rule for witnesses. Spence simply would address Bugliosi properly. Early in the trial he told Spence that it was an Italian name and that the ‘g’ was silent. Spence continued for the rest of the trial to call him ‘Bugliosi’ though. So….a bit of mis-direction from the hallowed St. George.

Again look how conspiracy theorists assess witnesses? Just as early when George used proven liars like Ed Kaufman and Beverly Oliver he now praises the fantasist Tilson (an off-duty Police Officer) who claimed to have seen a man who looked like Jack Ruby (who we know from evidence wasn’t in Dealey Plaza but elsewhere) come down a bank, throw ‘something’ into a car then the car drove off. Tilson told his daughter to write down the car’s serial number and he phone it in to the police but never got any feedback or acknowledgment. He didn’t bother to press the issue (after all, it was only the assassination of the President) Then years later he found the note in a drawer and even though controversy was raging over the assassination and conspiracy theories abounded and the world knew that Jack Ruby killed Oswald, does he produce this note? Does he hand it in? No, he chucks it in the bin! Tilson is another fantasist who joins Kaufman and Oliver and many others in the bin.

Now onto the hero of the conspiracy theorists - Cyril Wecht. I won’t quote the whole of Bugliosi’s quoting of the note but I can if anyone wants it. But the essence is as George says but, what George and Fishy ‘forget’ to mention is that ‘to this day’ Wecht continues to say that the evidence that we have now tells us absolutely that the shots to Kennedy’s back and head came from the rear and not from the front. He only differs in believing that Kennedy and Connally weren’t hit with the same bullet just that two different bullets coincidentally struck them both a fraction of a second apart. But again, the back and head wounds came from behind.

Like all good CT’s Wecht has a high opinion of himself. When asked by Bugliosi if he was right at the HSCA were the other 8 pathologists either incompetent or liars. The puffed up Wecht said that it was probably a mixture of both but he was the only one with the courage to say what he did. Another conspiracist blowhard who realises that being a conspiracy theorist makes him a celebrity.

The conspiracy theorists rely on a board with a diagram for their smoke and mirrors ‘margin bullet’ stuff. I prefer the CGI which proved that the single bullet lines up exactly. George weakly claims that there was no exit wound in the throat despite that fact that we know that it was all but obliterated by a tracheotomy and remember George, your conspiracy hero says that the shots came from behind. Unless the bullet vanished it must have exited. Smoke and mirrors from the conspiracy theorist.

And how does George view Ruth Paine…..dead eyes! Eyes are eyes. She came across as a normal, honest, intelligent person. I’d say she was the most credible in the trial. Certainly more credible than some of the fantasists like Tilson, and the guy (I can’t recall his name, who said that, in opposition, to everyone else, the Presidents brain was all but non-existent. Yeah, yeah, go and have a lie down in the shade pal.

Three things….

1. We appear to be back where we began…..me be bombarded with points to respond to and questions to answer but with Fishy and St. George refusing to to respond.

2. Note the childish, gloating tone of both George and Fishy. If I’d have done that George would have said that I was evil with his usual exaggeration and unerring ability to turn a blind eye to his own comments and faults.

3. Fishy continues to be content-free, just an embarrassing cheerleader jumping up and down whenever he thinks that George had scored a point, which is all that he can do because he does it on thread after thread.

4. Notice everyone…..neither St. George or Fishy have acknowledged any faults in their own posts despite a long list of examples being provided by me. Not a show of integrity from either in accepting any fault in themselves. Clearly there’s one rule of behaviour for them.

As I said before….hypocrites.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Great information George , thank for posting, I watch the link later tonight .

Its astonishing with all this contradictory evidence to the WC ,that its still seen as the gospel truth according to the lone gunman apologist . I haven't checked but have the fake jfk autopsy head photo and the fake series of Zfilm photos been removed?

Anyone who shouts ‘fake’ is a complete ………..

Others can fill in the blank.