JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

IF you've actually watched the video, then why do you keep saying things that the video proves are wrong?

Multiple sources repeating the same initial misidentification of the rifle is not evidence that the rifle was a Mauser.

TV news filmed the discovery of the rifle and showed that it was a Carcano. Weitzman, Wade, and everybody except Craig accepted that the rifle had initially been misidentified.

The discovery of the rifle was not filmed.

It was positively identified by Weitzman as a 7.65 Mauser.

He could hardly have signed a sworn statement later that afternoon that the rifle was a 7.65 Mauser if a television crew had already been there and identified it as a Carcano.

Nor would the Sheriff's Office have given out the information that the rifle was a Mauser if it had been identified as a Carcano.

[Fiver]

Roy Truly testified that he noticed that Oswald was missing, that he was not the only employee missing, and that he did not check how many were missing.

He testified further that although Norman and Jarman claimed they returned to the TSBD, he was not aware of their return and not at all sure that Charles Givens returned.

(Warren Commission Volume 7, pp 382-283, 386)

We have already dealt with Charles Givens. He tried to return to the building, but initially was not let in. He tried again later, was let in, and an Officer took him downtown to make a statement.

As opposed to Oswald, who fled the Book Depository within minutes of the shooting.

We have also dealt with James Jarman and Harold Norman before. They were together with Bonnie Ray Williams on the 5th floor when the shooting occurred.

As opposed to Oswald' who claimed to have been in the domino room eating lunch, even though three different witnesses who were there testified that he wasn't.

I believe I left the TSBD building between 2 pm and 2.30 p.m. on 22 November 1963 and I went home.
(Statement of Victoria Elizabeth Adams, 23 March 1964)

I believe I left the TSBD at approximately 2:00 PM on November 22 1963.
(Statement of Sandra Styles, 19 March 1964)

I left the TSBD between 2:00 and 2:30 PM on 22 November 1963.
(Statement of James Earl Jarman, 18 March 1964)

I left the building on 22 November 1963 at about 2 pm.
(Statement of Harold Norman, 18 March 1964)

I left the TSBD between 2:00 and 3:00 PM on 22 November 1963 to the best of my recollection.
(Statement of Ruth Smith Nelson, 23 March 1964)

These witnesses left the building after the police let everyone go. Yet you try to claim them as people who left the building immediately after the shooting.

They also show that you knew that Jarman and Harman did not leave the building and knew that Truly was in error when he said they were missing.

On 22 November 1963, I did not come to work.

[Following the assassination] I was not able to get inside as the door was locked.
(Statement of Helen L Palmer, 20 March 1964)

The parts you don't quote show that Palmer had an alibi for the time of the shooting. The parts you do quote show she tried to get back to the Book Depository, even though she had taken the day off.

As opposed to Oswald, who fled the scene only a few minutes after the shooting.

After President Kennedy had been shot I stayed outside the building and when I tried to get back inside the door was locked.
(Statement of Betty Jean Dragoo, 20 March 1964)

This shows that Dragoo tried to get back to the Book Depository. The parts you don't quote also show she had a witness to her attempting to return.

As opposed to Oswald, who fled the scene only a few minutes after the shooting.

Following the assassination of the President I tried to return to work in the TSBD but was told by other employees that no one would be allowed in the building so I did not return to work that day.
(Statement of Stella Mae Jacob, 18 March 1964)

The parts you don't quote show Jacob had an alibi for the time of the shooting. The parts you do quote show Jacob tried to return to the Book Depository.

As opposed to Oswald, who fled the scene only a few minutes after the shooting.

After President Kennedy was shot I returned to the building but was unable to get inside as the front door of the building was locked... i remained in the area just outside the building until approximately 2:00 PM when I left to go to my home.
(Statement of Judy Marie Johnson, 23 March 1964)

The parts you don't quote show Johnson had an alibi for the time of the shooting. The parts you do quote show Johson tried to return to the Book Depository.

As opposed to Oswald, who fled the scene only a few minutes after the shooting.

I left the TSBD at about 12:20 PM on 22 November 1963 and never returned to this building on that date.
(Statement of Sharon Nelson, 18 March 1964)

The parts you don't quote show that Nelson had an alibi for the time of the shooting. She's also the only person you mention that didn't try to go back to the Book Depository.

So the witnesses you quote completely destroy your claims.

* Oswald is the only person known to have fled the scene only a few minutes after the shooting.
* You've only shown one person wasn't at work that day, not the five you claimed.
* Every Book Depository employee that you mention (except for Sharon Nelson) who was outside the building went back, or tried to go back to the building. Even the one who took the day off of work.
* Almost every person you quote had an alibi for the time of the shooting.
* Sharon Nelson is the only person besides Oswald to leave the scene after the shooting, but unlike Oswald she had an alibi. We also don't know how long she stayed in the area.

[cobalt]

So when they were doing the roll call of employees (the time of which has never been established) they were also checking alibis? I don't think so.

If Oswald 'fled the scene' it's odd nobody saw him running; in fact the taxi evidence suggests the opposite. Fritz's cryptic notes are little help but the 'out front with Bill Shelley' has been taken by some as Oswald speaking to him at the front door and assuming that work for the day was over.

Oswald did however seem to have left his jacket at the TSBD which suggests he was keen to get somewhere. It was found in the domino room of all places- but it was not recognised as being his until a few days later. I'm not sure if it was ever established that it actually was his but surely there must have been some stuff inside the pockets which would have helped identification. It's amazing that this jacket- the one he was wearing prior to committing the crime of the century- has been airbrushed out of the narrative whereas the jacket dumped after the Tippit shooting was seen as crucial. Or maybe not. Would there not have been forensic evidence on the jacket after the wearer had fired four shots at Tippit from a revolver?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

We're still waiting for you to provide any evidence that supports these claims.

Anyone can see that the 'claims' were those made by me in # 2203, namely:

Five people did not even turn up that day and many who were outside were not allowed back inside the building following the assassination.

Anyone can also see that in reply, in # 2211, you purport to refute the second of my claims by asserting:

And you're wrong about many employees who were outside not being let back into the building. The only one who wasn't let back in was Charles Givens and he was still nearby roughly an hour after the shooting.

Then in # 2306, as part of a barrage of posts to me, you refer again to my # 2203, and issue the following challenge:

We're still waiting for you to provide any evidence that supports these claims.

I then spent some considerable time consulting documents in order to provide 'any evidence', taking those words to mean something less than a complete reply, which in any case you would not have been able to wait for, and in # 2309 I reproduced statements by eight witnesses who had not even been mentioned here, who went home early, four of whom were unable to get into the building. I also reproduced testimony of someone who had not arrived for work that day.

Instead of conceding that I had provided evidence in support of my 'claims', you then proceeded in # 2312 to conduct what amounted to a cross-examination of a supposedly devious witness, except that it more closely resembled a cross-examination conducted by a prosecution lawyer whose brief related to a different case from the one he was supposed to be trying.

For what you did was to move the goalposts so that a major issue became whether the witnesses quoted by me had alibis - a matter which had not even been at issue.

I do not know how one is expected to have a reasonable exchange in such circumstances.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

So when they were doing the roll call of employees (the time of which has never been established) they were also checking alibis? I don't think so.

That is a pertinent question.

In the course of his testimony, Roy Truly was asked when he first realised that Oswald was missing and he replied that it was some time after 1 p.m. and furthermore - and I quote from my now 'infamous' # 2309:

Roy Truly testified that he noticed that Oswald was missing, that he was not the only employee missing, and that he did not check how many were missing.

Would Fiver like to feel free to provide evidence that such a roll call ever took place?

[FrankO]

Hi all,

Here's the part of Truly's WC testimony where he spoke about Oswald being missing:

"Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you got back to the first floor, or what did you see?
Mr. TRULY. When I got back to the first floor, at first I didn't see anything except officers running around, reporters in the place. There was a regular madhouse.
Mr. BELIN. Had they sealed off the building yet, do you know?
Mr. TRULY. I am sure they had.
Mr. BELIN. Then what?
Mr. TRULY. Then in a few minutes--it could have been moments or minutes at a time like that--I noticed some of my boys were over in the west corner of the shipping department, and there were several officers over there taking their names and addresses, and so forth.
There were other officers in other parts of the building taking other employees, like office people's names. I noticed that Lee Oswald was not among these boys.
So I picked up the telephone and called Mr. Aiken down at the other warehouse who keeps our application blanks. Back up there.
First I mentioned to Mr. Campbell--I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him, he looked around and said no.
Mr. BELIN. When you asked Bill Shelley if he had seen whom?
Mr. TRULY. Lee Oswald. I said, "Have you seen him around lately," and he said no.
So Mr. Campbell is standing there, and I said, "I have a boy over here missing. I don't know whether to report it or not." Because I had another one or two out then. I didn't know whether they were all there or not. He said, "What do you think"? And I got to thinking. He said, "Well, we better do it anyway." It was so quick after that.
So I picked the phone up then and called Mr. Aiken, at the warehouse, and got the boy's name and general description and telephone number and address at Irving.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have any address for him in Dallas, or did you just have an address in Irving?
Mr. TRULY. Just the address in Irving. I knew nothing of this Dallas address. I didn't know he was living away from his family.
Mr. BELIN. Now, would that be the address and the description as shown on this application, Exhibit 496?
Mr. TRULY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ask for the name and addresses of any other employees who might have been missing?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Why didn't you ask for any other employees?
Mr. TRULY. That is the only one that I could be certain right then was missing.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do after you got that information?
Mr. TRULY. Chief Lumpkin of the Dallas Police Department was standing a few feet from me. I told Chief Lumpkin that I had a boy missing over here "I don't know whether it amounts to anything or not." And I gave him his description. And he says, "Just a moment. We will go tell Captain Fritz."
Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened?
Mr. TRULY. So Chief Lumpkin had several officers there that he was talking to, and I assumed that he gave him some instructions of some nature I didn't hear it. And then he turned to me and says, "Now we will go upstairs".
So we got on one of the elevators, I don't know which, and rode up to the sixth floor. I didn't know Captain Fritz was on the sixth floor. And he was over in the northwest corner of the building.
Mr. BELIN. By the stairs there?
Mr. TRULY. Yes; by the stairs.
Mr. BELIN. All right.
Mr. TRULY. And there were other officers with him. Chief Lumpkin stepped over and told Captain Fritz that I had something that I wanted to tell him.
Mr. BELIN. All right. And then what happened
Mr. TRULY. So Captain Fritz left the men he was with and walked over about 8 or 10 feet and said, "What is it, Mr. Truly," or words to that effect.
And I told him about this boy missing and gave him his address and telephone number and general description. And he says, "Thank you, Mr. Truly. We will take care of it.
And I went back downstairs in a few minutes."

Cheers,
Frank

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Roy Truly testified that he noticed that Oswald was missing, that he was not the only employee missing, and that he did not check how many were missing.

He testified further that although Norman and Jarman claimed they returned to the TSBD, he was not aware of their return and not at all sure that Charles Givens returned.


(Warren Commission Volume 7, pp 382-283, 386)

Mr. TRULY. When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin that,
“We have a man here that’s missing.” I said, “It may not mean anything, but
he isn’t here.”...
Mr. BALL. Was he the only man missing?
Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was one
or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in front walking
up the street just before the firing of the gun.
Mr. BALL. But walking which way?
Mr. TRULY. The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston Street,
east on Elm.
Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete.


(Volume 7 page 382)




Mr. BALL. You have no exact memory as to the time you discovered he was not there?
Mr. TRULY, So, sir : I didn’t believe after thinking things over-it was over in 15 or 20 minutes after the shots were fired, but after retracing my trip to the roof and the time delay and back, I would have to say that it was farther along in the day than I had believed, so it could have been 1 or 1:05 or something like that.
Mr. BALL. Before you discovered Oswald wasn’t there?
Mr. TRULY. That’s right

..........

Mr. BALL. Now, you say that you knew that Givens was not there afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. I knew he wasn’t there at the time of the shooting because I had seen him walk across the street-up the street.
Mr. BALL. Toward what?
Mr. TRULY. Up Elm Street across Houston.
Mr. BALL. Toward Main-down toward Main?
Mr. TRULY. I saw him walking on the north side of Elm, crossing Houstonon the north side of Elm crossing Houston. However, at that time I saw two other boys with him and I later learned, I believe, that it was James Jarman and possibly Harold Normrin-there were two or three--they were all standing in the crowd close to myself and they- started across Houston Street up Elm.
I didn’t see them turn over to the right across Elm.
Mr. BALL. Wait a minute-you saw Norman and Jarman with Givens in front
of the Texas School Book Depository Building first, didn’t you?
Mr. TRULY. Right; sometime earlier-a good deal- a little while before the shooting-I believe they were the three.
Mr. BALL. Did you see Jarman and Norman going across Elm?
Mr. TRULY. I’m pretty sure there was the three of them.

(Volume 7 page 385)

[GBinOz]

Humes and his colleagues may have been influenced by the news that 3 shots had been fired from the 6^th floor of the TSBD from behind, but, as far as I know, no SBT had crossed anyone’s mind, yet, when Humes & Co. finished the autopsy (report). As, at that point, Humes didn’t have the layout of Dealey Plaza or the exact positions of Kennedy and Connally with all the right measurements and angles involved. In other words, he didn’t know that the president and governor Connally were lined up perfectly for one shot to hit them both where they were hit between Zapruder frames 207 and 225.
Yes, I should have used the terms lone gunman and three shot limit. I find myself at a loss to understand how it can be proposed that Kennedy and Connally were perfectly aligned for the single bullet when the were behind the freeway sign. It's as though the circumstance was decided, wound placement, seat placement, how far Connolly had turned, and then it is claimed that this must have occurred where we couldn't see it.
My understanding is that the original proposal was that a bullet hit Kennedy in the back, and in the head, and Connolly in the back. Then an explanation had to be found after the examination of the ZF showing Kennedy and Connolly hit only a second apart, and Tague's statement:
"Somebody threw a firecracker. And then I thought what kind of an idiot would be throwing a firecracker with the president driving by," Tague said.
"I'm standing there still in disbelief over somebody throwing a firecracker, and then, 'Crack! Crack!' Two rifle shots, not a second apart, and something stings me in the face." Tague said that the bullet that hit the curb was the second or third shot.

I didn’t say it’s in dispute, I just hadn’t studied it yet to be able to say anything solid on the subject. Now that I have, I’m certainly not disputing that there were more witnesses who claimed to have heard a shorter pause between the 2^nd and 3^rd shots than there were witnesses who remembered the shots evenly spaced or with a shorter pause between the 1^st and 2^nd shots.

What is or can be in dispute, as far as I’m concerned, is how many witness actually got it right, as to the number of shots, the spacing between them, the timing of the shots (which one hit the president’s head/throat?). And, of course, witnesses who have given two or more versions with regards to one or more of the 3 aspects above. Like Mary Moorman, who gave one version in which she thought 3 or 4 shots were fired and another in which she thought there had been only 2 or 3 shots. Or Lee Bowers, who in one version stated that he heard “at least 3 shots very close together” and another in which he stated that after the first shot there was a pause and then two more shots very close together. And what’s interesting in this regard as well is that Tom Dillard, who was in the car with Robert Jackson and James Underwood, stated the 3 shots were evenly spaced, whilst Jackson claimed there was a pause after the first shot and then the 2^nd & 3^rd in rapid succession. In other words, the acoustics were close to identical for these two, yet, one heard, or perhaps better, remembered hearing it differently than the other. What, of course, also has to be taken into account is that quite a large number of witnesses who heard 3 shots didn’t express any recollection of how far apart the shots were.

Then, in post #1561 you wrote this:
“The testing of how fast the rifle could be cycled was irrelevant as the critical factor was the number of witnesses claiming that the second and third shots were close to simultaneous, and therefore could not have been fired by the same bolt action rifle.”

I assume that by “close to simultaneous” you mean that the 3^rd shot was fired within 2.3 seconds from the 2^nd. If that’s indeed what you mean, then could you say how many witnesses claimed to have heard the 3^rd shot follow within 2.3 seconds of the 2^nd?

I myself have looked into some 220 witness and only come across Frazier, Greer and Hickey, who said the 2^nd and 3^rd were almost simultaneously or words to that effect. So they would fit. Then there’s Craig who said there were no more than 2 seconds between the last 2 shots, John Solon who stated there was a pause between the 1^st and 2^nd shot and that the time between the first and last shots was approximately 5.5 seconds, and there was senator Yarborough who stated that the 3^rd shot came about 1.5 seconds after the 2nd. And there are 9 others whose testimony might fit with less than 2.3 seconds. But there are also 29 that don’t fit with that in the sense that they don’t give any estimate for either the first or the second pause or both and most of them only say that the 2^nd & 3^rd were closer.

Of course, everything hinges on how accurate the witnesses were with their observations and estimates and we know human memory is not a recording device.


Presuming that the man standing on the Pullman was standing where the red dot is on the map below, then he would still have an unobstructed view of the area behind the picket fence from, maybe, some 60 yards away.

And, again, if the pullman wasn’t where a witness placed it, it would stick out like a sour thumb as it wasn’t something that could be easily overlooked.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

As you know I am not persuaded that Connolly was hit around frame 220 of the ZF. I have watched this slow motion frame numbered video many times:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSSbYYe84W0&ab_channel=HowardWillens

I see that the President has been hit as he emerges from behind the sign, and Connolly shows no sign of distress. At 224 Connolly has turned his head to his right, but then turns back to face forwards. At 236 he is starting to turn his body to his right and between 240 and 250 he is grimacing ( every still photographer knows temporary facial expressions can occur.). However, from 250 to about 273 he can be seen still turning to his right, again showing no signs of distress. The slowmo excludes Connolly for some frames after 279, but when he re-appears at 293 he is in obvious distress. Connolly stated that he was hit just after he started turning back to his left.
IMO there is no frame from which Connolly consistently shows distress that could provide the SBT alignment.

I don't know upon what presumption it can be concluded that Desroe was standing on the Pullman at the red dot. Boone indicated he was in the railway yard. My view is that the Pullman was in the railway yard behind the TSBD and that Towner's account just left out the bit about his proceeding to the railway yard from the picket fence before he encountered Desroe. It should also be remembered that Karl Desroe said he saw nothing, but his wife, who was standing next to the Pullman, told their preacher that “I saw some things……I’m afraid to tell anybody. I’ll never tell anybody. I’m afraid for my life.” That doesn't sound like she saw nothing.

Best regards, George

[Fiver]

JFK never received a bullet to the back of his neck.

He received a shot that hit him about six inches below his neckline, as confirmed by eyewitness testimony, FBI reports of the autopsy, FBI measurements of the bullet holes in the President's clothing, and the autopsy diagrams.

The autopsy photographs disprove your theory.

[Fiver]

Readers may find it strange that having got the colour of Oswald's shirt wrong and his age wrong, and overestimated his weight by nearly three stone, Brennan's description of the man as 'nice looking, slender' points to Oswald.

And now you're truncating what I said to ignore the points I made.

Brennan clearly wasn't good at estimating weight based on build, but Brennan said the shooter had a slender build and Oswald had a slender build.

Brennan sad the shooter was a white man.

Brennan estimated the shooter was in his early thirties. This is a reasonable mistake considering Oswald's receding hairline.

Brennan said the shooter was 5'10". That's only off by an inch from Oswald's height.

The police report given based in Brennan's description was "White male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, 165 pounds."Officer Tippett asked the dispatcher to repeat that description just before he stopped Oswald.

When Brennan saw Oswald in a police lineup, he said Oswald looked like the man he saw shooting JFK, but that he could not be certain.

Brennan did get the shirt color wrong, but Brennan wasn't called in to identify Oswald's shirt.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

As you know I am not persuaded that Connolly was hit around frame 220 of the ZF.

I see that the President has been hit as he emerges from behind the sign, and Connolly shows no sign of distress.

At 224 Connolly has turned his head to his right, but then turns back to face forwards.

At 236 he is starting to turn his body to his right and between 240 and 250 he is grimacing.

Connolly stated that he was hit just after he started turning back to his left.

IMO there is no frame from which Connolly consistently shows distress that could provide the SBT alignment.

Mrs Kennedy appears to have her head turned towards President Kennedy by Z 220, which suggests he was shot in the back no later than Z220.

Governor Connally stated that he had turned back to his left and reached the point at which he was facing forwards when he felt the impact of a shot.

That means that he could not have been hit earlier than Z228.

Connally himself opined that he was shot at Z 230.

He seems to be reacting to a shot at Z 236.

Connally could not have been hit until about half a second later than Kennedy, but it could be a full second.

Connally's description of his reactions to hearing the shot - turning rightwards and then leftwards - could certainly have taken a full second.

The Single Bullet Theory is completely unsupportable.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The autopsy photographs disprove your theory.

I am not stating a theory.

I am stating hard evidence - of the type that cannot be faked, e.g. the location of the actual bullet holes in Kennedy's shirt and jacket, which agree with the autopsy diagrams as well as the diagrams drawn by two FBI officers present at the autopsy.

Kennedy was not hit in the back of the neck.

And that is a fact.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

And now you're truncating what I said to ignore the points I made.

Brennan clearly wasn't good at estimating weight based on build, but Brennan said the shooter had a slender build and Oswald had a slender build.

Brennan sad the shooter was a white man.

Brennan estimated the shooter was in his early thirties. This is a reasonable mistake considering Oswald's receding hairline.

Brennan said the shooter was 5'10". That's only off by an inch from Oswald's height.

The police report given based in Brennan's description was "White male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five feet ten inches, 165 pounds."Officer Tippett asked the dispatcher to repeat that description just before he stopped Oswald.

When Brennan saw Oswald in a police lineup, he said Oswald looked like the man he saw shooting JFK, but that he could not be certain.

Brennan did get the shirt color wrong, but Brennan wasn't called in to identify Oswald's shirt.

Well, if you want to talk about truncation, how about what Brennan said about the shooter being in a standing position, even though there is photographic evidence that the window was half open?

If Brennan was describing Oswald, he overestimated his age by about eight years, his weight by nearly three stone, and got the colour of his shirt completely wrong.

You say those are reasonable mistakes.

I say they are not and that Brennan would have been useless as a prosecution witness.

I am willing to be corrected about Tippit, but I have not read that he had a conversation about the description of the alleged assassin shortly before he was shot.

I have read that the last radio contact he had was at 12.54 p.m., when he was instructed to be at large.

There is, I suggest, no evidence that suggests that Tippit thought the man he approached was the assassin of the President.

[Fiver]

As I have pointed out before, the HSCA noted that the witness descriptions of Oswald were nothing like him.

Duran said later that she was sure the man was not Oswald.

Lopez testified that the man could not be Oswald.

Diaz said that he did not pay the man much attention.

I do not see how, after quoting Lopez's description of the man he saw, you can continue to claim that he was Oswald.

Lets look at Lopez' description again.

Eusebio Acue Lopez described him as "a white male, between 5'6" and 5'7", over 30 years of age, very thin long face, with straight eyebrows and a cold look in his eyes". He did not think that Oswald was the man he saw.

"a white male" - matches Oswald.

"between 5'6" and 5'7" - a couple inches shorter than Oswald.

"over 30 years of age" - a few years off, but Oswald's receding hairline did make him look older than he was.

"very thin long face" - matches Oswald

"with straight eyebrows" - not a good match for Oswald.

"and a cold look in his eyes" - matches Oswald.

And, of course, Lopez didn't think the man he saw was Oswald.

That leaves two possibilities.

1) It was Oswald, but eyewitnesses misperceived or misremembered some things about him.

2) A Conspiracy that was expert at forging documents was also mindbogglingly stupid enough to send an imposter that didn't look anything like Oswald. The Conspiracy were magically able to manipulate events so that Oswald had no alibi all while keeping the manipulation completely undetected from Oswald and his wife. The Conspiracy were mindbogglingly stupid enough spend the time and resources creating a fictional narrative that would undermine their lone gunman ploy. And the Conspiracy had the psychic powers to predict a parade route for a city that might not even be on JFK's Texas tour and that Oswald would get and keep a job that would allow him to be setup as a patsy.

[FrankO]

Brennan estimated the shooter was in his early thirties. This is a reasonable mistake considering Oswald's receding hairline.

Brennan wasn't the only one, Fiver. Officer Marrion Baker, who saw him in the lunch room on the second floor, described him like this in his affadavit of November 22:
"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." And during his WC deposition he added that he also wore "maybe some kind of white-looking shirt."

Cheers,
Frank