JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

the radio alert sent to police cars at approximately 12:45 p.m... described the suspect as white, slender, weighing about 165 pounds, about 5'10" tall, and in his early thirties ... [at about 1.36 or 1.37 p.m.] the police radio reported that "an eyeball witness" described the suspect in the Tippit shooting as "a white male, 27, 5'11", 165 pounds, black wavy hair."

(Warren Commission Report, Chapter 4, page 144)


According to his enlistment record, Oswald was 5 ft 8 ins tall, and according to his arrest record in August 1963, he was just under 5 ft 9 ins.

He was 24, not in his early thirties.

He weighed about 135 lbs, not 165 lbs.

When I cited a description given by a witness to the Tippit shooting which included black wavy hair, you corrected me and insisted that it did not include the word wavy.

As you can see, the Warren Commission did include it.

Oswald did not fit that description either: he was not 5 ft 11 ins tall,, did not weigh 165 lbs and did not have black wavy hair.

Congratulations, you finally found an unnamed witness that described the suspect as having wavy hair.

So what? Most witnesses didn't

At his arrest, Oswald gave his weight as 140 lbs. His autopsy gave his weight as 150 pounds.

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." Officer Baker, describing Oswald.

Note how Baker mistakes Oswald's shirt for a jacket. And estimates his age at 30. And his weight at 165 pounds. And says he has dark hair.

We have the description of JFK's killer given by the police dispatcher - "White male, approximately thirty, slender build, height five ten, weighs one sixty-five, is all the information."

We have the description given by Officer Walker of Tippet's killer - "He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks."

Both descriptions are second hand, but they are similar to each other and to Baker's description of Oswald.

All three estimate his age as about 30.
Two mention slender build. One does not mention build.
Height estimates vary from 5'8" to 5'10".
Two estimate weight as 165lb. One does not mention weight.
One says dark hair. One says black hair. One does not mention hair color.

That's a very close match for descriptions of a stranger seen for only a few moments.

[Fiver]

[SIZE=14px]I am always interested in the comment that a conspiracy has to be near perfect to succeed. If that was the case nobody would bother conspiring in the first place. Controlling the repercussions of a conspiracy is as important to its success than the planning beforehand.

Conspiracies can succeed in spite of being ramshackle blundering by untrained amateurs - like the assassination that started World War I. OTOH, those conspirators were also swiftly and easily caught.

All the JFK conspiracy theories I have seen require the Conspiracy to be composed of people who make the Sarajevo assassins look like crack professionals and yet never get caught. Among their many alleged blunders.

* Using imposters that don't look like the person they are pretending to be.
* Planting the wrong rifle.
* Planting the wrong number of spent rifle shells.
* Picking a lone gunman instead of the Cubans as a patsy when they are planning to use multiple shooters.
* Using multiple assassins that are notably bad at their jobs - only half the shots hit the intended target and only 1/3 of the actual hits are fatal.
* Letting the patsy escape instead of being found dead of an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.
* Letting the patsy be captured alive.
* Letting the patsy speak with the press.

Yet this same group of bumbling amateurs is able to fake fiber evidence, print evidence, ballistics evidence, autopsy evidence, xray evidence, photographic evidence, handwriting evidence, get dozens of people to lie in support of the Conspiracy, and never be detected.

[Fiver]

I don't know where your quote comes from, but Captain Fritz's notes have the following:

Says two negr. came in

one Jnr. & short negro - ask ? for lunch says cheese sandwiches & apple.

I was quoting FBI Agent James Bookhout - "OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."

"short" is hardly a detailed description.

Jarman testified that he ate his lunch while walking around on the first floor, not in the domino room.
Norman ate his luinch in the domino room. He didn't see Oswald.
Troy West said he ate lunch in the domino room. He didn't see Oswald.
Danny Acre said he ate lunch in the domino room. He didn't see Oswald.
Jack Dougherty said he ate lunch in the domino room. He didn't see Oswald.
And Oswald claimed he had been alone, somehow failing to see West, Acre, and Dougherty.

[Fiver]

I think that is not true.

It is true. Here's Bowers Warren Commission testimony - again..

Bowers said the shots came "either from up against the School Depository building or near the mouth of the triple underpass".

Bowers described the two men he saw and said they "gave no appearance of being together", "facing and looking up towards Main and Houston and following the caravan as it came down." Bowers also said that at least one of the two men was still there after the shooting.

No flash of light, No smoke cloud. No indications that either of the two men were armed.

But witnesses stories did tend to change once Mark Lane got ahold of them.

I would recommend anyone interested in this question to view the transcript of Bowers' testimony at

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/pdf/WH6_Bowers.pdf

and his interview by Mark Lane at

https://alchetron.com/Lee-Bowers#lee-bowers-7559c049-9d61-44fc-b18a-44f09067986-resize-750.jpeg

The two accounts are remarkably similar - especially his description of the first of three cars he saw entering the area.

In both cases, he mentioned seeing something which he could not pinpoint.

In the testimony, he called it something out of the ordinary and in the interview some unusual occurrence.

The comparison is useful for showing how witness stories tended to change when Mark Lane got ahold of them.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

the radio alert sent to police cars at approximately 12:45 p.m... described the suspect as white, slender, weighing about 165 pounds, about 5'10" tall, and in his early thirties ... [at about 1.36 or 1.37 p.m.] the police radio reported that "an eyeball witness" described the suspect in the Tippit shooting as "a white male, 27, 5'11", 165 pounds, black wavy hair."

(Warren Commission Report, Chapter 4, page 144)


According to his enlistment record, Oswald was 5 ft 8 ins tall, and according to his arrest record in August 1963, he was just under 5 ft 9 ins.

He was 24, not in his early thirties.

He weighed about 135 lbs, not 165 lbs.

When I cited a description given by a witness to the Tippit shooting which included black wavy hair, you corrected me and insisted that it did not include the word wavy.

As you can see, the Warren Commission did include it.

Oswald did not fit that description either: he was not 5 ft 11 ins tall, did not weigh 165 lbs and did not have black wavy hair.

As far as I can see, Fiver has not explained how a description of Tippit's killer which is of someone at least two inches taller than Oswald, 34 lbs heavier than Oswald, and with wavy hair, which Oswald did not have, can be Oswald.

Oswald's height was recorded as 5 ft 8 ins in the Marines, but just under 5 ft 9 ins - with a scale showing his height in a mugshot - in August 1963.

His weight, according to his arrest record in November 1963, was 131 lbs.

I would like to know how you would present such eyewitness evidence to a jury - that a man who was two inches taller than Oswald, 34 lbs heavier, and had wavy hair was obviously Oswald.

Would you call Marrion Baker and suggest to the jury that any reasonable witness should be expected to make the same mistakes as Baker made and in addition make mistakes about his hair?

Markham said the killer's hair was slightly bushy, Clemons said it was bushy, Benavides said it was curly, and another witness, according to the Warren Commission, said it was wavy.

Is it not obvious that they were describing someone other than Oswald?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Norman ate his luinch in the domino room. He didn't see Oswald.
Troy West said he ate lunch in the domino room. He didn't see Oswald.
Danny Acre said he ate lunch in the domino room. He didn't see Oswald.
Jack Dougherty said he ate lunch in the domino room. He didn't see Oswald.

Williams testified that he ate his lunch on the sixth floor, possibly as late as 12.15 p.m.

He didn't see Oswald.

[Fiver]

According to Dr Humes' examination of the back wound, the bullet that hit Kennedy in the back did not penetrate far.

It could not, therefore, have exited the front of Kennedy's throat which, in any case, was - according to his own autopsy diagrams and FBI witnesses - about half a foot higher than the bullet hole.

The Warren Commission invented a neck wound and, without any precedent in the history of shootings anywhere, claimed that a bullet entering the back of the neck could exit the front of the neck, just as it claimed without any precedent that a shot fired from behind would throw someone violently backwards.

The fact that both Connally and his wife were definite that he was shot by a separate bullet, that according to his own account and a viewing of the Zapruder film he could not have been hit less than half a second after the 'Single' bullet was fired, and his own impression that there were multiple gunmen - remarkably similar to Kellerman's testimony - should settle the matter.

Connally's initial impression was that there were multiple gunman or that there was a single shooter with an automatic rifle.

Connally also thought that there were only three shots over the course of 10 to 12 seconds and that all of the shots came from behind and from an elevation.

Connally also testified that he saw "people out on the grass slope. I didn't see anything that was out of the ordinary, just saw men, women, and children."

So your theory has:

* A bullet that is magically traveling so slowly that it barely penetrates JFK's back and then magically disappears.
* A bullet that magically curves in midair to miss Connally, curves again to strike JFK in the front of the throat, and then magically disappears.
* A bullet that magically curves to miss JFK, magically starts tumbling in midair, and magically curves again to hit Connally in the back.

And bullets don't throw people violently in any direction. Mythbusters proved that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Connally's initial impression was that there were multiple gunman or that there was a single shooter with an automatic rifle.

Connally also thought that there were only three shots over the course of 10 to 12 seconds and that all of the shots came from behind and from an elevation.

Connally also testified that he saw "people out on the grass slope. I didn't see anything that was out of the ordinary, just saw men, women, and children."

So your theory has:

* A bullet that is magically traveling so slowly that it barely penetrates JFK's back and then magically disappears.
* A bullet that magically curves in midair to miss Connally, curves again to strike JFK in the front of the throat, and then magically disappears.
* A bullet that magically curves to miss JFK, magically starts tumbling in midair, and magically curves again to hit Connally in the back.

And bullets don't throw people violently in any direction. Mythbusters proved that.

Connally and his wife were quite definite that he was not hit by the same bullet as one that hit Kennedy.

Your argument is as much with him as it is with me.

[Fiver]

I would like to know the locations of all the shooters, but I don't need to know them in order to know that there were multiple marksmen and Kennedy was not even shot in the back of the neck, and at least six shots were fired.

Your theory requires grossly incompetent assassins. Out of 6 (or more) shots only 3 of them hit the correct target and only one of them is fatal.

And these gross incompetents also have to enter, attack, and leave undetected while leaving no ejected shells, bullets, or bullet fragments.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Your theory requires grossly incompetent assassins. Out of 6 (or more) shots only 3 of them hit the correct target and only one of them is fatal.

And these gross incompetents also have to enter, attack, and leave undetected while leaving no ejected shells, bullets, or bullet fragments.

I would not say only one shot was fatal.

There is strong evidence of two shots to the head.

In addition, two people were hit in the back and one in the throat.

Only one of the six shots missed altogether.


On the other hand, for Oswald alone to have been firing the shots requires one to believe that, after missing the vehicle altogether, and with the vehicle then further away, and with a defective scope, he was then able to defy the laws of both mathematics and anatomy by shooting Kennedy in the back about six inches below the neckline, at a downward angle, shooting Kennedy in the front of the neck, and shooting Connally - all with one bullet - and then hitting Kennedy twice in the head, also with one bullet.

How many people here actually believe that?

[Fiver]

An Oswald met Sylvia Odio in Dallas at a time when Oswald was supposedly either in Mexico or on his way there.

Odio does claim to have met a Leopoldo on the day LHO left for Mexico. Odio said that Leopoldo was tall and unshaven.

An extension of his tenure as Director of the FBI.

Why would Hoover assume he couldn't get an exemption of mandatory retirement from JFK?

Why would Hoover assume that he absolutely could get an exemption of mandatory retirement from LBJ?

How could Hoover guarantee LBJ wouldn't revoke the exemption or just fire him?

How would Hoover guarantee whoever was elected in 1964 wouldn't revoke the exemption or just fire him?

Why would Hoover assume exemption from retirement would be worth the risk of being executed for murder and treason, having his legacy and intended accomplishments destroyed, and the agency he had led for most of his adult life abolished?

Same reason they had two Oswalds in different places at the same time and also had someone impersonating Oswald who was obviously physically different and could not speak Russian.

That's not an answer.

How could the Conspiracy frame Oswald when they didn't even know what cities JFK was going to, let alone the parade routes?

I don't think they could have done that.

So you believe that the same Conspiracy that could forge documents, handwriting, print evidence, ballistics evidence, x-rays, autopsy reports, photographic evidence, and get dozens of people to support the lie couldn't do anything to remove the evidence that he visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico?

Because in order for the conspiracy to be sure of succeeding, multiple shooters were required.

That makes no sense.

A Conspiracy can never be sure of succeeding.

The best way to make sure that the Conspiracy succeeds is to make sure that the best possible shooter with the best possible weapon is used, not a pack of bumblers that can't even hit the correct target over half the time.

The best way to make sure that the Conspiracy succeeds is to have your cover story match the number and location of the weapons being fired. That way your don't have to forge any evidence or get any witnesses to back up a false story.

[Fiver]

And at this juncture, I politely draw your attention to the fact that you have never produced any evidence that a roll-call took place - the roll-call which, according to the Warren Commission, proved that Oswald was the only employee missing.

I have never claimed there was a roll call. Neither did the Warren Commission.

I have pointed out that Oswald was the only person known to have been in the building at the time of the shooting, but left the building almost immediately afterwards.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Please see my replies below.

Odio does claim to have met a Leopoldo on the day LHO left for Mexico. Odio said that Leopoldo was tall and unshaven.

Odio claimed to meet a man who was introduced to her as an ex-marine by the name of Leon Oswald.

Why would Hoover assume he couldn't get an exemption of mandatory retirement from JFK?

Because he knew JFK's intentions.

Why would Hoover assume that he absolutely could get an exemption of mandatory retirement from LBJ?

Because that was the deal they struck.

How could Hoover guarantee LBJ wouldn't revoke the exemption or just fire him?

The same way he knew JFK could not fire him.

How would Hoover guarantee whoever was elected in 1964 wouldn't revoke the exemption or just fire him?

He couldn't; but he could guarantee that JFK would not extend his tenure.

Why would Hoover assume exemption from retirement would be worth the risk of being executed for murder and treason, having his legacy and intended accomplishments destroyed, and the agency he had led for most of his adult life abolished?

Because no such risk existed.

The new President and the heads of the FBI and CIA were all in on the conspiracy, as must have been the head of the Secret Service.

The conspiracy could hardly fail.

That's not an answer.

How could the Conspiracy frame Oswald when they didn't even know what cities JFK was going to, let alone the parade routes?

They had a much better idea than Oswald as to what was likely to happen.

Don't tell me Oswald knew as much as LBJ about plans for Kennedy's schedule, whether it would include Dallas, what the likely route would be, and how the route could be changed so as to facilitate an assassination.

So you believe that the same Conspiracy that could forge documents, handwriting, print evidence, ballistics evidence, x-rays, autopsy reports, photographic evidence, and get dozens of people to support the lie couldn't do anything to remove the evidence that he visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico?

I would say that would have been difficult as well as unnecessary.

That makes no sense.

A Conspiracy can never be sure of succeeding.

The best way to make sure that the Conspiracy succeeds is to make sure that the best possible shooter with the best possible weapon is used, not a pack of bumblers that can't even hit the correct target over half the time.

Common sense tells you that having multiple shooters firing from different directions offered the best chance of success.

The best way to make sure that the Conspiracy succeeds is to have your cover story match the number and location of the weapons being fired. That way your don't have to forge any evidence or get any witnesses to back up a false story.

It seems as though you are arguing that evidence of mistakes made by the conspirators is to be treated as evidence that there was no conspiracy.

Of course they made mistakes, just as so many criminal enterprises do.

Shooting Connally was just one mistake and that is one of the reasons the Warren Commission lawyers had to come up with the SBT - a piece of practically-criminal invention to complement the original crime.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have never claimed there was a roll call. Neither did the Warren Commission.

I have pointed out that Oswald was the only person known to have been in the building at the time of the shooting, but left the building almost immediately afterwards.

How do you know that Oswald was known to have been in the building at the time of the shooting?

[cobalt]

''I was quoting FBI Agent James Bookhout - "OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."'

Bookhout seems unaware that the lunch room and the domino room are two different places. Fiver seems confused as well. Harold Norman makes a similar slip in his WC testimony where he admits there was ‘someone else’ there. Coached witnesses often make these kind of mistakes.
Mr. BALL. Where were you when you ate your lunch?
Mr. NORMAN. In the domino room, as I recall.
Mr. BALL. Who was with you at that time?
Mr. NORMAN. I can’t remember who ate in the lunchroom, I mean the domino room, with me.
Mr. BALL. Did some other employees eat there?
Mr. NORMAN. I think there was someone else in there because we usually played dominoes in there but that particular clay we didn’t play that morning.
Mr. BALL. Why didn’t you play that morning?
Mr. NORMAN. Well, didn’t nobody show up there to play like the guys usually come in to play.

Junior Jarman seems similarly confused when recalling eating his lunch while walking around the 1^st floor.
Mr. BALL. When you finished your sandwich and your bottle of pop, what did you do?
Mr. JARMAN. I throwed the paper that I had the sandwich in in the box over close to the telephone [on the 1st floor] and I took the pop bottle and put it in the case over by the Dr. Pepper machine.
Mr. BALL. And then what did you do?
Mr. JARMAN. Then I went out in front of the building.
Surely the Dr. Pepper machine was in the lunch room on the 2^nd floor? Jarman is clearly very keen to disassociate himself from the Dr. Pepper bottle found on the 6th floor hence, I suspect, his mistake.

We don’t know which room Oswald claimed to have lunch in, how long he stayed in any one place and whether he even went outside for his customary stroll as stated by Shelley and Buell Frazier.

'"short" is hardly a detailed description.'

It's a pretty good description of a guy nicknamed 'Shorty' and a great deal more accurate than any ID witnesses of Oswald. The stumbling point remains: how did Oswald know that Jarman and Norman passed through the domino room shortly before the assassination?