JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

Those in charge of the autopsy would surely have been aware that President Kennedy’s wounds may have been caused by more than one gunman, and that dissecting the wounds was likely to resolve the question one way or the other. Their refusal to allow the dissection can only reasonably be interpreted as a fear of discovering definitive evidence of conspiracy.

Your source is presenting speculation as fact and ignoring the actual evidence.

Q: Well, did you form a firm opinion as to the path of the bullet which you say entered the President's back?
A: Oh, yes.
Q: How did you form that opinion?
A: There was a wound with regular edges, they were inverted, and they had the characteristics of a wound of entry.
Q: Is that a firm opinion?
A: It is a firm opinion that the wound in the back of the neck was a wound of entry, without a dissection.

Q: Now, Doctor, will you describe to the Jury the nature of this wound which you found on President Kennedy's head and the location of, which you have pointed out on my head?
A: This wound had slightly irregular edges in contrast to the first wound I described in the back of the neck, and I would like to explain at this time the reason for that. The tissue underlying the skin, I have described in the back of the neck is soft tissue, and when the bullet strikes the skin in such an area it does not meet the resistance it meets when there is bone underneath, and this explains the difference in character of those two wounds of entry. The wound in the back of the head showed irregular edges because there was bone close to the scalp corresponding to that scalp wound in the back of the head I just demonstrated, there was a hole in the bone, in the skull of President Kennedy, and I examined it, that hole, from outside the skull and from inside the skull. When examining from outside the skull, I did not see a crater, I saw a hole but there was no crater around it. When I looked at that wound from inside the skull, I saw a definite crater, C-R-A-T-E-R, and this is a certain factor to identify positively the direction of a projectile going through a flat bone such as the skull. To take a practical example, I have seen similar craters in wood, when a bullet goes through and through a pane of wood, and in glass, and it is the difference of the examination between the outer surface and the inner surface that allows the examiner to determine the direction of the bullet. Police officers do that all the time when they examine panes of wood or panes of glass, and I have done so myself. It is an accepted fact.

[Fiver]

Frazier testified that when he parked the car Oswald left towards the TSBD before him, and that he (Frazier) was watching some welders working on the railroad track . By the time Oswald reached the TSBD Building, he was at least 50 feet ahead of Frazier. Dougherty was at the back entrance when Oswald arrived, and testified Oswald wasn't carrying anything.

Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

Lets look at a fuller account.

Mr. BALL - Now, do you remember that you gave a statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to a man by the name of Ellington, or a Mr. Anderton, the day after---the 23d of November?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---I talked to so many of them--it is kind of hard to remember.
Mr. BALL - And there is a statement that they took when they talked to you and in it you said, "I recall vaguely, having seen Lee Oswald when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today."
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I did---that morning.
Mr. BALL - That seems to be dated the 22d day of November 1963.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - The full statement is, "I am employed by the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, as an order filler, and reside at 1827 South Marsalis Street, Dallas, Tex." Did you tell them that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - "I started to work today, 11-22-63, at about 7 a.m. o'clock".
Did you tell them that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - The statement says, "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald, when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today."
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him that morning when he came to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---that's the reason why I said it that way.
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.

So Dougherty was confident that Oswald had nothing in his hands, but he only saw Oswald out of the corner of his eye.

[FrankO]

The single bullet theory does require Connally to be turned to the right, and he does do so, but after Kennedy has been shot.



As Kennedy emerges from behind the sign he is showing signs of having been shot. Connally's head is turned to the right but his body is facing nearly directly forward.

The Zapruder film shows exactly what Connally said happened. He heard the shot and turned to the right to try to see Kennedy. When he completed his right turn he was showing no sign of physical distress. He said that he was turning back to the left when a shot hit him. This is shown on the Zapruder film, that shot occurring just before (about frame 295, or 0.7 seconds) the Kennedy head shot.

Hi George,

I just want to say one thing here.

The Zapruder film indeed shows exactly what happened. When Connally emerges from behind the sign, not only his head is turned to his right, but also his upper body. His right shoulder is just higher than his left shoulder. I’m not saying he’s perfectly facing Zapruder’s camera, but he’s at least some way there. In frame 223 his tie is almost neatly in the middle of the white of his shirt.

In the following frames he turns his head & body forward, lowering his right shoulder. In frame 224 Connally’s facial expression changes somewhat and his right lapel flips outward. It seems as if he squints there and in frame 225 he seems to open his mouth, or at least, there’s a bigger shadow where his mouth is.

From frame 226 until frame 235 he lowers his right shoulder even more and brings his right arm & hat up and down. That’s 0.55 seconds.

And from frame 238 he starts to turn to his right. In frame 244 he, again, seems to open his mouth and at around frame 265 he reaches the farthest point.

He remains in that position until about frame 289, when he starts facing the side of the car while leaning back into the lap of his wife.

Kennedy starts reacting while he’s still behind the sign, maybe around frame 222/223, and keeps reacting until frame 251, in which he starts lowering his arms. By the time Connally has reached his farthest point turning right, Kennedy is already sloping towards Jacky.

I think there’s no denying that the two men reacted almost simultaneously. Each of us can make of that what he or she wants, but there you go.

Cheers,
Frank

[Herlock Sholmes]

That's OK. I'm with Jeff on this - if we all agreed we'd have nothing to talk about. The important thing is to keep discussions on a civil basis....well...maybe with the occasional humorous dig.

The reality is that you have zero evidence and zero witnesses to sustain the contention that Oswald carried a parcel long enough to contain a rifle on that day.

We have Frazer, Randle’s and Oswald himself. It doesn’t get much stronger. That the Frazers estimates of length might have been slightly debatable is irrelevant George. They were simply estimating. What they both 100% saw was a long package. Far bigger than his lunchpack. Oswald accepted this but when he was put on the stop he came up with the least believable explanation ever. Add that to the rifle missing from the garage and there can be no other explanation.

[GBinOz]

Hi George,

I just want to say one thing here.

The Zapruder film indeed shows exactly what happened. When Connally emerges from behind the sign, not only his head is turned to his right, but also his upper body. His right shoulder is just higher than his left shoulder. I’m not saying he’s perfectly facing Zapruder’s camera, but he’s at least some way there. In frame 223 his tie is almost neatly in the middle of the white of his shirt.

In the following frames he turns his head & body forward, lowering his right shoulder. In frame 224 Connally’s facial expression changes somewhat and his right lapel flips outward. It seems as if he squints there and in frame 225 he seems to open his mouth, or at least, there’s a bigger shadow where his mouth is.

From frame 226 until frame 235 he lowers his right shoulder even more and brings his right arm & hat up and down. That’s 0.55 seconds.

And from frame 238 he starts to turn to his right. In frame 244 he, again, seems to open his mouth and at around frame 265 he reaches the farthest point.

He remains in that position until about frame 289, when he starts facing the side of the car while leaning back into the lap of his wife.

Kennedy starts reacting while he’s still behind the sign, maybe around frame 222/223, and keeps reacting until frame 251, in which he starts lowering his arms. By the time Connally has reached his farthest point turning right, Kennedy is already sloping towards Jacky.

I think there’s no denying that the two men reacted almost simultaneously. Each of us can make of that what he or she wants, but there you go.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I agree that the two men are reacting, but I believe that Kennedy is reacting to being shot and Connally to hearing the shot. Why was Connally turning to look at Kennedy? If he heard a shot he was already hit. Connally didn't say that he turned to the right and was shot. He said he turned to the right and had turned back to the left when he felt the shot to his chest. He was also sure that he was shot by a later bullet than the one that hit Kennedy. A man who has been shot through the chest, and the wrist if you believe Specter, doesn't calmly turn around to see what is happening behind him. The pain in his face is clearly visible starting around frame 295, a big contrast to the calm of his face before that. The movements in his head and body and shoulders are simply a function of his turning around in a car seat.

That's how I see it.

Best regards, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lets look at a fuller account.

Mr. BALL - Now, do you remember that you gave a statement to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and to a man by the name of Ellington, or a Mr. Anderton, the day after---the 23d of November?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---I talked to so many of them--it is kind of hard to remember.
Mr. BALL - And there is a statement that they took when they talked to you and in it you said, "I recall vaguely, having seen Lee Oswald when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today."
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I did---that morning.
Mr. BALL - That seems to be dated the 22d day of November 1963.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - The full statement is, "I am employed by the Texas School Book Depository, 411 Elm Street, Dallas, as an order filler, and reside at 1827 South Marsalis Street, Dallas, Tex." Did you tell them that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - "I started to work today, 11-22-63, at about 7 a.m. o'clock".
Did you tell them that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - The statement says, "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald, when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today."
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him that morning when he came to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---that's the reason why I said it that way.
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.

So Dougherty was confident that Oswald had nothing in his hands, but he only saw Oswald out of the corner of his eye.

Exactly. Dougherty saw Oswald out of the corner of his eye and was paying him no attention. He didn’t notice him carrying anything. “I didn’t notice anything, if he did.”

As opposed to Frazer who not only saw him at close quarters he also spent time with him. His sister saw him clearly too. All that we have is that they obviously had to estimate the actual length of the package.

If someone had said that they had seen a horse walking down Elm Street and they said that it was around 16 hands high and someone else said that it was only around 12 hands high would we assume that there was no horse because of this discrepancy or would we agree on one thing - that there had been a horse walking down Elm Street? That Oswald was carrying a large package cannot be doubted. That it didn’t contain curtain rods cannot be doubted.

[GBinOz]

We have Frazer, Randle’s and Oswald himself. It doesn’t get much stronger. That the Frazers estimates of length might have been slightly debatable is irrelevant George. They were simply estimating. What they both 100% saw was a long package. Far bigger than his lunchpack. Oswald accepted this but when he was put on the stop he came up with the least believable explanation ever. Add that to the rifle missing from the garage and there can be no other explanation.

Frazier's estimate was about 24", give or take an inch. However observing the package fitting with one end under the armpit and the other being cupped in the hand doesn't depend on an estimate. Can you do this experiment with an object of 24 inches and 34.5 inches and report the result?

Bigger than a lunch pack doesn't exclude smaller than a rifle, and that is what the witnesses stated. I don't quite understand the boldened statement. Frazier said he asked Oswald what was in the package when they got in the car. Oswald said "curtain rods", and Frazier replied that he remembered Oswald previously mentioning that. What do you mean "put on the stop"?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi George,

I just want to say one thing here.

The Zapruder film indeed shows exactly what happened. When Connally emerges from behind the sign, not only his head is turned to his right, but also his upper body. His right shoulder is just higher than his left shoulder. I’m not saying he’s perfectly facing Zapruder’s camera, but he’s at least some way there. In frame 223 his tie is almost neatly in the middle of the white of his shirt.

In the following frames he turns his head & body forward, lowering his right shoulder. In frame 224 Connally’s facial expression changes somewhat and his right lapel flips outward. It seems as if he squints there and in frame 225 he seems to open his mouth, or at least, there’s a bigger shadow where his mouth is.

From frame 226 until frame 235 he lowers his right shoulder even more and brings his right arm & hat up and down. That’s 0.55 seconds.

And from frame 238 he starts to turn to his right. In frame 244 he, again, seems to open his mouth and at around frame 265 he reaches the farthest point.

He remains in that position until about frame 289, when he starts facing the side of the car while leaning back into the lap of his wife.

Kennedy starts reacting while he’s still behind the sign, maybe around frame 222/223, and keeps reacting until frame 251, in which he starts lowering his arms. By the time Connally has reached his farthest point turning right, Kennedy is already sloping towards Jacky.

I think there’s no denying that the two men reacted almost simultaneously. Each of us can make of that what he or she wants, but there you go.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

This is what the footage tells us. There is just no way that two shots can be assumed. Then when we see that the one shot hitting both men lined up perfectly I can’t see a problem. It stemmed from Garrison’s witch hunt as many things do. No one had lined up the shots correctly until much later on by which time this ‘Magic Bullet’ theory had become an accepted part of the language. We now know that it’s nonsense of course and that the same bullet hit two the two men. And ironically no conspiracy supporter can account for their ‘Vanishing Bullet’ theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Frazier's estimate was about 24", give or take an inch. However observing the package fitting with one end under the armpit and the other being cupped in the hand doesn't depend on an estimate. Can you do this experiment with an object of 34.5 inches and report the result?

Bigger than a lunch pack doesn't exclude smaller than a rifle, and that is what the witnesses stated. I don't quite understand the boldened statement. Frazier said he asked Oswald what was in the package when they got in the car. Oswald said "curtain rods", and Frazier replied that he remembered Oswald mentioned that the time before. What do you mean "put on the stop"?

On the ‘stop’ was a typo George. It should have read ‘on the spot.’ I accept your point that Oswald had already used the lie to Frazer about the ‘rods’ and that he hadn’t come up with it on the spot in police interviews. It would make sense though that Oswald would have expected a question from Frazer about the package so he needed a lie for him of course.

Buell Wesley Frazier: He got out of the car and he was wearing the jacket that has the big sleeves in them and he put the package that he had, you know, that he told me was curtain rods up under his arm, you know, and so he walked down behind the car and standing over there at the end of the cyclone fence waiting for me to get out of the car, and so quick as I cut the engine off and started out of the car, shut the door just as I was starting out just like getting out of the car, he started walking off and so I followed him in.

This doesn’t mean that it was in his armpit George. If one end was cradled in his hand and the rest of the rifle was held under his arm the other end could have been behind his shoulder out of sight of Frazer.

He had a large package. It was a rifle.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To pick up on a few comments made by HS.

I can't see why Oswald would carry $175 on his person to go to work. The wedding ring could be seen as odd but he could have been making a personal statement to his wife by leaving it.

Too much heavy lifting again to try and defend a man who is so guilty that you can taste and smell it. Why did he bring such a large sum at all? He’d never done it before? Marina said that she had to plead for even the smallest sum even for the kids. Combined with the ring this can only mean one thing. This ‘innocent’ man knew that he wasn’t coming back and that he wouldn’t be seeing Marina and the kids for a considerable time.

Are you suggesting that a conspiracy went down to this kind of micro-level Cobalt? How can every single thing that Oswald said or did be a distortion of the truth. It’s remarkable. Every single thing has been given an alternative explanation by CT’s. It’s just impossible. Oswald makes OJ look innocent.

[GBinOz]

This doesn’t mean that it was in his armpit George. If one end was cradled in his hand and the rest of the rifle was held under his arm the other end could have been behind his shoulder out of sight of Frazer.

He had a large package. It was a rifle.

Now then Herlock. Adjusting testimony to suit a purpose just isn't cricket. It's like giving a batsman out before he comes out of the pavilion.

See post 3151 for the relevant testimony. If you conduct the experiment you'll find that an object 24" long will fit under the armpit while cupped in the hand, but an object 34.5 inches long definitely will not. You've probably seen the copyrighted photo of the alleged bag shown here:

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/bag.htm

Not something that would be out of sight behind a shoulder.

[Fiver]

Oswald was living in a furnished room that wouldn't need curtain rods. Simple explanation - Oswald acquired the curtain rods for someone else, went ahead of Frazier and passed on the curtain rods to that someone else and arrived at the TSBD empty handed.

There are several problems with that theory.
* Oswald told Frazier that Oswald was getting curtain rods for his own apartment, not for someone else.
* Oswald supposedly picked up the curtain rods at Ruth Paine's but he didn't have any curtain rods stored there.
* Ruth Paine did own some spare curtain rods, but they were still there.
* Oswald did not arrive at the door of the Book Depository empty-handed, Frazier observed him entering.
* Oswald said he only brought a lunch bag, not a long package, so either he or both Randle and Frazier were lying.
* No curtain rods were found in the Book Depository.
* Nobody left the Book Depository with curtain rods.

And Randle and Frazier are not the only ones who saw Oswald with a large package.

Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.

We wouldn't know if he told police as records of the interrogations were not kept, and who would have wanted to involve themselves in a Presidential murder plot.

Handwritten notes were made of the various questionings of Oswald. The Dallas Police department did not tape record interrogations for Oswald or anyone else, since they did not own a tape recorder.

Then there is the JtR cop-out - Randle and Frazier were remembering a different day.

This requires Randle, Frazier, Ruth Paine, and Marina Oswald to all remember the same wrong day.

[Fiver]

Or perhaps they were mistaken, as is contended of all the doctors at Parkland.

The Parkland doctors were trying to save JFK's life, not performing an autopsy.

For example:

Mr. SPECTER - Will you continue, then, Dr. Perry, as to what you observed of his condition?
Dr. PERRY - Yes, there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium.
I cannot state the size, I did not examine it at all. I just noted the presence of lacerated brain tissue. In the lower part of the neck below the Adams apple was a small, roughly circular wound of perhaps 5 mm. in diameter from which blood was exuding slowly.
I did not see any other wounds.

[Fiver]

The city took over Dealey Plaza for a ceremonial eulogy for JFK. James Tague was excluded from attending as admission was by ticket. That is what i meant when i said Tague was excluded.He could walk around before and after the ceremony, but Dealey Plaza was roped of for the general public Closed off for the duration of speeches unless you had a ticket. So the city of Dallas here weren't going to give Robert Groden a ticket or James Tague a ticket.
He was interviewed. Yes. Tague spent many hours in the hotel where like minded citizens were gathered. Writers were in that hotel Thompson Mellon, Russell, etc. and books were for sale and Tague wanted to show everyone his book That is where I met and l spoke to James Tague.

Nobody was specifically excluded from attending the 50th Anniversary.

"5,000 tickets to be randomly distributed for JFK 50th event"

[Fiver]

You remember we had this discussion about evidence not being admissible in court. It took a while but you got there. So I still have hope for you.

You have never provided proof that any of the evidence would not be admissible in court and I have never agreed with you on this point.