JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

I would have thought that the witnesses standing only 10 feet from the head shot, Bill and Gayle Newman, would have been amongst the first called. Wouldn't you?

Newman's description of events is contradicted by the film evidence.

"We were standing at the edge of the curb looking at the car as it was coming toward us and all of a sudden there was a noise, apparently gunshot [sic]. The President jumped up in his seat, and it looked like what I thought was a firecracker had went off and I thought he had realized it. It was just like an explosion and he was standing up. By this time he was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head. Then he fell back and Governor Connally was holding his middle section. Then we fell down on the grass as it seemed we were in direct path of fire. It looked like Mrs. Kennedy jumped on top of the President." - William Eugene Newman

[Fiver]

On the sixth floor that day William Shelley and his crew of five men were adding new plywood to the old floor, so no one would notice materials in packages being brought in. Curious that they didn't notice the building of the sniper nest wall of boxes. Perhaps that was done after the two expended shell casings were found.

Was Oswald one of that five man crew?

Mr. LOVELADY - I Was working on the sixth floor putting--we was putting down that flooring.
Mr. BALL - Who were you working with?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, there was Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce and Slim, Charles Givens; we call him Slim, and let me see, well Mr. Shelley would come up every once in while, check on us. He wasn't workin' with us but he would come up see how we gettin' along.

Mr. BALL - Well, do you remember Shelley, Dan Arce, Bonnie Williams, Bill Lovelady, and Charlie Givens who were working up there that morning---laying floor on the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes; they were laying floor---yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. You say he worked with you; did he work laying floors?
Mr. ARCE. No, he was an order filler; he just worked the same place.

Mr. BELIN. All right. You saw him [Oswald] at 8:30 on the first floor?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, we went back upstairs and started to work.
Mr. BELIN. You went back up to the sixth floor to continue laying the floor?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.

Oswald was not part of the group laying tile.

[cobalt]

That's a myth. Einstein did well at math in school.

Indeed it is a myth. Einstein's final school report showed he was outstanding in maths and science. The myth of him being a moderate student has two sources. One was his school headmaster who doubted Einstein's application to his studies, rather than his aptitude. The second source is his college professor- a man acknowledged as a mathematical genius himself- who considered Einstein's mathematical knowledge to be insufficient to benefit from advanced study. This man- Minkowski- was astonished at Einstein's later development and actually helped develop some of his former student's theory.

A better example of psychiatric misjudgement might be from the Brazilian football team doctor from the 1958 World Cup. His assessment of one young player was that he lacked the emotional maturity to be an effective team player. That player was called Pele.

Oswald was also evaluated by a psychiatrist in Russia after he attempted suicide.

I'm unsure what conclusion was reached. The Soviets never bought Oswald's defector story and the suicide attempt was considered to be an obvious attempt to force the Soviets not to deport him. It worked, so they decided to exile him to Minsk where he was closely observed. Fellow workers and his language instructor have commented on their dealings with Oswald over the years but none has ever mentioned him being emotionally unstable. The general picture is of a fairly non descript curiosity who was easy enough to knock along with. One common impression is that those who interacted with Oswald found it impossible to believe that he would be capable of assassinating the US president.

Earlier in your post, you accused Marian Oswald of lying about her husband abusing her.

I have never accused Marina Oswald of lying about anything. What I have often pointed out is the vulnerable position she found herself in after November 22nd, having lost her husband and left to raise two young daughters. Death threats were made against her and she was effectively placed in protective custody by the FBI, uncertain of where her future lay. Any statements she made in the aftermath have to take her circumstances into account. At that time she would have needed the support of the Russian émigré community who seem to have had a poor opinion of Oswald generally, which given his espousal of Marxism is not difficult to understand.
Marina Oswald's views on the JFK assassination have changed over the years but so far as I can gather she has never disowned the husband of her two daughters. I'll take her judgment before that of anyone else.

Not that Lee Oswald's behaviour towards his wife has any relevance to the JFK debate. Had he pushed Earlene Roberts down the steps of his boarding house or slapped Julia Postal in the face when entering the Texas Theatre then that would be a different matter. He did neither. So why are allegations of mistreating his wife raised by WC advocates? As I see it, such a tactic is a tacit admission that the case against LHO is not strong enough, so it is helpful to blacken his character in order to bolster their case.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In November 2000 Vincent Bugliosi interviewed Marina Oswald in Dallas. She immediately made him aware that she didn’t want him to write his book even though he told her that she and her children were innocent victims. This interview took place at the back of the Army-Nave Surplus Store in Dallas where Marina was working. Her friend, store manager Linda Wilson was present as was a Fort Worth lawyer friend of Bugliosi’s called Jack Duffy. Duffy had studied the case for many years and leaned toward a conspiracy so this wasn’t a ganging up of WC apologists.

She told him that she felt very strongly that her former husband was innocent so Bugliosi reminded her that she had told the WC that she believed her husband guilty. He asked her if they had told her what to say or threatened her in any way she just said that they kept talking to her over and over again and that the evidence that they had shown her had led her to believe in his guilt. She also claimed that they had said that she had to answer all,of their questions if she wanted to remain in the USA.

Bugliosi asked her when she had come to the conclusion that her husband was innocent and she replied “About fifteen to twenty years later.” She claimed to have begun reading more on the subject and understood things more clearly. As late as November 23rd 1980 she had told Dan Carmichael of United Press International that her husband wasn’t innocent of Kennedy’s murder.

It appears that Marina’s first hint of a change in her position came in an interview with the Ladies Home Journal in November 1988. She told them “It was a very complicated plot, brilliantly executed. Could any intelligent person believe that this kind of thing was organised by one man?” And “…I strongly believe that with all the evidence that has come to light, he probably was telling the truth…I don’t think that this was all about John F. Kennedy. It was more about Robert, who was going after organised crime, and who would not be Attorney General anymore after his brother was killed.” The problem with this of course is that this meant that she was saying that the things that she said that she had seen and experienced to the WC and the FBI weren’t true. Marina has never officially retracted anything she had said. She was now talking that language of conspiracy after “…reading more on the subject.”

She claimed that she had been lied to but when Bugliosi asked her “What lies?” She gave the very strange answer “You’re catching me off guard.” She couldn’t name any actual lies. She went on to talk about anti-Castro Cubans and a CIA cover-up…all standard stuff that can be read in pretty much any CT book. Bugliosi asked her if Lee had attempted to assassinate Governor Wallace to which she replied “Lee told me he did.” He also asked her if she had taken the backyard photo of Lee holding the Carcano rifle to which she replied “Yes, I did.” Duffy immediately said “That settles that issue.”

Bugliosi believed that Marina was fundamentally an honest person who had been ‘impregnated’ by conspiracy theories.

So basically, in 2000, Marina confirmed that Lee had admitted to the assassination attempt on Walker and she also confirmed that she had taken the backyard photo. Hardly points to an innocent man.

[cobalt]

So basically, in 2000, Marina confirmed that Lee had admitted to the assassination attempt on Walker and she also confirmed that she had taken the backyard photo. Hardly points to an innocent man.

I'm not sure it points to a guilty man either though. The Walker assassination attempt does have the advantage of a credible motive on Oswald's part (unlike with JFK) but him claiming to his wife he did the deed falls short of being reliable evidence. As with the backyard photos, LHO was developing an image of himself as being a political militant so claiming to have shot a notorious right wing character like Walker would have enhanced that reputation. He made a similar claim to the Russian émigré that later committed suicide before he could attend the HSCA hearing.

The Jack Duffy character was described as a lawyer but I wouldn't fancy him defending me in court if he thinks Marina's account of the backyard photo 'settles' anything. I don't think many have doubted that Oswald was photographed at that location by his wife, although most believe that more than one photo was taken. The problems with the photo have been well aired over the years and apart from confirming that she actually took a photo of that sort, there is nothing Marina could add to settle its absolute authenticity.

[Fiver]

I have never accused Marina Oswald of lying about anything. What I have often pointed out is the vulnerable position she found herself in after November 22nd, having lost her husband and left to raise two young daughters. Death threats were made against her and she was effectively placed in protective custody by the FBI, uncertain of where her future lay. Any statements she made in the aftermath have to take her circumstances into account.

You have repeatedly claimed that LHO was not abusive. Marina Oswald said LHO abused her. So you are accusing her of lying.

That's not the only person you accuse of lying when you deny that Oswald abused his wife.

Oswald's own mother saw a black eye that LHO gave Marina, but said Marina deserved it. Oswald's brother Robert saw Marina with a black eye that LHO gave her. So did Anna Meller. And George Bouhe. And Elena Hall. And Mahlon Tobias. Alex Kleinerer saw LHO slap his wife in the face.

And those are all separate incidents. Lee Harvey Oswald repeatedly abused his wife, even when she was pregnant. You ignoring the evidence doesn't make it go away.

[Fiver]

Not that Lee Oswald's behaviour towards his wife has any relevance to the JFK debate.

Oswald's behavior has a great deal of relevance, just like the behavior of any other accused murderer. Oswald grew up in a toxic environment, where he was alternately ignored or over-indulged by his mother. Psychological evaluation showed he was a deeply troubled teen. The Russians would also conclude he was mentally unstable when they gave him a psychiatric evaluation after a suicide attempt. He would threaten violence against his mother and sister-in-law and be repeatedly violent against his wife, even while she was pregnant. He was mocked in the Marines, largely ignored by the Russians, and largely ignored again when he returned to the US. He was repeatedly fired from jobs based on his behavior. He pretended to be a whole Chapter of Fair Play For Cuba, but wasn't able to get a single supporter. His attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro Cuban group was an inept failure. He was rejected by the Cuban and Russian Embassies in Mexico in him attempt to go to Cuba.

Had he pushed Earlene Roberts down the steps of his boarding house or slapped Julia Postal in the face when entering the Texas Theatre then that would be a different matter. He did neither.

Oswald tried to murder the police that arrested him at the theater. He did murder Officer Tippit.

So why are allegations of mistreating his wife raised by WC advocates? As I see it, such a tactic is a tacit admission that the case against LHO is not strong enough, so it is helpful to blacken his character in order to bolster their case.

Since when is stating the facts about Oswald "blackening his character"?

[Fiver]

One common impression is that those who interacted with Oswald found it impossible to believe that he would be capable of assassinating the US president.

"There is no question in my mind that Lee was responsible for the three shots fired, two of the shots hitting the president and killing him. There is no question in my mind that he also shot Officer Tippit. How can you explain one without the other?" - Robert Oswald, 2013

[GBinOz]

If someone fired from the Grassy Knoll then the bullet would have been travelling in the direction of the President’s left rear.
We also know from the x-rays that the left hemisphere of Kennedy’s brain was intact.

I am in absolute agreement with the boldened statement above. (Brief pause to allow Herlock to regain consciousness after having passed out on the floor in disbelief.)

A shot from the grassy knoll would have blown out the left side of the President's skull. There is no indication that this was the case. However, when we look at the spatter evidence, we see the fact that the impact debris hit Hargis in sufficient strength to make him consider that he had been hit by a bullet. This is absolutely consistent with a shot from the grassy knoll, but is absolutely inconsistent with the fact that Kennedy's injuries were confined exclusively to the right hemisphere of his skull.

My current thinking is that of Sherry Fiester, that the fatal head shot was a tangential shot from the south knoll that damaged only the right hemisphere of the President's skull, and IMO was followed by a shot from behind about 0.7 seconds later. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of a specialist blood spatter expert as to whether a tangential shot (similar to a snooker shot on the side of a ball) would create a debris field as described by Hargis.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am in absolute agreement with the boldened statement above. (Brief pause to allow Herlock to regain consciousness after having passed out on the floor in disbelief.)

A shot from the grassy knoll would have blown out the left side of the President's skull. There is no indication that this was the case. However, when we look at the spatter evidence, we see the fact that the impact debris hit Hargis in sufficient strength to make him consider that he had been hit by a bullet. This is absolutely consistent with a shot from the grassy knoll, but is absolutely inconsistent with the fact that Kennedy's injuries were confined exclusively to the right hemisphere of his skull.

My current thinking is that of Sherry Fiester, that the fatal head shot was a tangential shot from the south knoll that damaged only the right hemisphere of the President's skull, and IMO was followed by a shot from behind about 0.7 seconds later. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of a specialist blood spatter expert as to whether a tangential shot (similar to a snooker shot on the side of a ball) would create a debris field as described by Hargis.

That’s twice in two days George. People will start thinking it strange.

The problem for me with that would be the same as for a gunman at the standard picket fence location. Apologies for list of questions but it’s the best way of putting it I think.

1. How could he have remained out of sight? All of those people looking from both sides of Elm Street toward the car.
2. How come none of the men on the overpass heard or saw anything if the shot came from even closer to them than had previously been suggested (a matter of feet)?
3. How come none of the witnesses (as far as I can recall) mention hearing a shot from that direction?
4. How did the gunman escape the scene, with a rifle, without being seen?
5. How come the bullet fragments were found in the front of the car? They would surely have found Fiester’s bullet, at the very least, on Kennedy’s seat?

[Herlock Sholmes]

"There is no question in my mind that Lee was responsible for the three shots fired, two of the shots hitting the president and killing him. There is no question in my mind that he also shot Officer Tippit. How can you explain one without the other?" - Robert Oswald, 2013

It’s an absolute slam dunk Fiver. The Tippit killing couldn’t possibly have been set up. No one would do that in an open street, with an unknown number of witnesses saying whatever they wanted to. So what are the chances of the Tippit murder occurring with Oswald just happening to be in the area so that he gets falsely accused and a virtual ‘football team’ of witnesses incriminate him? Then, just for icing on the cake, he has the murder weapon on him when he was arrested.

If there had been no Kennedy assassination Oswald would, with 100% certainty, have been found guilty of the Tippit murder.

[GBinOz]

That’s twice in two days George. People will start thinking it strange.
Quite so....should we be concerned?

The problem for me with that would be the same as for a gunman at the standard picket fence location. Apologies for list of questions but it’s the best way of putting it I think.

1. How could he have remained out of sight? All of those people looking from both sides of Elm Street toward the car.
Not really relevant to my theory, as I don't think that a shot from the knoll actually hit the President. While people's attention was entirely focused on the President, and there was the distraction of the TSBD shots, many people still ran towards the grassy knoll.

2. How come none of the men on the overpass heard or saw anything if the shot came from even closer to them than had previously been suggested (a matter of feet)?
We're not talking a matter of feet. The trajectory cone is well away from the men on the overpass.


3. How come none of the witnesses (as far as I can recall) mention hearing a shot from that direction?
Distraction and a suppressor on the rifle.

4. How did the gunman escape the scene, with a rifle, without being seen?
The Cancellare photo shows a vehicle parked in the carpark at the south knoll within the trajectory cone. Take the shot(s), start the engine and drive away - gone with a couple of minutes. (See links below).

5. How come the bullet fragments were found in the front of the car? They would surely have found Fiester’s bullet, at the very least, on Kennedy’s seat?

The bullet fragments in the front of the limo were from a military jacketed projectile. The projectile from the south knoll would, IMO, have been a frangible 55gr projectile fired at high velocity (4000fps) from a rifle such as a 220 Swift. On contact with a skull there is a back spatter that is momentarily created by the "jet effect", which produces a backward motion away from the direction of the projectile, but is then replaced by the release of kinetic energy that produces the debris trail in the direction of motion of the projectile. This results in the backwards and (due to the tangential strike) to the left. Frangible projectiles are designed to disintegrate and leave a trail of tiny fragments as has been observed by radiologists such as Mantik who have been allowed, on many occasions, to access the original x-rays in the archives.

What concerns me is whether a tangential strike on the skull could produce the offset debris pattern that struck Hargis. Sherry Fiester used a billiards analogy where the cue ball can strike another ball tangentially and produce a motion of the stuck ball that does not coincide with that of the cue ball, but I wonder if this analogy transfers to debris trails. I feel sure that this question would have been addressed in relation to this, or other cases, but I have not yet acquired knowledge of such research.

I have posted these links before, but you may not have felt inclined to view them:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_VpUbJQuRc&rco=1&ab_channel=SouthKnollInv estigations

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8emNECYgmg&t=3979s&ab_channel=%E3%82%A8%E 3%83%BC%E3%83%AC%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%83%92%E3%83% 87%E3%83%AB

[Patrick Differ]

The FBI and CIA both had files on Oswald and Ruby before the assassination. If people can recall Oswald on New Orleans TV handing out Leaflets for FPCC, that was a proven CIA counter intelligence operation. Ruby was a known low level Mafia owned flunky who ran guns and prostitution for Marcello.

The Warren Commission picked and chose what witnesses they wanted to interview. Like the guy who saw a bald guy in the 6th floor window, while it ignored the 2 FBI Agents at the Bethesda Autopsy.

It will come out.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no evidence that Oswald worked for the CIA. That the FBI and CIA had files on Oswald provides us with the source of the idea of conspiracy. Both agencies were keen to distance themselves from the man that they knew about and yet still went on to murder Kennedy. Agency a**e covering led to CT’s thinking that they were ‘in on it’ when they clearly weren’t.

[Patrick Differ]

Fair Play for Cuba Committee or FPCC was a CIA counterintelligence program to play both sides of the pro and anti Castro groups. Set up and infiltrated.

Oswald has already been tied to David Ferrie and Guy Bannister as well as Clay Shaw. Oswald even used their address on the FPCC Leaflets. So he used the local CIA address in New Orleans.

How many Oswalds types did the CIA set up with the same scenario as Dallas? High powered rifle from a tall building?
Try Chicago, Tampa, Miami, LA, and San Antonio. And they all had chosen Patsys from the FPCC, and like Oswald, were from the military.

It's unfortunate that there was more effort that was put into Oswald than what was legally required to find the truth. Ruby saw to that.

In the United States the legal system requires a " Standard of Proof" or preponderance of evidence in order to go to trial.
Neither the WC or HSCA did anything more than collect data ( and not all the data, only enough to convict the chosen one) and base their conclusions on that alone. They failed in both of these requirements as 60 years of research clearly shows.

I have yet to hear the WC folks comment on the fact that Kennedy and Connally were misaligned by 6 to 10 inches across the horizontal in comparison to a shot from above, on an acute angle, offset by half a body length ( clearly seen in the Zapruder film - seating arrangement)

The WC never put Oswald in the window with a gun and that frustrated Fritz. There are no credible witnesses that did eventhough the WC claims it found one. In fact there is eyewitness evidence that places Oswald on the 1st and 2nd floors at 12:15 and 12:25 and on the 2nd floor 78 seconds after Kennedy was shot.

Oswald was known to get change for his soft drink with lunch. The secretary he got it from at 12:25 was never asked to testify by anyone. How come?

There are many serious questions regarding chain of custody of evidence in this case. Never investigated.

The WC collected information on the outcome it had to have.
Right down to an absurd magic bullet theory that Paul Landis and FBI Agents said never happened.

In 1963 the CIA was considered too powerful and rogue by JFK. As President he was seen as weak on Communism and in the Fall of 1963 the CIA and FBI communicated the risk to Kennedy, yet did nothing about it. He was a marked man.

ANother perspective on 1963 was Castro and whether they could blame Castro for someone like Oswald. The same Oswald handing out FPCC Leaflets out of the CIA Camp Street office in New Orleans?

General Curtis LeMay and other Cold War Generals would have Nuked Moscow if they had a chance. To them it was just another bomb. Another sobering reality in 1963.

Who was responsible for the Carpet Bombing of Japan and then Vietnam? Curtis LeMay.

It was a different time and the Cold Warriors were not normal human beings.