JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

There was also a print on a box used as a rest for the sniper that was matched to the convicted murderer Malcom Wallace, who had no reason to be there.

Malcolm Wallace murdered his wife's lover with a pistol in 1951. Anything beyond that is rumors and hearsay, often by dubious sources.

In 1998, Nathan Darby claimed that an unidentified print was Malcolm Wallace's, but he was working with a photocopy, not an original. Darby's conclusion about the print has been disputed by Glen Sample, who believes Wallace was involved. The FBI also said that Darby was wrong. Another expert, Robert Garrett, also concluded the print was not Wallace's.

Also, Malcolm Wallace moved to California in 1961 and didn't move back to Texas until 1969.

[Fiver]

Dont patronize me Fiver. That demonstration is staged using gelatin? That's your proof? And Connallys torso is perfectly aligned ? Try again.

Ballistic gelatin. It's routinely used ballistics testing.

[Fiver]

Brennan also offered up a couple of interesting observations. Regarding the line up, he was asked by a Dallas officer, 'Does the guy standing second from the left look the the man you saw?' Not much quality control in evidence there.

That is not an accurate summary.

Mr. BELIN. All right.
Did you see anyone in the lineup you recognized?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And what did you say?
Mr. BRENNAN. I told Mr. Sorrels and Captain Fritz at that time that Oswald--or the man in the lineup that I identified looking more like a closest resemblance to the man in the window than anyone in the lineup.

[GBinOz]

Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
When McCloy asked (WC Vol IV Page 262) Day if he had matched the fingerprints to Oswald, Day replied that he hadn't, but that in his opinion they would have matched.


That is not an accurate summary.

Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
Mr. BELIN. What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose they were?
Mr. DAY. They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald.

Another attempt at deception from this poster. I referenced the questions posed by McCloy to Day, which you then label as inaccurate by posting answers to questions by Belin to Day. McCloy wanted clarification, and Day provided it, as I said.

Mr. MCCLOY. Am I to understand your testimony, Lieutenant, about the fingerprints to be you said you were positive-you couldn’t make a positive identification, but it was your opinion that these were the fingerprints of Lee Oswald?
Mr. Day. Well, actually in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man. So I wouldn’t say those were his prints. They appeared similar to these two, certainly bore further investigation to see if I could bring them out better. But from what I had I could not make a positive identification as being his prints.
Mr. MCCLOY. How about the palmprint?
Mr. DAY. The palmprint again that I lifted appeared to be his right palm, but I didn’t get to work enough on that to fully- satisfy myself it was his palm. With a little more work I would have come up with the identification there.

[GBinOz]

The three expended cases found in the sniper's nest on the 6th floor of the TSBD were observed by multiple witnesses and photographed before they were picked up. The three cases were placed in a marked envelope and were later directly marked by Day.

More nonsense contradicted by this poster in his very next post. Day only ever marked two cases.

[GBinOz]

It's not magic if you read the evidence.

Mr. BELIN. In other words, you didn't put the writing in that says, "Two of the three spent hulls."
Mr. DAY. Not then. About 10 o'clock in the evening this envelope came back to me with two hulls in it. I say it came to me, it was in a group of stuff, a group of evidence, we were getting ready to release to the FBI. I don't know who brought them back. Vince Drain, FBI, was present with the stuff, the first I noticed it. At that time there were two hulls inside. I was advised the homicide division was retaining the third for their use. At that time I marked the two hulls inside of this, still inside this envelope.

That does not constitute evidence other than evidence that there was no chain of custody. It is also indicative of incompetence and the covering of backsides after the event.

[GBinOz]

Correct. Oswald's prints were not found on the revolver that a couple dozen people saw Oswald hold in his hand and try to shoot the police with.

Many witnesses saw the scuffle but how many testified that they actually saw Oswald pull the revolver? There were several clicks heard as someone was trying to shoot someone, but the revolver had a bent firing pin and could not be discharged. Remarkable for a revolver that had allegedly fired 4 shots into Tippet.

[GBinOz]

The red bricked building is the TSBD.

Brennan has explained his reticence to pick him out which is plausible. But he immediately went to a police officer and told him what he’d seen. Immediately George…from the same window. Others saw him too. I realise this doesn’t fit the script but considering some of the crackpot witnesses I can understand the effort to discredit Brennan. That he saw someone in that window is a fact.

To my eye, the Dal-Tex building is red, the TSBD is orange. YMMV.

It isn't just that he didn't pick him from the contrived line up, he described the person he saw as:
He was a white man in his early 30’s, slender, nice looking, slender and would weight about 165 to 175 pounds. He had on light colored clothing but definitely not a suit.

Oswald was 24, 5'8" and 135 lbs and wearing a dark jacket. How is his description even close? He got the age wrong, the height wrong, the weight wrong, the clothing wrong and the observation that he was standing wrong.

You keep mentioning "Others saw him too". Who were these other witnesses that saw Oswald specifically as opposed to "someone", or indeed more than one?




You still haven't explained how a standing man could fire shots through that gap in the window. The FBI estimated the rifle height at a little over two feet. Either he was holding the rifle between his knees or he was a homunculus.

From: Howard Brennan, Eyewitness to History (1987)
By now the motorcade was beginning to speed up and in only a couple of seconds the President's car had disappeared under the triple underpass. To my amazement the man still stood there in the window! He didn't appear to be rushed. There was no particular emotion visible on his face except for a slight smirk. It was a look of satisfaction, as if he had accomplished what he had set out to do. He seemed pleased that no one had realized where the shots were coming from. Then he did something that puzzled me. Very slowly and deliberatley he set the rifle on its butt and just stayed there for a moment to savor what he had done, like a hunter who had "bagged his buck." Then, with no sense of haste, he simply moved slowly away from the window until he disappeared from my line of vision.

Can you seriously suggest that this is a credible description of a man that allegedly ran to conceal a rifle and then ran down the stairs to the second floor to be seen by Baker and Truly a minute and a half or less after the last shot.

That he saw someone in that window maybe a fact but, if so, it's his only fact.