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.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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 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.

.

Come on George, this is the kind of nitpicking we used to get from Private Investigator.

Are you honestly telling me that someone calling someone as being in their early 30’s when they are actually 24 (after seeing them from a distance) I can’t find the post George so you will have to trust me (or not) but when PI was making this point I showed a photo of Oswald to some friends/relatives (most of whom didn’t know who it was) and, if I recall correctly, the estimates where all in the 25-35 age range. No one could take exception to Brennan’s estimate.

He called him slender, 165-175lbs. So he adds 30-40lbs to his estimate. Again, from a distance, he gets that he’s slender but gets his weight a bit wrong. How can this be considered damaging. It’s not as if he’d said that he was 250lbs.

He had light coloured clothing. You mention his dark jacket but you conveniently forget to mention that the jacket was left on the 6th floor by Oswald. Therefore he had taken it off.

The question of standing is a bit of a low blow I’m afraid George. Brennan was simply assuming that he was standing. He’d assumed that he was standing because he assumed that the window was of such a height from the floor that meant that he could stand and fire.

Do you really think that, on the spur of the moment Howard Brennan decided to lie to the police. Without a seconds thought he runs straight to an officer. Then this lucky man just happens, out of all of the windows available, to pick the exact snipers nest window. Then he provides a very reasonable description of Oswald.

How can this be considered for a second. Brennan shows this entire ‘innocent Oswald’ suggestion to be the desperate fantasy that it undoubtedly was.

Tried to assassinate Walker
Acts totally strangely before the murder
His equipment used and found
Seen at the window
Fled the scene
Acted strangely on fleeing
Killed Tippit (identified by a veritable football team of witnesses)
Arrested with the gun on him
Lied his a**e off in custody

Absolutely 100% guilty. An insane, double-murdering, wife-beating traitor - that has his own fan club.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Perhaps Fiver might provide the list of those that saw someone in the 6th floor window?

[GBinOz]

Come on George, this is the kind of nitpicking we used to get from Private Investigator.

Are you honestly telling me that someone calling someone as being in their early 30’s when they are actually 24 (after seeing them from a distance) I can’t find the post George so you will have to trust me (or not) but when PI was making this point I showed a photo of Oswald to some friends/relatives (most of whom didn’t know who it was) and, if I recall correctly, the estimates where all in the 25-35 age range. No one could take exception to Brennan’s estimate.

He called him slender, 165-175lbs. So he adds 30-40lbs to his estimate. Again, from a distance, he gets that he’s slender but gets his weight a bit wrong. How can this be considered damaging. It’s not as if he’d said that he was 250lbs.

He had light coloured clothing. You mention his dark jacket but you conveniently forget to mention that the jacket was left on the 6th floor by Oswald. Therefore he had taken it off.

The question of standing is a bit of a low blow I’m afraid George. Brennan was simply assuming that he was standing. He’d assumed that he was standing because he assumed that the window was of such a height from the floor that meant that he could stand and fire.

Do you really think that, on the spur of the moment Howard Brennan decided to lie to the police. Without a seconds thought he runs straight to an officer. Then this lucky man just happens, out of all of the windows available, to pick the exact snipers nest window. Then he provides a very reasonable description of Oswald.

How can this be considered for a second. Brennan shows this entire ‘innocent Oswald’ suggestion to be the desperate fantasy that it undoubtedly was.

Tried to assassinate Walker
Acts totally strangely before the murder
His equipment used and found
Seen at the window
Fled the scene
Acted strangely on fleeing
Killed Tippit (identified by a veritable football team of witnesses)
Arrested with the gun on him
Lied his a**e off in custody

Absolutely 100% guilty. An insane, double-murdering, wife-beating traitor - that has his own fan club.

I am disappointed that you have avoided every question and just given a reply that cites a description that is wrong in every aspect as "a very reasonable description of Oswald". I didn't realise that asking that one detail of a description be correct is "nitpicking". You follow up with the standard nonsense list of debunked apologist pejoratives regarding Oswald that would do Bugliosi proud. Unable to debate actual issues, you call on the resident master of deception to come to your aid.

I expected a higher standard of debate from you my friend.

[GBinOz]

The question of standing is a bit of a low blow I’m afraid George. Brennan was simply assuming that he was standing. He’d assumed that he was standing because he assumed that the window was of such a height from the floor that meant that he could stand and fire.

Just to address this nonsense individually. He can assume all he likes but the fact is the shooter wasn't standing and Brennan should have observed him getting up from a prone position, contrary to his assumption. But Brennan's fantasy has him standing and "Very slowly and deliberately 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".

You can't have it both ways. Brennan only assumed he was standing? But didn't observe that he actually wasn't standing in the fact that the actual gunman, who can't have been standing, had to get up if Brennan's observations were actually based on fact rather than fantasy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am disappointed that you have avoided every question and just given a reply that cites a description that is wrong in every aspect as "a very reasonable description of Oswald". I didn't realise that asking that one detail of a description be correct is "nitpicking". You follow up with the standard nonsense list of debunked apologist pejoratives regarding Oswald that would do Bugliosi proud. Unable to debate actual issues, you call on the resident master of deception to come to your aid.

I expected a higher standard of debate from you my friend.

Not one thing on that list has been debunked George. All that has happened is that those on the conspiracy side have spent years finding ever more complex ways of trying to discredit evidence. That Oswald tried to assassinate Walker comes from Marina herself. His action before the assassination, going earlier to the Paine’s, leaving the cash and his ring etc) are beyond question. That he carried a large package to work is proven by the Fraziers (apart from attempts to discredit them or to quibble over why Randle’s couldn’t give precise measurements - he carried a large package and they weren’t curtain rods) So done was seen at a window where CT’s say no one was there, the rifle was his, the prints were his, he did flee and jump from bus to taxi, he did pass the correct bus stop, he did get the taxi driver to drop him a distance from his room and he did kill Tippit. Nothing that the conspiracy side says on these issues is remotely believable.

Oswald was guilty. All else should be dismissed. I can’t understand how people like yourself and others have fallen for this fantasy George. I really don’t. Such a large conspiracy involving so many people and agencies couldn’t have happened. And I’m not saying that it was unlikely George. Or that it’s doubtful. I’m stating full on that it is totally 100% impossible. Such a conspiracy cannot have happened.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Just to address this nonsense individually. He can assume all he likes but the fact is the shooter wasn't standing and Brennan should have observed him getting up from a prone position, contrary to his assumption. But Brennan's fantasy has him standing and "Very slowly and deliberately 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".

You can't have it both ways. Brennan only assumed he was standing? But didn't observe that he actually wasn't standing in the fact that the actual gunman, who can't have been standing, had to get up if Brennan's observations were actually based on fact rather than fantasy.

If Fishy was posting I wonder if he’d be getting angry over you calling Brennan a liar. The idea that he lied is a joke I’m afraid George. Especially considering the line up of clowns, loonies and fantasists that the conspiracy side rely on as witnesses.