Deep Politics Forum

***Note--I would like to post this series I was doing on JFKAssassinationForum before I was banned for life for telling the truth. I will continue to add to it with new posts, but I think the whole series is of value to anyone who wants to learn more about this case. As always, check the cites for yourself and decide for yourself as you should not take anyone's word for anything in this case. Comments from the WCR (Warren Commission Report) sound good until you realize there is NO evidence to support the claims being made.

Thank you.***

*******************

Try as they might, the Warren Commission (WC) defenders can't explain away why TWO PROSECTORS (one of them a Forensic Pathologist) said CE-399 (i.e. magic bullet) COULD NOT have been the bullet that hit both JFK and JBC, thus, destroying the NOTION of a Single Bullet Theory (SBT)!

Quote on

Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Finck, have you had an opportunity to examine Commission's Exhibit 399?

Colonel FINCK - For the first time this afternoon, sir.

My note: Why was a prosector NOT given the right to examine this bullet a lot sooner?

Mr. SPECTER - And based upon your examination of that bullet, do you have an opinion as to whether in its current condition it could have passed through President Kennedy at point C-D in 385 and then inflicted the wound in the back and chest of Governor Connally?

Colonel FINCK - Yes; I do. This is a bullet showing marks indicating the bullet was fired. The second point is that there was practically no loss of this bullet. It kept its original caliber and dimensions. There was no evidence that any major portion of the jacket was lost, and I consider this as one bullet which possibly could have gone through the wounds you described.

Mr. SPECTER - And could that bullet possibly have gone through President Kennedy in 388?

Colonel FINCK - Through President Kennedy's head? 388?

Mr. SPECTER - And remained intact in the way you see it now?

Colonel FINCK -Definitely not.

Mr. SPECTER - And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?

Colonel FINCK - No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.

This alone sinks the SBT! But wait, there's more!

Mr. SPECTER - Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399, and may I say now that, subject to later proof, this is the missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally. I move for its admission into evidence at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The article, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 399 for identification, was received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER - We have been asked by the FBI that the missile not be handled by anybody because it is undergoing further ballistic tests, and it now appears, may the record show, in a plastic case in a cotton background.

Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?

Commander HUMES - I do not believe so, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?

Commander HUMES - I think that that is most unlikely. May I expand on those two answers?

Mr. SPECTER - Yes, please do.

Commander HUMES - The X-rays made of the wound in the head of the late President showed fragmentations of the missile. Some fragments we recovered and turned over, as has been previously noted. Also we have X-rays of the fragment of skull which was in the region of our opinion exit wound showing metallic fragments.

Also going to Exhibit 392, the report from Parkland Hospital, the following sentence referring to the examination of the wound of the wrist is found:

"Small bits of metal were encountered at various levels throughout the wound, and these were, wherever they were identified and could be picked up, picked up and submitted to the pathology department for identification and examination."

The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be in tact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.

Quote off

The bad news is there is MORE evidence that makes CE-399 totally incapable of being a "magic bullet" too, but these comments all by themselves sink the WC's conclusion that permitted them to claim just one man shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK).

Rob Caprio Wrote:***Note--I would like to post this series I was doing on JFKAssassinationForum before I was banned for life for telling the truth.

Just so as the good members of DPF know, and because I know you wouldn't want to start here by conveying an out and out lie, and for the record, YOU ARE NOT BANNED FOR LIFE ---Repeat --- YOU ARE NOT BANNED FOR LIFE.

Your posting privileges were suspended for 28 days for repeatedly ignoring previous warnings, that's warnings plural, to not accuse fellow members of posting on the JFK Assassination Forum elsewhere via use of an alias.

You chose to ignore the warnings, you pay the consequences.

That is all I have to say on the matter. If you wish to leave the forum permanently, just let me know.

Carry on!!

Duncan MacRae

Duncan MacRae Wrote:

Rob Caprio Wrote:***Note--I would like to post this series I was doing on JFKAssassinationForum before I was banned for life for telling the truth.

Just so as the good members of DPF know, and because I know you wouldn't want to start here by conveying an out and out lie, and for the record, YOU ARE NOT BANNED FOR LIFE ---Repeat --- YOU ARE NOT BANNED FOR LIFE.

Your posting privileges were suspended for 28 days for repeatedly ignoring previous warnings, that's warnings plural, to not accuse fellow members of posting on the JFK Assassination Forum elsewhere via use of an alias.

You chose to ignore the warnings, you pay the consequences.

That is all I have to say on the matter. If you wish to leave the forum permanently, just let me know.

Carry on!!

Duncan MacRae

Thank you for your concern, Duncan.

Mr. Caprio: Would you please share with us in a concise but specific fashion the "truth" that you told which led to your banning?

In addition, would you please help us to understand why you are under the impression that you have been banned for life from the JFK Assassination Forum when Duncan states that the ban is for 28 days?

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

The Warren Commission (WC) said that JFK was shot from behind ONLY, thus, NO wounds should have been seen on the backside of President John F. Kennedy's (JFK) head, but many witnesses did see such a wound.

How can the WC defenders explain this?

Secret Service Agent (SS)Clint Hill was the man who ran to the limousine and climbed on the rear of the car, thus, he had a good view of the BACK of JFK's head. He would tell the WC this during his testimony.

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion[/b][/u] of the head.

Parkland Hospital (PH) Nurse Diana Bowron testified to the following before the WC.

Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition?

Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what?

Miss BOWRON - The back of his head.

Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition?

Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know.

Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see?

Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body?

Miss BOWRON - No, sir.


PH doctor Charles J. Carrico testified to this before the WC.

Mr. SPECTER - Would you describe as precisely for me as possible the nature of the head wound which you observed on the President?

Dr. CARRICO - The wound that I saw was a large gaping wound, located in the [b][U]right occipitoparietal*area. I would estimate to be about 5 to 7 cm. in size, more or less circular, with avulsions of the calvarium and scalp tissue. As I stated before, I believe there was shredded macerated cerebral and cerebellar tissues both in the wounds and on the fragments of the skull attached to the dura.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other opening in the head besides the one you have just described?

Dr. CARRICO - No, sir; I did not.

Mr. SPECTER - Specifically, did you notice a bullet wound below the large gaping hole which you described?

Dr. CARRICO - No, sir.

*The occipitoparietal is the right rear portion that includes the side of the head.

PH Nurse Patricia Hutton was NOT called by the WC, and one has to wonder why. This is from a statement given by her.

Quote on

ACTIVITIES OF PAT HUTTON
ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963

I came back from lunch, and went to the O.B.-Gynocology section where I was working. At approximately 12:30 P.M., the triage nurse called us to bring a cart out to the entrance. We took said cart out the door, and it was then that I realized who was in the car.

Several people helped put the President on the cart, and we then proceeded to the Major Surgery section of the Emergency Room to Trauma Room #1. **Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head**, and was lying there unresponsive.

As soon as we reached the room, a doctor placed an endotracheal tube, and prepared for a tracheostomy. Within a few minutes, there were numerous doctors in the room starting I.V.'s, placing chest tubes and anesthesia with O2. **A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head.**

Blood was pumped in along with the I.V.'s running. After a period of handing instruments and equipment to the doctors as needed, it was announced that the President had expired. We then removed the tubes and I.V.'s from him. Mrs. Kennedy came in with a priest, and last rites were performed. When Mrs. Kennedy left, we removed all of the equipment from the room, and I then left at the request of the supervisor to get a plastic cover to line the coffin. I returned with it, and Mr. Kennedy was placed in the coffin to await orders to move him by ambulance. After that, I stood outside the door with Mrs.
Nelson until the body was removed. When the area was clear, another nurse and I went up to the dining room for coffee. We returned to the Emergency Room where I changed clothes, and left at approximately 4:00P.M. for home.

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1963

I arrived for work at 9:30 A.M., and was told that our names had been released, and to check with administration before talking with anyone.

I was not asked any questions by anyone, and spent an uneventful 8 hours on duty.

Patricia B. Hutton, R.N.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hutton.htm

Quote off

PH Dr. Ronald Coy Jones testified to this before the WC.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wounds?

Dr. JONES - As we saw him the first time, we noticed that he had a small wound at the midline of the neck, just above the superasternal notch, and this was probably no greater than a quarter of an inch in greatest diameter, and that he had a large wound in the right posterior side of the head.

PH doctor Malcom Perry testified to this before the WC.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you now describe as specifically as you can, the injury which you noted in the President's head?

Dr. PERRY - As I mentioned previously in the record, I made only a cursory examination of the President's head. I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area*, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue. My examination did not go any further than that.

*Again, this is the right REAR AND SIDE of the head.

PH doctor William Kemp Clark testified to this before the WC.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe the President's condition to be on your arrival there?

Dr. CLARK - ...I then examined the President briefly.

My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation.

I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present.

PH doctor Paul Conrad Peters testified to this before the WC.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the nature of the President's wound?

Dr. PETERS - Well, as I mentioned, the neck wound had already been interfered with by the tracheotomy at the time I got there, but I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a [b][U]large defect in the occiput.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you notice in the occiput?

Dr. PETERS - It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal* area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area.

* Again, this is the RIGHT REAR and side of the Preident's head.

PH doctor Gene Coleman Akin testified to this before the WC.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wounds on him at the time you first saw him?

Dr. AKIN - There was a midline neck wound below the level of the cricoid cartilage, about 1 to 1.5 cm. in diameter, the lower part of this had been cut across when I saw the wound, it had been cut across with a knife in the performance of the tracheotomy. The back of the right occipitalparietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.

PH doctor Charles Rufus Baxter testified to this before the WC.

Dr. Baxter - We then gave him or Dr. Perry and Dr. Clark alternated giving him closed chest cardiac massage only until we could get a cardioscope hooked up to tell us if there were any detectible heartbeat electrically present, at least, and there was none, and we discussed at that moment whether we should open the chest to attempt to revive him, while the closed chest massage was going on, and we had an opportunity to look at his head wound then and saw that the damage was beyond hope, that is, in a word-- literally the right side of his head had been blown off.

These first hand accounts of the head wound SINK the official conclusion all by themselves, thus, the WC defenders have to claim all eyewitnesses are useless in this case in order to continue to make their WCR claims. These were professionals at PH and they saw a good number of gunshot wounds each year, so for them to be wrong on something this basic is just ludicrous.

Duncan MacRae Wrote:

Rob Caprio Wrote:***Note--I would like to post this series I was doing on JFKAssassinationForum before I was banned for life for telling the truth.

Just so as the good members of DPF know, and because I know you wouldn't want to start here by conveying an out and out lie, and for the record, YOU ARE NOT BANNED FOR LIFE ---Repeat --- YOU ARE NOT BANNED FOR LIFE.

Your posting privileges were suspended for 28 days for repeatedly ignoring previous warnings, that's warnings plural, to not accuse fellow members of posting on the JFK Assassination Forum elsewhere via use of an alias.

You chose to ignore the warnings, you pay the consequences.

That is all I have to say on the matter. If you wish to leave the forum permanently, just let me know.

Carry on!!

Duncan MacRae

I'm glad you are here Duncan and I'm glad you replied so I can tell my side of the story. YOU did NOT give me an explanation beyond saying I had been warned before. YOUR message also did NOT say I was ONLY banned for 28 days so how was I suppose to know this? Furthermore, this is quite excessive in my opinion since I have NOT been banned at all before and the normal standard FIRST BAN is for two weeks (that is your history with banning folks), so why am I being banned for 28 days?

Your comment of accusing others of posting on "other forums" under aliases is ridiculous since you are ONLY responsible for YOUR forum. My comment was about ACJ and what Paul May has done there. I NEVER said he was doing it on your forum. As for it being an "accusation" that is preposterous since he has admitted to using MANY ALIASES ON ACJ himself! So, when I said he has used aliased on ACJ I was TELLING THE TRUTH since he has admitted it! That is far from being an "accusation" as you claim. I think we see who is confused here Duncan (I won't say you are lying as you have many things to do beyond keeping track of this kind of stuff) and it is NOT me. I SIMPLY STATED THE TRUTH based on what Paul May has said to me in the past. YOUR warnings to me in the past were about accusing folks of using aliases on YOUR board, you never said, nor should you be policing, other boards.

What warning did I ignore? Why are you so protective of Paul May? YOU respond to things said to him in a flash, but his nasty comments draw no attention from you? WHY? When I first got there I was told you were a WC defender, but as you know I have always said you were fair to both sides, but that either changed about a year ago or you began to show your true side. Only you know the truth.

I am called many nasty things on your board Duncan and YOU have never taken action on my behalf like this. All I get is the same old stuff about having to let you know about it.

I do not wish to leave the forum permanently, but as you can see I am not going to spend all my time on it anymore. There are other boards and I have heard good things about this one. YOU can ban me for 28 days, but I think that is harsh based on the facts of the issue.

Also, you should give the person a chance to give their side instead of shutting them off with no way of asking anything as you did to me. Again, I assumed it was for good since your simple message gave NO time period.

Thanks for your reply.

Robert

The Warren Commission (WC) claimed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was killed by only one person firing from the rear of the limousine on 11/22/63, but as we have seen in the first two posts in this series their claim of how this was done is not valid. The Single Bullet Theory (SBT) does NOT hold up nor is there any evidence to show it really happened. What we find in the twenty-six volumes of evidence are many things that show it did NOT happen.

The statements contained in this post are in regards to the SBT, and once again, you will see this theory is NOT even remotely possible!

********************************************************

The WC relied heavily on one source for their conclusion and that was the [B]FBI Summary Report, which was quickly finished shortly after the assassination. The Report summarized the FBI's findings before January 1964 and showed the following statement on December 9, 1963, in regards to the autopsy findings:[/B]

Quote on

Medical examination of the President's body revealed that one of the bullets had entered just below his shoulder to the right of the spinal column at an angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward, that there was NO point of exit, and that the bullet was NOT in the body." (Commission Document 1 p. 18)

Quote off

On January 13, 1964, an [B]FBI Supplemental Report stated, in part:[/B]

Quote on

Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his BACK had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length." (Commission Document 107 p. 2)

Quote off

How would this vital information play into the WC's "investigation?" It wouldn't as it conflicted with the official conclusion of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) commiting the crime all by himself so it was disregarded. Thus, despite using the FBI's Report extensively to reach their conclusion the WC ignored the findings of the FBI in this key area and claimed a single bullet hit both JFK and Governor John B. Connally (JBC). The FBI never supported the SBT in the least as they claimed all three bullets hit either JFK or JBC. In fact, on page 1 of their Summary Report the following is written.

Quote on

As the motorcade was traveling through downtown Dallas on Elm Street about fifty yards west of the intersection with Houston Street (Exhibit 1), three shots rang out. TWO bullets STRUCK President Kennedy, and ONE WOUNDED Governor Connally. (FBI Summary Report, p. 1) (Emphasis added)

Quote off

The following is a brief summary of key points from James Sibert's deposition to the ARRB. Sibert is a former FBI agent who witnessed the unloading of the body from the casket and who witnessed the autopsy from a distance of a few feet.

* Sibert said he doubted the single-bullet theory (SBT) because the back wound was just too low on the back for it to be possible. (Deposition of James W. Sibert to ARRB, September 11, 1997, pp. 161-162). He added that another reason he doubted the SBT was what he saw when the pathologists probed the back wound (Deposition, p. 162).

* Sibert unequivocally placed the back wound below the scapula, i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade (Deposition, pp. 74-75, 114, 161-162).

* Sibert said the autopsy pathologists determined that the back wound had no point of exit. (Deposition, pp. 110-112, 118-119).

* Sibert said that the placement of the back wound below the scapula was both what he saw and that it was "the first location that Humes gave us," i.e., that that was the location Humes gave for the wound during the autopsy. (Deposition, pp. 161-162). (It should be noted that that location agrees with the location given for the wound on the autopsy face sheet.)

* Sibert noted that the back wound location's matched the holes in the back of the president's shirt and coat, and he rejected the theory that the shirt and coat bunched-up high enough to account for the location of the clothing holes, observing that the shirt would not have moved markedly even if Kennedy had raised his arm and that the president's back brace would have helped to hold the shirt in place (Deposition, p. 162).

The FBI further provided firm proof that the alleged "magic bullet" was NOT the one found at PH in 6/64 when the WC asked the FBI to establish the authenticity of CE399 and they were unable to, stating "they were unable to make a positive identification of the stretcher bullet (CE399) as the bullet FOUND on the day of the assassination."

Finally, we see that even WC member John McCloy did NOT believe CE-399 was the bullet found at Parkland Hospital!

Quote on

McCloy also questioned the Commission's account of a bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, where Kennedy and Connally were taken after being shot. "The statement concerning the bullet which was found on the stretcher is not particularly persuasive because there is no indication that the 'stretcher bullet' was in fact the bullet which caused the [Connally] wrist wound," he wrote.

Quote off

Once again, we see the WC's conclusion is sunk by the evidence in this case.

The Warren Commission (WC) said Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) acted alone in shooting and killing President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and wounding Governor John B. Connally (JBC). If this were so we would NOT have seen the statements and evidence we have seen in posts #35, #59, #107, #142, #143, #148, #167, Ruby's call to a friend saying "fireworks" would be happening in Dealey Plaza (DP) soon, and the comments made by Joseph Milteer to name some. There would be NO conjecture over whether the throat wound was one of entrance or exit either.

In this post we will see more statements that do NOT rule LHO out as a shooter (the evidence does that), but shows early on there was a belief that he had some help, but that these avenues were never really explored, let alone investigated.

********************************

In Commission Exhibit (CE) 2147, a press conference Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry held on Sunday, November 24, 1963, on page 771 we see the following exchange between Curry and the media.

Quote on

Q. Is there no doubt now [after LHO was shot] that nobody else is involved as an accomplice?

Curry. I would NOT make that statement.

Q. Do you have any possible---?

Curry. I wouldn't comment on it because I would certainly hate to say we're convinced that nobody else is involved and then have somebody else involved.

Q. Have you talked with anybody besides this fellow Molina who might conceivably have a role---?

Curry. I don't want to comment on that. (Emphasis added)

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc..._0395a.htm

Quote off

Who were the other people they were considering? Why was this not mentioned by the Dallas Police Department (DPD), the District Attorney's Office (DA) or the WC? All we have to go on is the slim record of Molina and Wesley Frazier who was given a stress test. It would have been nice to know who else was being considered. Keep in mind, this was after the killing of LHO and way past the point of President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) calling and saying no one else was involved (see #34).

We get some more information concerning this in Henry Wade's WC testimony.

Senator COOPER. But leave Ruby out now for a moment, did anyone ever tell you that Oswald was connected with persons other than Ruby in the assassination of President Kennedy?

Have you heard the names of any other persons who it is claimed had something to do with the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. WADE. I don't know of any names. Of course, like I said there was the head of the Fair Play for Cuba, whatever his name was, was mentioned. Everything I know on that score was from the police. When I went up there Friday night and again I believe it was Saturday night or Sunday, they told me that they just talked like he was the biggest Communist, they had all kinds of evidence that he was a Communist, and that he was working with other people.

As we have seen in several posts in this series there was NOT an ounce of evidence that showed LHO was a Communist or a member of the Communist party (see #56, #57, #94, question 3, etc…), so why were they so fast to brandish him as being one? Notice Wade mentions the "head of the Fair Play for Cuba" and we all know this was A. Hidell. LHO said he was contacted by A. Hidell and given assignments and Wade is acting like it was NOT LHO using an alias too. Why did the WC not find it odd that he did NOT know the names of those they were considering beyond LHO or find someone who did know the names?

Senator COOPER. Of course, once Oswald was killed, then your duties were connected with the prosecution of Ruby.

Mr. WADE. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. And there wasn't any occasion for you then to search out----

Mr. WADE. I had this, Senator.

Senator COOPER. Other persons.

Mr. WADE. I had this, Senator, I had this, when he was killed and they tried to give me the files, I told them no, to give them to the FBI because we couldn't try him, and I went to work on Ruby and actually wouldn't know it.

From what I picked up it appeared to me there was no question that he received his inspiration on this and maybe other help from somewhere.

Here Wade is saying he had NO doubt LHO received inspiration and possibly assistance in his alleged killing of JFK. So again, why do we NOT know who this inspiration and possible help came from?

Senator COOPER. That is what I am driving at here. You know there have been statements made that other persons could have been connected with Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy.

Do you have any facts to give the Commission which would bear upon that question that any person other than Oswald was in any way connected with the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. WADE. I have no facts that I can give you on it. It is one of these things, and the reason I gave you what my opinion on the thing was, I have read what the U.S. World News and Report said the Commission is going to say, and also this deal out in Japan, you know, where they said that he was not instantaneous, impulsive, I believe, killer of the President, which sounded silly to me.

I mean he planned the thing. He practiced shooting, and he had his inspiration from somebody else.

As we have seen in previous posts there is NO evidence LHO ever practiced with a rifle (#64, #155 & #157), let alone the alleged murder weapon, so what is Wade basing his comment on? There is also NO evidence that LHO "planned the thing" either as we have seen in numerous posts in this series as the WC failed totally in showing this was a premeditated act. Again, what is Wade using to base these comments on?

Notice he says again he got his INSPIRATION FROM SOMEONE ELSE, but who?

Mr. WADE. Whether he had a--was working with someone, I don't know. I never did know, it was rumored all over town that they had an airplane there to carry him out of town. I am sure you all have checked into that but I never know whether they did or not.

There seemed to have been something misfired in the thing if there was anybody tried to get it. I don't think there was anybody with him in the shooting but what you are getting at is if there was anyone back of him.

I always felt that the minimum was an inspiration from some cause, and the maximum was actual pay, but like you asked for evidence, I don't have any.

Why is he "wondering" about all of this when he could have had the DPD investigate these issues? Ditto the WC? Shouldn't we, the American people, know about these possibilities and know that our law enforcement agencies investigated them fully instead of "wondering" about them? I would think so, but we are left with "wondering" instead. How can he have NO evidence to present one way or the other IF they investigated these possibilities?

To me these comments again show there is more to the story than what the WC concluded (LHO acted all by himself with no help) and create REASONABLE DOUBT. It also shows once more that the evidence in the twenty-six volumes does NOT support the claims in the Report and in fact sink their conclusion.

The Warren Commission (WC) claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was the sole killer of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) and presented some pieces of evidence in their Report to try and show this was correct. One of the pieces of evidence the WC, and its current day defenders, use is the fibers allegedly found on the butt plate of the alleged murder weapon that came from LHO's shirt. They said, and say, this shows he used the rifle on 11/22/63. Of course it doesn't prove that as he could have simply brought the rifle into the building and left it for someone else, but this is lost on them.

As we have seen in posts #8 and #11 LHO did NOT carry any package into the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) based on the evidence. We also saw in those posts that he did NOT make any bag from TSBD materials as the WC claimed either. The evidence also shows us the FBI claimed to have damaged the bag while testing it so a REPLICA was shown to witnesses instead of the alleged original bag allegedly found in the TSBD. I say allegedly as we have seen there was NO bag photographed in situ, no mention of a bag matching the description given to us by the WC by any cop and no mention of a bag on an inventory log of evidence. The bag seems to have been invisible and all we got was a DOTTED LINE from the WC showing us where it was supposedly found.

We also saw in #18 that neither of the two people who claimed to see the bag/package (Wes Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle) described it in terms of the way the WC did. They both described a bag TOO SMALL to carry a rifle the size of the Mannlicher-Carcano in iteven broken down in half!

Finally, in post #96 we saw the six cops that the WC defenders claimed saw the bag did NOT really see the bag! None of them described a bag that matched what the WC claimed LHO used.

In post #7 of this series we looked at the shirt fiber issue and saw the FBI expert for the WC, Paul Stombaugh, could NOT say the fibers found on the butt of the alleged murder weapon matched LHO's shirt to the exclusion of all other similar shirts. Thus, even if LHO was wearing the shirt he was arrested in this proved nothing, but alas, there is evidence showing he did what he claimed he didchanged shirts at his rooming house.

*********************************

The first indication of this change is from LHO, via a FBI report dated November 25, 1963, which the WC would mark as Commission Exhibit (CE) 1988. On page 19 of this report we see the following statement:

Quote on

He stated that after arriving at his apartment, he CHANGED his shirt and trousers because they were dirty. He described his dirty clothes as being a reddish colored, long sleeved, shirt with a button-down collar and gray colored trousers. (Emphasis added)

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc..._0019a.htm

Quote off

LHO said he changed his shirt when he got to his apartment. We can find some corroboration for this in the testimony of Dallas Police Officer Marrion Baker. He would say this about the shirt he saw when he confronted LHO in the TSBD.

Mr. BELIN - Did you notice what clothes the man was wearing as he came up to you?

Mr. BAKER - At that particular time I was looking at his face, and it seemed to me like he had a light brown jacket on and maybe some kind of white-looking shirt.

Anyway, as I noticed him walking away from me, it was kind of dim in there that particular day, and it was hanging out to his side.

Mr. BELIN - Handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 150, would this appear to be anything that you have ever seen before?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I believe that is the shirt that he had on when he came. I wouldn't be sure of that. It seemed to me like that other shirt was a little bit darker than that whenever I saw him in the homicide office there.

Here Baker is saying the shirt he saw LHO in at the TSBD was a "little bit darker" than the one he would see LHO in at the police station after he was arrested. The WC would continue to try and show he saw CE-150 (brown shirt) on LHO as this was the shirt he was wearing when he was arrested.

Mr. BELIN - What about when you saw him in the School Book Depository Building, does this look familiar as anything he was wearing, if you know?

Mr. BAKER - I couldn't say whether that was--it seemed to me it was a light-colored brown but I couldn't say it was that or not.

Mr. DULLES - Lighter brown did you say, I am just asking what you said. I couldn't quite hear.

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; all I can remember it was in my recollection of it it was a light brown jacket.

Mr. BELIN - Are you referring to this Exhibit 150 as being similar to the jacket or similar to the shirt that you saw or, if not, similar to either one?

Mr. BAKER - Well, it would be similar in color to it--I assume it was a jacket, it was hanging out. Now, I was looking at his face and I wasn't really paying any attention. After Mr. Truly said he knew him, so I didn't pay any attention to him, so I just turned and went on.

Mr. BELIN - Now, you did see him later at the police station, is that correct?

Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN - Was he wearing anything that looked like Exhibit 150 at the police station?

Mr. BAKER - He did have a brown-type shirt on that was out.

Mr. BELIN - Did it appear to be similar to any clothing you had seen when you saw him at the School Book Depository Building?

Mr. BAKER - I could have mistaken it for a jacket, but to my recollection it was a little colored jacket, that is all I can say.

It is clear to me this was NOT the same shirt LHO was arrested in (CE-150) as otherwise Baker would have agreed with the WC's obvious intentions. Don't forget, the police testify FOR the prosecution and the WC was the prosecution in this case, but we see he refused to ID CE-150 as the shirt LHO was wearing when he confronted him in the TSBD. This at the very least gives support to LHO's claim of changing shirts. Also, keep in mind this fact, the DPD was NOT sharing their evidence with LHO so he had NO way of knowing the DPD would claim to find shirt fibers on the butt plate of the alleged murder weapon, thus, LHO had NO reason to lie about the simple act of changing shirts. In other words, why would LHO lie about this and make it up IF he did NOT do it?

The logical thing for the WC to do would have been to ask Roy Truly about the shirt he saw since he was with Baker, but they WC never did this! Why?

Based on this evidence and what Paul Stombaugh testified to:

Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.

We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."

…there is NO way to doubt LHO and call him a liar for his statement of changing shirts. This means the following, the Dallas Police Department (DPD) claimed to find fibers from a shirt LHO was NOT wearing at the time of the assassination on the butt plate of the rifle. How did this happen?

I think we see yet again the evidence in the twenty-six volumes sink the WC's conclusion.

It's good to see you here Rob, yet your series about sinking the WC conclusions is WAY beyond preaching to the choir here....

There are few if any WCR apologists here.... I'm a friend and supporter of your posting and contributions Rob... but I am sure you will be met with great amounts of silence here if you feel it your duty to ONCE AGAIN lay out the WCR shortcomings and explain it to us as if we were the same bunch of bewildered sheep hunting and pecking on that other Forum. (Giving it it's due... the imagery analysis and reconstruction accomplished on that Forum is at times simply amazing. The work of Chris Davidson from the initial work of Tom Purvis has helped me understand how the Zfilm and other films were manipulated and are able to sync)

The Cointelpro techniques utilized by a handful of LNer posters on that forum is so obvious as to be absurd.
The vigilance against and awareness of those that only disrupt... or come with an obvious agenda based on these techniques are simply not tolerated here.... and it's a welcome sanctuary.

There's disagreement here for sure.... but not over whether the WCR was the POS it was... or the HSCA and other related attempts to cover-up were what they are....

So I'd suggest Rob, that you take a little time and acquaint yourself with the key players here, their POV's and their styles.
They have helped me see past the minutia (ala Salandria) and concentrate on the details of the cover-up/conspiracy as opposed to the daunting task of piecing together a 1000 puzzle from a barrel of 100,000 pieces... not knowing if ANY of the Original 1000 pieces from the puzzle are even there.

Who created the 1000 piece puzzle....
who removed/replaced the actual pieces with those we have now... and
who added the other 90,000 pieces to hide what was left of the 1000.... ?

.... and then. Who told them to do it, when and how.

The enjoyment of reading threads here is unmatched anywhere....
IMO, your contributions will be viewed and commented upon as long as it's not about that which is so painfully obvious.

Based on the evidence Rob, we both know that CE399 came into being in the office of Director Rowley... ARRB's MD149 states that Johnson brought CE399 to "BULAB" (FBI/Frazier)... yet the puzzle pieces tell us that Todd got it from Rowley and brought it to Frazier...(MD149 surfaces 35 years later) The telex reiterates the shallow, non-transiting back wound where a bullet falls out of the wound. We KNOW this. But this CAN'T be CE399...

The real question is WHO shot the bullet into water, WHEN, and how did it get to Rowley to give to Todd...... all evidence of advanced planning. With CE399 in the record and no other contrary evidence... the FACILITATORS got what they wanted... evidence in the record tying the rifle to Oswald and the bullet to the rifle.

Authenticating the details of this, or any other theory, is what makes this forum so special IMO....

Cheers
DJ

DPF members - I've merged all the threads entitled "Statements that sink the Warren Commission", already numbered up to #172, into one thread.

Rob - please keep these posts and any new such statements in one thread.

Multiple threads are akin to spam. Thanking you in advance.