CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS
"Commonly held opinions are seldom subjected to close scrutiny."
Unknown
The Right
Way or the Rahn Way?
In my opinion, those who still
defend the Warren Commission conclusions (13% in a
March, 2001 Gallup poll) look at the situation from what is
a biased and incorrect viewpoint. The error stems from the fact
that they refuse to concede or even consider that the Warren
Commission conclusions are based on evidence which is no less
circumstantial and far more suspect than anything that supports
the belief in a conspiracy.
Requiring “hard evidence” of a conspiracy is hypocritical when one realizes that they who defend the lone gunman scenario know full well that there is nothing within the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission study that can:
a)
definitely place Lee Harvey Oswald, to the exclusion of all other
people, on the 6th floor
of the Texas School Book Depository at 12:35PM on November 22,
1963
b) solidly
prove that the single bullet theory is fact and not
supposition
c) prove
that whomever fired on November 22, 1963 acted alone
d) prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that any of the ballistically
identifiable bullet and/or fragments allegedly recovered
(including CE 399, the so-called magic bullet) actually impacted
with John F. Kennedy.
Warren Commission supporters maintain that the evidence presented was accurate and truthful, while they never admit to the fact that, when taken as a whole, it is all circumstantial, even if taken at face value. To further what they believe, they misrepresent, ignore or disregard that which tends to contradict their position. They also use whatever academic and/or professional standing they may have to help promote their stances on various assassination related issues, especially when dealing with those who do not possess such credentials. It appears that they use this as a form of intimidation to both add credence to whatever point they are attempting to make, and to lessen the effect that any layman counter-argument may have. They also seem to avoid most one-on-one confrontations with those of equal stature.
Dr. Kenneth A. Rahn, who teaches a course at the University of Rhode Island on critical thinking, uses the assassination as the basis for his course. As part of his syllabus on the course Dr. Rahn points out the following:
The vast majority of students of the JFK assassination have started before they were properly prepared. It is a cruel fact of the JFK assassination that fully understanding the power of its evidence requires far more of the student than most crimes do. To illustrate this critical point, I have prepared a preliminary list of steps that potential researchers must follow if they are to properly interpret the evidence. All steps are required—eliminating even one will seriously weaken the resulting interpretation. Although some parts of the sequence may be rearranged, this order is close to the optimal one. Roughly speaking, the first five steps are preparatory and the last five are actual.
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC404/Spring2001/Ten-step_pgm.html
This "ten-step plan" as he calls it, appears on the surface to be promoting the type evaluation in which I believe. As such, when Dr. Rahn contacted me and attempted, several years ago, to enlist my website into his course study I initially agreed, only to withdraw my approval after further examining the somewhat less than subtle, and in my opinion, unethical way Dr. Rahn "channels" the thinking of his students. Instead of an in-depth review, it appeared to me that Dr. Rahn and his alleged critical thinking review was as biased as anyone’s (something he denied in e-mail correspondence with me, where he claimed to be agnostic in his beliefs) based on what was shown in the "further thoughts" section of his course outline:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC404/Spring2001/Further_thoughts.html
Obviously, when the “teacher” puts statements like that into a course outline, the direction of that course has already been determined. As such, the students in the class already know what is necessary…though not necessarily correct…to obtain a good grade. Challenging a tenured professor’s stated opinion would hardly help achieve a good mark, and most students understand that. Others attempting to debate aspects of the assassination might also feel intimidated, confronted by the prestige of his professional standing.
Despite his stated position of being “agnostic”, as you can see from his own words, Dr. Rahn has obviously become one of the staunchest of the “lone gunman” advocates. He always backs that stance when he enters debates of the merits of the lone gunman scenario with others through various on-line newsgroups.
As part of my research, I contacted Dr. Rahn in June 2001, to see if he'd reconsidered his stated position in the aftermath of Dr. Donald B. Thomas' March 2001, peer-reviewed article on his statistical re-evaluation of the acoustics evidence which had initially led the HSCA to determine that more than one shooter had been involved. Dr. Thomas' scientific analyses had placed the probability that the fatal shot was fired from the grassy knoll area at 96%. Based on that high degree of probability, I was interested in Dr. Rahn’s take on the article. Since Dr. Rahn is also a man of science, I wanted to know if Dr. Thomas’ statistical evaluation was sufficient to sway his opinion, or if he still had a scientific basis to maintain the lone gunman conclusion.
Dr. Rahn informed me that, despite what I (as a layman) might consider to be scientific evidence to dispute point 2 above (There is an overwhelming absence of evidence that anyone else was involved), his position was unchanged because of his general lack of belief in the acoustics evidence. He then outlined the "problems" as he saw them, not once giving any “scientific” reasoning.
Disappointed, I expressed my feelings that he had not presented a single shred of scientific data that could either support his position or challenge Dr. Thomas’ conclusions. Dr. Rahn did not reply.
I then forwarded Dr. Rahn's observations directly to Dr. Thomas for his comment, and to make certain that I was not missing something “scientific” in his response.
Below are the key excerpts showing the positions of each:
Rahn and Thomas on the Acoustic Evidence
June
2001
RAHN: First, its origin is strongly in doubt. The purported motorcyclist wasn't even allowed to hear "his own" recording.
THOMAS: That McLain was not allowed to hear his own recording, if so, is irrelevant. McLain testified that he was probably on channel one and that he had trouble with a sticky microphone. He identified himself in pictures as a motorcycle in the motorcade. Those are relevant points. What having him listen or not allowing him to listen to the tape would gain? He doesn't make any oral broadcast, so what is the point?
(see below for the HSCA Report excerpts on this)
RAHN: It contains apparent crosstalk and sounds not from Dealey Plaza.
THOMAS:
Yes it does (contain crosstalk), thankfully.
That is how we know that the alleged gunshot sounds on the tape
are exactly synchronous with the shooting. Why does that
make the evidence invalid?
I know of no such evidence (of sounds not of Dealey Plaza). It is often alleged that the carillon bell on the recording is not in Dealey Plaza, but it has long been known that a carillon bell was audible in Dealey Plaza, at least it was in 1964 (it was captured on tapes made by news teams visiting the site on Nov 22, 1964) and Gary Mack spoke to a witness who claims that on the day of Kennedy's visit it was "playing hail to the chief." Apparently it was in a bank about 12 blocks away. I don't know what other sounds he means.
It would help if Dr. Rahn's criticisms were more specific.
RAHN: Second, it is a series of clicks and pops that have to be deeply analyzed by computer to get anywhere. Shots cannot be heard by ear.
THOMAS:
I am a little confused here. The clicks and pops are audible and
they are the alleged gunshots.
The sounds were analyzed by spectrograph and oscillograph. They were also digitized and fed into a computer. I don't understand specifically why he thinks the analysis done by BBN and WA was not adequate. The NRC panel didn't do anything that BBN had not already done.
Again Dr. Rahn needs to be specific.
RAHN: There are too many blind steps between noise and alleged shots.
THOMAS: The proper way to determine if a recorded sound is, or is not a gunshot is to record a gunshot under the same environmental conditions as the suspect sound was allegedly recorded, and then compare the physical characteristics of those sounds: e.g. the amplitude, frequency, waveform and the time-history of the impulsive components of those sounds. That is what BBN and WA did and no one knowledgeable of acoustic science, including the NRC panel, has ever criticized the methods used by the HSCA experts as Rahn is apparently doing. He should be more explicit in his criticism. What "blind steps" is he talking about?
As a point of fact the same methods (echo location) have been applied in other cases of recorded gunfire to determine the position of the shooter, the most notable being the Kent State shooting and the Commie-Klan shoot out in Greenville, North Carolina.
RAHN:
Third, it results in an invisible shooter firing a
disappearing weapon that left no bullets or fragments to be
found. That is no way to prove a conspiracy.
THOMAS:I suggest that Professor Rahn needs to review the evidence a little more deeply. But these are non-acoustic issues so I will leave those aside.
*********************************************************************************************
Excepts from the HSCA Report:
Following the hearing, the committee secured a copy of the daily assignment sheet for motorcycles from the Dallas Police Department and found that McClain had been assigned motorcycle number 352 and call sign 155 on November 22, 1963.(82) preliminary photographic enhancement of the films taken on Houston and Main Streets indicated that the number on the rear of the motorcycle previously identified as having been ridden by McLain was, in fact, 352. (83)
He further stated that he was the officer in the photographs taken of the motorcade on Main and Houston Streets, and that at the time of the assassination he would have been in the approximate position of the open microphone near the corner of Houston and Elm, indicated by the acoustical analysis. (76) He did not recall using his radio during the motorcade nor what channel it was tuned to on that day. (77) He stated it usually was tuned to channel one. (78) The button on his transmitter receiver, he acknowledged, often got stuck in the "on" position when he was unaware of it, but he did not know if it was stuck during the motorcade. (79)
The acoustical analysis pinpointing the location of the microphone, the confirmation of the location of the motorcycle by photographs, his own testimony as to his location, and his slowing his motorcycle as it rounded the corner of Houston and Elm (as had been previously indicated by the acoustical analysis),(92) and the likelihood that McLain did not leave the plaza immediately, but legged behind momentarily after the assassination, led the committee to conclude it was Officer McLain whose radio microphone switch was stuck open.
(HSCA
Report pgs 76-79)
Since Dr. Thomas’ response seemed to be addressing the same points that I had brought up previously with Dr. Rahn and, sensing some confusion on Dr. Thomas’ part as to what the actual “objections” were, I forwarded Dr. Thomas' responses to Dr. Rahn asking for additional comment and/or clarification. Unfortunately, Dr. Rahn has so far declined to further comment or clarify them. He did however, state in an e-mail on June 22, 2001, that he was both "surprised and disappointed" that I had "breached etiquette" by forwarding his comments to Dr. Thomas, as they were for me, and me alone. He then went on to say that he writes differently depending on the background of the individual with whom he's dealing and that he "was writing to (me) in an aggrieved, abbreviated manner because of the tone of (my) previous communication to me." He did not explain what he meant by "writing differently"...is it merely the wording or is it also the content?
He then went on to say:
I have no idea whether I will carry on this correspondence. You certainly have put a bad taste in my mouth over the whole thing. Anyhow, I never intended to be drawn into a long back-and-forth over acoustics, which is not one of my strong areas within the JFK assassination.
It becomes necessary to point out that when someone challenges the validity of an argument, regardless of the forum they choose, they should be prepared to be called on it. This is especially true when that someone is granted a high level of credibility because of their perceived intelligence and/or academic or professional standing. It is also considered by many to be somewhat cowardly to only be willing to challenge that argument to "others" and not to the author. I responded to Dr. Rahn advising him that he now had the opportunity to clarify his position and provide a scientific basis to support it.
Dr. Rahn teaches a course on the assassination and is considered by some to be one of the experts on it. His initial reply to me stated that he'd comment because it was "so easy to deal with." As such, one wonders why he would have seemed so put out by my having Dr. Thomas review his comments.
Surprisingly,
when someone of equal stature was brought in, the "easy
to deal with" argument changed. Now the acoustics
evidence is "...not one of my strong areas of the
JFK assassination."
But it was strong enough for him to“ so easily” dismiss its validity to me. Is that because I may seem more easily coerced by his academic standing? His lack of response after being reminded that he now had the opportunity to clarify his stance seems to back that impression.
Only you can be the judge of the validity of Dr. Rahn's conduct and criticism of this part of the evidence. You can also judge my conduct in showing what his tactics truly are.
(Click here for the actual e-mail exchange with Rahn)
This exchange is posted here, not so much for its value as evidence (although that in and of itself would have been more than enough to warrant it...and that was my original intent), but more to show the tactics used many times by those who continue to defend the lone gunman scenario (such tactics are not limited to Dr. Rahn). Here we have two men of science with opposite views in a key area of the controversy, and an excellent chance to really clarify a point of contention.
One of them, Dr. Thomas was not the least put out that Dr. Rahn was commenting. In fact he said to me, "...I welcome receiving comments such as those made by Professor Rahn." I always found Dr. Thomas most accommodating to every question I posed (and there were a great many) and not at all reluctant to express his views to me. He also went to great lengths to explain the technical aspects of the acoustics methods and findings, and quote verifiable facts to back the conclusions.
Dr. Rahn on the other hand, took my first query as "borderline-snide" and, while more than willing to dissect the evidence using generalized opinion for me, the layman, is so far unwilling to take on Dr. Thomas. One is led to believe that he would most likely use similar tactics while "teaching" his course. In that case, his indentured students might feel forced to concede points that someone less intimated by his title or with less on the line might not.
Dr. Rahn also shows tendencies to utilize curt opinion, backed by nothing, as fact, especially to we "laymen" who are unlikely, in his opinion, to be able to adequately challenge him. Such tactics would serve him well defending the WC in an arena of laymen, like a newsgroup, where many might tend to feel his credentials make his arguments more valid. I believe the above exchange shows them to be otherwise.
In
all fairness, I feel it necessary to say that I
do not respect Dr. Rahn or his methods in
this arena. As such, my comments need to be viewed from that
perspective. I readily concede that personal feelings ALWAYS make
a totally objective review impossible. I feel quite strongly that
Dr. Rahn attempted to use my website as "fodder" for
his teachings, without my (or any
knowledgeable conspiracy advocate) being
there to defend and clarify it, nor challenge Dr. Rahn's
positions. I also believe that he attempted to do that by trying
to mislead me as to his leanings and intentions. On top of that,
I find it quite galling that he would then have the audacity to
accuse me of breeching etiquette.
We should hold our educators to high standards in their methodology. They influence many potential leaders and are looked up to by the masses of the populace. As such, they must be totally objective, something apparently lost in this case. Anything less than complete integrity risks creating and perpetuating a false history.
The above was posted on two of the assassination newsgroups and Dr. Rahn responded. Since my desire is to always be fair, I have added a link to Dr. Rahn’s response.
Editorial over, lets get back to what we were doing...
We have now reviewed virtually all of the physical evidence on which the WC conclusions were supposedly based, and have discussed, in detail, the problems with it that, in my opinion, show beyond any doubt that the case against LHO as presented by the Warren Commission was fabricated. Let's now look at the case from the other, and opposite, viewpoint in order to double-check the conclusions.
If the Warren Commission Report was correct in its conclusions, then ALL of the following would have to be true. To defend that conclusion you must be able to explain, and believe in, each one of these statements:
1) The motorcade route through Dallas was accidentally set up to bring JFK, traveling at an extremely slow speed, within rifle range of LHO at the TSBD, the only time in recorded history that a major political figure was assassinated by someone who was unaided by others, not an insider and did not need to stalk his victim. Dallas SAIC Forrest Sorrels did this, accidentally, in direct violation of the strict Secret Service presidential motorcade security protocol.
2) LHO did not adequately plan for an escape prior to the attempt, since he left a considerable amount of money in Irving and his pistol at his Oak Cliff room. The money could have been used to leave Dallas immediately and the pistol may have been needed to escape the TSBD, had the security forces reacted properly. The failure to take the pistol is unfathomable since his only other weapon, the rifle, contained a maximum of 4 rounds of ammunition.
3) CE 139, the rifle, was transported by LHO to the TSBD, in a paper bag that showed no signs of any gun oil nor any evidence that the rifle had ever been inside it, despite bouncing around on the back seat of Buell Frazier's car all the way from Irving and while the bag was allegedly recovered on the 6th floor of the TSBD, it shows up in no police or media photographs or newsreel films where it was allegedly found.
4) Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle, the only two people to see that package, were both wrong in their estimates about the length of the bag that they saw.
5) All of the eyewitnesses who claimed to see one or more armed men in the 6th floor window of the TSBD before 12:15PM are wrong, since Oswald was seen elsewhere at that time.
6) Since Bonnie Ray Williams testified that he was eating his fried chicken and soda lunch on the 6th floor until at least 12:15PM (WC III, 168-175), we must believe that between 12:15PM and 12:30PM, LHO went from the 1st floor, where he was observed, to the 6th floor, unseen by anyone, retrieved his rifle, lined up his targets, fired 3 shots, and, within a maximum of 90 seconds, wiped the gun clean of prints, sprinted across the floor, hid the rifle, ran down 4 flights of stairs past another employee who didn't see nor hear him, found some change, bought, opened and started to drink a Coke, and was confronted by Officer Marrion Baker, without appearing nervous nor winded. While escaping he managed to run past at least 2 people who did not see him.
7) The numerous witnesses (including 10 Dallas Sheriff's Deputies) who, through the use of one or more of their senses, believed that some shots came from places other than the 6th floor of the TSBD, are all incorrect.
8) The reaction of JFK's head immediately after the impact of the fatal bullet is caused by "neuromuscular spasm" rather than Newton's Laws of Motion and it is normal that the rest of his body did not react to this spasm. Yet, this spasm was so intense that it more than overcame the momentum from the bullet.
9) The debris from JFK's head, including the "Harper Fragment", went back and to the left for reasons that overruled Newton's Laws of Momentum. If we conclude that the HSCA findings are accurate, all this debris came from an exit wound in the right front of Kennedy's head, yet went to the left rear of his position. If the "jet effect" theory, used to explain Kennedy's rearward head movement is correct, the debris which shot out of the right front of his head, somehow splattered the DPD motorcycle cops to the left rear of the limousine instead of the Connallys and Secret Service agents in front of JFK.
10) Oswald achieved 2 hits in three shots, and the one shot that missed, missed by at least 30 feet high and 21 feet to the right of his target. He achieved this while using a rifle with a misaligned scope that needed two metal shims, was mounted for a left-handed shooter and judged inaccurate at 15 yards, and possessing a firing pin so rusted that experts were later afraid to dry fire it.
11) He fired these 3 shots in 5.6 seconds.
12) He obtained this accuracy despite no evidence of ever practicing with the rifle (or ANY bolt-action rifle), owning any of the equipment necessary to maintain it, nor leaving any record of ever buying any ammunition to have practiced with.
13) Those people who saw someone believed to be Oswald, under highly visible circumstances, when he was documented to be elsewhere, are incorrect about either when it occurred or what they saw, and that these sightings could not possibly be an attempt by anyone to impersonate, and incriminate, LHO.
14) The 3 law enforcement officers who identified the rifle they found as a "7.65mm Mauser" in sworn statements they made, were all mistaken and the 5 reports that had descriptions of the rifle originally found but were missing from the files turned over to the Commission, were of no importance.
15) Despite the fact that the FBI's hand-picked experts, the HSCA Firearms Panel's experts , and numerous other experts around the world could never duplicate the shooting accuracy needed, within the time frame needed, using CE 139 in its original condition, LHO did it, under incredible pressure, on his first and only possible attempt.
16) CE 399, the "magic bullet", did all that it was alleged to do and yet, it retained all but 1/180 of an ounce of its original weight, was virtually pristine and totally devoid of any fabric striations or human matter. In addition, despite the fact that the first 4 people to handle the bullet found on the stretcher could not later identify CE 399 as that bullet, it was.
17) Despite the fact that basic trigonometry does not support the possibility for CE 399 to have wounded both men, it still did.
18) The observations of the placement of the wounds as seen by the attending medical personnel at Parkland Hospital are wrong since they disagree with the autopsy photographs and X-rays. It is therefore necessary to believe that a number of qualified doctors and nurses attempted to treat JFK while NOT KNOWING where his most prominent wound was.
19) The autopsy face sheet, death certificate, bullet holes in JFK's jacket and shirt, and FBI report and later re-enactment photographs, while all in agreement with each other, are incorrect in regards to the placement of the non-fatal wound. So is the autopsy report itself, since it agrees with neither its supporting documents and physical evidence, nor the autopsy photographs and X-rays.
20) The fatal head wound entered and exited through the back of JFK's head (autopsy report CE 391) unless it exited to the right front of his head (HSCA Medical Panel; X-rays) where it shattered his forehead to the base of the eye socket and did so without showing sufficient visible damage to be seen in the autopsy photographs.
21) The FBI report statement that Dr. Humes initially noted that there had been, "surgery of the head area, namely in the top of the skull", is wrong.
22) All other information and conclusions derived from the original autopsy in regards to the direction of the shots is correct, despite the HSCA review of the autopsy photographs and X-rays which concluded that the non-fatal wound placement was off by 2" and the fatal bullet entrance wound being off by at least 4".
23) The HSCA testimony of Drs. Humes and Boswell shows them in agreement with the HSCA placement of the wounds and acknowledges their autopsy report mistakes in this regard.
24) HSCA exhibits F-53 and F-56, head X-rays of the President, are not in conflict with any of the autopsy photographs.
25) The fatal bullet caused damage to the scalp and brain remarkably similar to the surgery performed by pathologists while performing an autopsy, and used to recover fragments. Yet, only two of the fragments that caused them could be recovered and neither could be matched ballistically.
26) All of the witnesses who stated that they were told to remain quiet about what they knew or saw, or claimed that their actual testimony was misrepresented in the government studies, were lying or in error, and were not coerced or pressured by the conscious efforts of investigators intent on blaming Oswald.
27) Jack Ruby's actions after he murdered LHO, including his demeanor before and after being told that Oswald was dead, his statements to Earl Warren and others, and his multiple requests to be taken to Washington so that he could "tell the truth" meant nothing of importance.
28) The "Secret Service" impostors found near the picket fence on the knoll by the DPD, and earlier observed there by other witnesses, had nothing to do with the assassination or simply, never existed.
29) Despite the documented admissions of senior FBI and CIA officials that they would have suppressed any evidence uncovered that pointed to a conspiracy, they did not do so.
30) LHO also became the first major assassin in history to use public transportation to make his getaway from the scene of the crime.
31) Despite having the opportunity, means and ability to immediately leave Dallas unhindered by police, he elected to go back to his room and subsequently on to the Texas Theater, for no apparent reason.
32) In the end, it was more important for the Warren Commission to interview people who were acquainted with LHO when he was 12, than to interview all of the 200 people present in Dealey Plaza during the assassination.
33) The conclusions of the ARRB military documents expert, Douglas Horne, that 2 brain examinations were done on 2 different specimens, and the use of the examination of the wrong specimen for the record, are erroneous, despite the multitude of contradictions in recollections and FBI Special Agent Francis O'Neill's sworn statement that the brain photographs housed in the National Archives are not that of President Kennedy.
34) The multiple "coincidences" that pervade in this episode are just that, coincidences.
Not just some, but all of these items must be fact in order to support the lone gunman theory the government studies' conclusions said was correct. While there may be plausible arguments about some of these points that might allow us to eliminate them, are they ALL believable? Add this to our equation. If you still believe that the government conclusions are indeed true, we have yet another review from your side to consider.
Henry Wade's "Can't Lose" Case
Dallas district attorney Henry Wade, on the afternoon of Sunday November 24, 1963, hours after Jack Ruby had murdered Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of Dallas Police Headquarters, held a news conference to discuss the case that he felt he had against LHO and would now never have to test in a court of law. This appears to be an excellent place in our investigation to review and, on behalf of the historical perception of Oswald, challenge his case. He laid it out in 10 points. We'll take them one at a time, including the point referring to the charge of murdering J.D. Tippit, even though that's not the case we are pursuing. Many WCR supporters and the report itself have stated that only if LHO had killed JFK would he have also killed Tippit. That point of view assumes far too many things; like if he did it and why he did it if he did. Also, only a fool would assume that guilt in one meant guilt in the other. Despite the Warren Commission conclusion, our laws are very clear in this area.
Wade's "case" was spelled out and never subjected to cross-examination. The Warren Commission as evidenced by Rankin's internal memo of early January, 1964 used these same basic accusations, again without cross-examination, as the basis for their conclusions...the conclusions that condemned Oswald to be known as Kennedy's assassin.
I think it’s more than time for us to cross-examine the "case".
(Note: the highly effective format used below is borrowed from Dr. Walt Brown's book The People v Lee Harvey Oswald)
Wade's case stated:
1) Several people saw a man with a gun on the 6th floor of the TSBD at the time of the assassination.
Agreed. There were far too many witnesses who saw someone on the 6th floor to not believe that someone was there. However, no one could say it was Oswald, several described someone who in no way resembled him, and a number of witnesses saw more than one person. Multiple people in the windows on that floor are also backed by photographic evidence.
2) The boxes created an excellent nest and gun rest.
So? There was work being done up there to lay a new floor. Boxes were piled up everywhere. Since the pictures taken during the search are not necessarily showing the boxes as they were first found, we cannot be sure what they actually looked like or the real reason that they did.
Additionally, photographs taken of the alleged sniper's window SECONDS before and after the shots were fired show a marked change in the number of boxes visible. This means that someone OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald changed the configuration in the seconds after the fatal shot(s). Since the timeframes needed to do this could not include the man seen a maximum of 90 seconds later on the SECOND floor, we must surmise that either Oswald had help or wasn't involved.
3) LHO's palm print was found on a box.
Unfortunately, the FBI could not positively match the print to LHO. Even if they had, he worked there filling orders from books in the boxes, his prints should be there, for completely legitimate reasons!
Also, it remains, in my opinion, odd that more of Oswald's fingerprints were not found on the other boxes...if he indeed used them to create a "nest". There were approximately 40 boxes in that area. If the theory is correct, the "nest" was obviously created in haste by one man, who undoubtedly would have been tired (and sweating) from lifting all those boxes (average weight over 30lbs) in a short period of time...certainly one should expect multiple fingerprints on multiple boxes, since he would have obviously handled more than just one box.
It is also necessary to add that "Junior" Jarman and 2 co-workers were on the floor below and testified that debris from the ceiling fell on them during the assassination sequence, implying that the shots caused this to happen and that one of them heard the shell casing(s) hitting the floor...curious that no one mentioned even hearing any of the 30 lbs boxes being moved about preceding the motorcade.
4) There were 3 shell casings discovered.
One had a bent lip that would not have allowed it to have held a bullet, nor been fired. Without the weapon and bullets, these are of very limited value, since no test was run to determine if they had even been fired that day. Also, documents and photographs seem to show that only 2 casings were actually recovered. This discrepancy remains ominous.
5) The gun found on the 6th floor was linked to Oswald.
See CHAPTER III-Dealey Plaza Evidence and Witnesses. It explores, in great detail the many problems that surround the weapon found at the TSBD.
6) Oswald brought a package to work.
There was no physical evidence of any gun being in the package allegedly recovered, the only two people who saw the package LHO had, said it was far too short to have contained CE 139, and no one actually saw Oswald take any package into the TSBD.
In addition, there is no known police crime scene photograph showing the "package" where it was allegedly "found". That is highly irregular and leads to the suggestion that perhaps no package was actually found.
7) He discussed the murder on the bus he tried to leave Dealey Plaza on.
According to the testimony of the bus driver, the discussion of the assassination took place after the man believed to be Oswald got off.
8) He murdered a police officer.
Irrelevant to the case in question. It has never been proven that Oswald did shoot Tippit and the main physical evidence linking him to the shooting is just as questionable as the items tying him to the assassination.
Even if he did shoot Tippit, it does not necessarily mean that he also shot Kennedy. One case neither proves nor disproves the other.
However, it is highly intriguing that the physical evidence used to link Oswald to this crime is just as questionable as the evidence used to link him to the assassination itself.
9) Fingerprints found on the gun.
Revealed only after the FBI lab couldn't find any, and once again only important if the gun fits. Also, there is evidence that some prints were taken from Oswald's body after his death.
The fingerprint was found in a spot that was normally covered by the gun's wooden stock...meaning it was placed there when the gun was disassembled. Therefore, there remains NO EVIDENCE that Oswald handled that weapon during the assassination sequence.
This would seem odd IF he were the "lone nut" assassin that it is claimed that he was. Police and federal investigators found no gloves, so it would seem reasonable that the shell casings, trigger, trigger guard or clip should have held some fingerprints. There is no notation that they did...or at least none that the prints belonged to Oswald.
And remember the fact that Oswald was seen NO LATER THAN "90 seconds" after the final shot was fired on the second floor by Officer Baker and Roy Truly. It would appear quite difficult to factor in Oswald not only loading in the next round (since a live round was found in the weapon by Capt. Fritz) but then wiping the weapon completely clean of fingerprints.
10) Paraffin tests showed positive for nitrates on Oswald's hands.
The test was taken seven hours after the arrest. The test on his face was negative, suggesting that he had not fired a rifle. The fact that his hands were positive would imply that he hadn't washed off any nitrates from his face. He had also already been fingerprinted and the ink used for that contains nitrates, as does the ink from the books he worked with at the TSBD that morning. Since his hands contained nitrates, it would again imply that Oswald did not wear gloves.
The most that could have been derived from this test is that, perhaps he had fired a handgun. However, under the circumstances brought about by all the evidence, such a conclusion is a greater stretch than any I have asked you to accept.
What solid evidence did Wade really have? Nothing at all. Not one of his ten points stands up to scrutiny. If Oswald had gotten a fair trial and a competent attorney, Wade would have gotten slaughtered. However, my research into the type of "justice" practiced in Dallas under Henry Wade, lead me to believe that he would NOT have gotten a fair trial...but ANY trial would have put the evidence on public display and subject to cross-examination.
Again, egos, reputations and embarrassments were saved by LHO's murder while he was in the custody of some of those individuals with much to lose should he go to trial for the assassination.
Coincidence?
A Summation
There simply was no real case against Oswald. It was lots of fluff with no substance. Like cotton candy, it should have dissolved into almost nothing.
Unfortunately for all of us and LHO, it never had to be presented and scrutinized in a real court of law, because of the actions of Jack Ruby. We instead got the Warren Commission, whose sole purpose was to reinforce the prearranged conclusion by using the "fluff" and disregarding the substance, perhaps because of the suggested, and erroneous, question of national security.
Were all these investigators, prosecutors, police, FBI and Secret Service really that stupid or were they all involved in some portion of the conspiracy?
I would think neither. Most just followed their orders, reported what they found and did not have the time nor sufficient information to put it all together. As has been shown, the record contains far too much evidence damaging to the cover-up for the investigators to have been blatantly directed to keep out of the case or to have been involved in the conspiracy. No one was allowed sufficient access to be able to put it all together, and no one wanted to put it together. Besides, if someone, anyone, HAD put it all together in say, 1964, who would have believed him? Remember the adage about the higher up you go? You can't get much higher up than this.
The cover-up was directed from the top. The Warren Commission, in conjunction with Hoover's FBI, was designed to keep a lid on it. That was made easy because the autopsy evidence was controlled early.
That's not to say that I feel that all the Commissioners were co-conspirators in the cover-up, either. Hardly...with the possible exception of Warren and/or Dulles, whose involvements I'll cover later. No, I think that they did what they did and concluded what they concluded because they were pressured into it, or frightened into it for reasons of national security and the fear of starting WW III, if it became public that others, maybe communists, were involved. That's why they so steadfastly refused to even consider another gunman, despite the mounting evidence to support it. It would have been far easier on the evidence to include someone else. The SBT and all its questions could have been discarded and the barely plausible "neuromuscular spasm" theory dropped. But, another shooter would have needed to be pursued and they greatly feared where that might lead. The conspirators both counted on and championed this fear. After all, LHO was being portrayed as a communist, a defector who had visited Russia, and a blatant supporter of Fidel Castro. If either communist country was involved in the assassination, all hell could break loose, a very real, though invented, fear that the Commissioners had to consider, just as the conspirators hoped. Since I've found few direct attempt to obstruct justice by the other Commissioners and their motives, and in some cases remorse, appear genuine, I feel that they too, were probably unwitting partners in the crime. By refusing to acknowledge another shooter, they contained the scope of the inquiry and perpetuated the cover-up. Some may have begun to see the truth by the summer of 1964, but were too powerless and frightened by the magnitude and what it meant, to do anything about it. My urge is still to label them gutless but hindsight is 20-20, and without being there and knowing the true situation confronting them, I'll hold my tongue, remembering too, that Robert Kennedy probably had the opportunity and power to do something and didn't...though his grief over his brother's death certainly took a lot out of him.
These results were just what the conspirators wanted, and were accomplished without ever endangering themselves. From November 29, 1963 on, the WC took all the heat and the Commission did not stay around long enough, by Presidential Decree, for anybody to suitably, and publicly, confront it.
For the wrong, invented reasons, a number of seemingly good men, supposedly seeking the truth, helped invent and perpetuate the worst case of government misconduct in American history, all the while believing they were doing the correct thing. Some, namely former President Gerald Ford, still refuse to see, or admit to the truth even today... large egos and the unwillingness to admit a mistake usually go hand-in-hand.
One of the first insiders to openly question the Commission's conclusions, and his own role in them, Rep. Hale Boggs, was killed in a mysterious plane crash...another strange but true coincidence?
Is it also just a coincidence that the minutes of the last closed session meeting of the Warren Commission commissioners, which according to Sen. Richard Russell, contained his "for the record dissent" over the SBT are also missing?
Guilty or Framed?
We started this trip through the physical evidence trying to see where it would lead us. I think we've reached our destination, but let's put it all together and try to determine it’s meaning. Warren Commission general counsel J. Lee Rankin, said in his memo of January 13, 1964 that the investigation and report would focus on Lee Harvey Oswald alone because of the autopsy and ballistics evidence. Was there justification for this approach?
Our inquiry, I believe, says NO!
Thousands of man-hours and millions of dollars of taxpayer money went into a charade whose only purpose was to back the opinions formed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. At the time those opinions were very strongly held by most people in the United States. It was therefore going to be relatively easy to hide the truth, since few were going to be inclined to look deeply into the affair, when the evidence appeared so overwhelming at first. However, the physical evidence in this case, the keys as to whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty, do not stand up to close scrutiny. They fall apart, like the cheap props they are. Unfortunately, the public did not get to see the evidence up close and personal, they only got to see what the conspirators wanted them to see--everything pointing to Oswald and no one questioning any of it for him or the public.
Even one of the investigation's most widely circulated pieces of physical evidence, the supposed "backyard pictures" that allegedly show LHO with the rifle, pistol and communist literature, has been declared a forgery by independent experts in Great Britain, Canada and many within the US. In fact, experts from both Scotland Yard and the Canadian Air Force have branded them as phonies.
These photographs, adorning the covers of Life , Look , and Time magazines, were used to convict LHO in the court of public opinion, very early on. They also helped make the WCR conclusions more palatable.
We need to also note that these pictures (2 allegedly...more on that later) were not found during the first search of the Paine residence, they were found during the second search, which was conducted, illegally, on Saturday November 23rd. Were they created somewhere, like the NPIC and then planted? If not, why weren't they found during the first search? And what was the reason for the second search? Such conduct is not a standard police procedure.
If Oswald had done what it has been alleged that he did, far more of the physical evidence, testimony of witnesses, and actions of both himself and the investigators, both police and federal would fit together into a pattern pointing only to his guilt and there would have been far less questionable evidence and strange actions by all involved.
If Oswald were guilty why:
1) Did he do it? Crimes are always committed for a reason, what was his? Even the WCR couldn't answer this one. No one ever interviewed could recall him saying anything negative about JFK.
2) Did he buy and use a traceable rifle when he could have walked in off the street at any of the hundreds of gun shops in the greater Dallas-Fort Worth area and bought a rifle with no ID?
3) Was no cleaning equipment nor additional ammunition ever found?
4) Did he leave his pistol at his Oak Cliff room? Surely the possibility that he might need it to escape Dealey Plaza must have entered his mind? If he hid the rifle, surely the pistol wasn't a problem?
5) Did he leave $180.00 cash at the Paine residence, in Irving, money he might need after the assassination to escape?
6) Offer his cab to an elderly lady? Surely he would have been in a hurry to leave, especially after the bus he allegedly took first got caught in traffic.
7) Didn't he just take any outbound bus from the unguarded Greyhound terminal where he did catch the cab? Within hours he could have been hundreds of miles away, and no one would have known where to look for him.
8) Did he leave his Oak Cliff room? His employer did not have this address. Funny he would panic then, after being so cool at all the other times.
9) If he did murder Tippit, did he try to "hide out" in the Texas Theater and then draw attention to himself by entering without paying, even though he had enough money on him to buy a ticket?
10) If you think he wanted to get caught, why did he leave the TSBD and then, after being arrested, deny being the assassin? The psychology of the type assassin that Oswald is purported to be by Warren Commission defenders, someone seeking fame, is at odds with his actions. That type person readily admits that they performed the deed, they don't deny it, nor attempt escape.
11) Since there was substantial testimony by many witnesses claiming to see a rifle protruding from the 6th floor window before the motorcade arrived, we must wonder why anyone trying to assassinate a normally well guarded figure, would so casually show himself, armed, prior to his target's arrival, unless he knew that there was no protection. If he acted alone, how could he have known that? While bystanders may have believed him to be part of the President's protection, surely those real protectors who should have been in the Plaza would have known different...that would have been their job in that circumstance, had they been there.
All of these actions are basic to committing the crime. Yet, not one of these was handled in a way that is consistent with being guilty, alone. I do not know of any verifiable action by Oswald that was consistent with guilt, with the possible exception of the scuffle he put up while being arrested. Even that is perfectly consistent with the reaction of a man who has just found out for certain that he has been set-up. His statement "I am not resisting arrest" can easily be depicted as the statement of a man trying to keep from being shot for a convenient reason.
Dallas Police
The actions of the Dallas Police were also rather strange. Even if the crime had been the murder of a street wino, I cannot imagine that the DPD would have handled themselves in such a manner. Some examples of questionable conduct:
1) They failed to seal off the TSBD for almost 30 minutes after the shooting, allowing an untold number of people both access and egress. There certainly were enough law enforcement officers present to have sealed the building, almost at once.
2) Newsmen who gained access to the 6th floor before the building was sealed stated that they saw homicide Captain Will Fritz pick up the 3 shell casings and show them to a media photographer before the police crime scene expert arrived to take the "official" pictures of where they were "found".
3) Other members of the DPD also testified to moving the boxes in the "sniper's nest" before they were photographed, thus changing its configuration. This action meant that some of the boxes, including, possibly, the one with LHO's alleged palm print on it, may not have been photographed and notated in their positions at the time of the assassination.
4) The handling of the well documented case of the three "hobos" taken from boxcars behind the picket fence on the knoll. They were released within an hour, without any background check. Subsequent review of photographs taken by Dallas newspapers of these men are said by some photographic and forensic anthropologists to strongly resemble convicted federal judge assassin Charles V. Harrelson (father of actor Woody Harrelson), and CIA agents and Watergate burglars, E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis.
Woody Harrelson, during an interview with Barbara Walters, stated that his father did work for the CIA.
5) At no time were there any orders issued to any Dallas Policemen to watch airports, train stations, bus depots (including the terminal less than 2 blocks from Dealey Plaza, where LHO caught a cab) or to set up any roadblocks.
6) They were ALSO guilty of poor evidence handling, questionable and illegal searches, prejudicial line-up procedures and a general lack of investigative security.
7) Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry's conduct was outrageous. Besides the fact that he may have failed to show the Secret Service the whole motorcade route in advance, and he definitely failed to cancel any DPD off days, instead using auxiliary police to bolster the security on the route (meaning that a number of largely unrecognizable, yet legitimate officers dotted the motorcade route; and because of that action, there was plenty of cover for any illegitimate impostors), his conduct after the shooting was in total conflict with the best traditions of law enforcement.
He was in the lead car of the motorcade, driving, among others, Secret Service Agent-in-Charge Forest Sorrels, and therefore went to Parkland along with the Presidential limousine. He then spent the afternoon there, and did not return to either the crime scene to supervise the investigation, or to police headquarters to coordinate investigation activities. After he was informed that the President was dead, the head of the Dallas Police Department simply waited for and drove LBJ to Air Force One, where he actually boarded the plane and was photographed in the background at the swearing-in picture. These actions were best undertaken by Secret Service agents; it was their job. Finding the killer was his. Curry then finally went to DPD Headquarters, after LBJ left, and his strange conduct continued. He failed to require that the building be cleared of unauthorized people, leaving tens of reporters and one Jack Ruby free run of the building and unprecedented access to the suspect. Also, despite his years of experience and knowledge of the law, he allowed the interrogation of LHO to take place for 10 hours without any record being kept. Then, on Saturday night, before DPD officer Billy Grammer received a phoned threat to Oswald from someone Grammer later claimed sounded like Ruby, Curry took his phone off the hook. Because of that, rather strange considering the magnitude of the case his department was handling, Grammer was unable to inform him of the call and the transfer of Oswald went ahead as scheduled the next day, leading to Oswald's murder.
These examples and many others, show a clear pattern of action that was not consistent with the normal procedures used in finding the truth. Is this just "good ‘ole boy" justice, or something more sinister? We can combine these tendencies along with the actions of the FBI and Secret Service, whose highly trained agents handled the evidence in such a manner as to almost guarantee that most of it could have never been used against LHO had there been any court proceeding. Could it all have just been very sloppy police work, caused by the shock of what had happened or a case of over zealousness in an effort to "nail" the killer? To a certain extent I'd say that was a factor, but not nearly enough to have accounted for all the faux pas events of that weekend. We are talking about trained, experienced people to whom the shock should have had, at most, only a slight effect. Additionally, the federal agencies involved hire only "the cream of the crop". Even raw U.S. servicemen stationed at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked in 1941, recovered almost immediately from their shock, which was certainly of greater effect than that of the assassination. Within minutes, certainly within hours, their training took over and they gave a wonderful accounting of themselves. The police and FBI were still doing screwy things weeks later. Evidence, such as the composition comparisons of the bullet that struck the curb near Tague, was still being destroyed months later, despite the fact that, officially, the assassination remains an open case! Even today, evidence continues to get lost or be destroyed (see the ARRB Final Report, Chapter 8) .
The autopsy doctors, all competent pathologists at least, would certainly have understood the importance of doing a quality job. It's not like they were notified just minutes before the body arrived; Dr. Humes knew hours before.
The WC certainly believed them capable of performing a simple autopsy. They didn't even feel the need to see the autopsy photographs and X-rays.
Warren Commission counsel Wesley J. Liebeler responded to questions, in 1966, about the accuracy of Humes placement of the non-fatal back/neck wound from WC critic and author David Lifton with a single question whose validity Lifton had to concede:
"Humes can measure, can't he ?"
Considering otherwise would be foolish, even after the HSCA findings, in 1978, where it appeared that he couldn't. Is it really plausible to believe that all three prosectors could have so erroneously placed all three wounds, by accident? I'm also sure that, despite the reason for the autopsy, those three chosen to perform it would have felt some pride in their selection and done the very best job possible. Ever know a military officer or a physician without an ego? These guys were both. None wanted to be associated with sloppy work, or an error that might allow the assassin to get off, in the most important autopsy they were ever likely to perform. Pride would dictate that they would have double or triple-checked their measurements and findings, unless, of course, they were intimidated or ordered not to. No, I don't believe that all involved just committed that many "mistakes". Much of what happened fits together well enough to see the pattern, that of confusion, tampering and most of all obstruction, with LHO as the designated fall guy.
Let's review, again, what the evidence really showed:
THE RIFLE-It had a checkered history that could not irrefutably be traced to Oswald's possession, let alone use on November 22nd. There is evidence, through sworn affidavits and testimony by police officers, that a different rifle was actually found on the 6th floor of the TSBD. No test was used to find out if the rifle had even been fired on November 22nd.
It was determined by FBI tests to be inaccurate at 15 yards, and the scope was mounted for a left-handed shooter, misaligned and incapable of being sighted-in without the insertion of two metal shims that were not found.
The investigators could find absolutely no physical evidence to indicate that LHO had ever practiced with it or maintained it, since they could find no additional ammunition, any record that LHO had ever purchased any, nor any cleaning equipment.
The conclusion on how LHO got it to the TSBD that day is disputed by both the physical evidence of the "paper bag" allegedly recovered, and the testimony of the only two people who saw what LHO was carrying that morning. In contrast, there is absolutely no evidence to support this conclusion.
Finally, no one, not even the best experts the FBI and military could find, was or has ever been able to duplicate the required shooting feats, within the alleged time frames, using CE 139.
These "facts" were simply ignored.
To summarize:
1) there is no direct evidence proving how anyone, let alone Oswald got the weapon into the TSBD;
2) there is no evidence that the weapon was even fired on 11/22/63;
3) there is no evidence proving Oswald was on the 6th floor during the assassination sequence;
4) there is no evidence that Oswald ever fired that weapon;
5) there is no evidence to support any belief that the supposed shooting prowess could have been accomplished;
6) other than a very questionable palm print, there is no evidence that Oswald ever took possession of the weapon
7) we cannot be certain whether a Mannlicher-Carcano or a Mauser (or both) was actually recovered.
Yet the Warren Commission concluded beyond all doubt that all of the above happened!!
THE BULLETS/FRAGMENTS- There was no evidence that the magic bullet had ever impacted with the body of any human being or penetrated any clothing at any time, much less specifically that of JFK and JBC.
The recovery and "chain of possession" on all is highly suspect. The man who found the magic bullet still believes it came from a stretcher unrelated to the two men wounded in Dealey Plaza. None of those who handled it that day could later identify CE 399 as the bullet found at Parkland Hospital.
The angles of wound entry in JFK and JBC are markedly different, without adequate explanation.
Basic trigonometry does not support the single bullet theory.
The amount of metal recovered from or left in JBC appears to be much greater than the maximum weight lost by CE 399.
No subsequent attempt to duplicate the actions of CE 399 has ever produced anything near all the effects that were attributed to it.
The Zapruder film shows JBC and JFK properly aligned for CE 399's effects only well after JFK reacts to being hit. Both men react to being hit at significantly different times.
Both JBC and his wife believed that JBC and JFK were hit by separate shots. This alone destroys the myth, since obviously Connally would have been the best living witness.
There was no testimony whatsoever elicited from any of the involved medical personnel that would support the SBT and damage attributed to CE 399.
There are serious questions about how the two fragments could have been fired at the limousine and ended up where they did.
Finally, none of the bullets/fragments was actually recovered from either victim or ever tested to see if they had been fired on November 22nd.
Scientific claims that precise "Neutron Activation Analysis" matched fragments recovered from Kennedy and Connally are disputed by a prior paper written by the same scientist who made the match claim.
To summarize:
1) it cannot be proved that any bullet was fired from any of the casings recovered.
2) there is absolutely nothing to support the SBT other than a theory and it is essential to that theory that one of the wounds be where most physical evidence suggests it wasn't.
3) the Warren Commission never put together a scenario which accounted for all the bullet fragments, including the one shown to be just beneath JFK's scalp on the X-rays, within the 3 shots-2 hits theory
4) not one of the main ballistics pieces of evidence was recovered from, nor scientifically connected to either victim, meaning that there is no proof that any of the ballistically linked bullets/fragments actually hit either Kennedy or Connally on 11/22/63.
5) the "chain of evidence" on all the fragments, bullet(s) and casings are legally highly suspect
Again, despite all that, the Warren Commission again concluded all this evidence supported the case against Oswald and did nothing to point towards anyone else being involved.
THE AUTOPSY- The Parkland people who treated JFK did not agree with the original autopsy report placement and description of the fatal exit wound. They also disagreed with the stated cause of the throat wound. Drawings by the surviving Parkland personnel, made by request of the ARRB, all show and support a large, exit-like rear head wound.
Most of the documentation that accompanied the autopsy report showed the non-fatal wound to have entered JFK too low to have exited his throat.
Much of the testimony and written descriptions about the head wounds are both ambiguous and show signs that the body had been tampered with.
The X-rays do not match any of the wound placements in the autopsy report. Some of the photographs do match the report, while others match neither the report nor the X-rays!
Recently released depositions of those who took and/or developed the autopsy photographs show beyond doubt that many photos are missing and that some of those shown were not with the ones taken at Bethesda on the night of 11/22/63.
The brain was not sectioned and only 2 tiny fragments were recovered. These could not be matched, either ballistically or by composition comparison to any of the other recovered ballistic evidence in 1963, but could be matched in 1977. However the fragments used in 1977 did not match in any way, shape or form, the fragments used in 1963, and in fact weighed more.
Despite the fact that there are autopsy pictures that show JFK's body without the standard "Y-incision" that starts an autopsy, these same pictures show the skull without the brain inside and the top of the skull missing. In fact, there are no known autopsy pictures of the skull which show the brain inside or the top of the skull intact.
The final incrimination in this area, is that the photos and X-rays were not properly handled, initialed or receipted and the Parkland recollections were much closer to the descriptions in the autopsy report than in the photographs and X-rays reviewed by the HSCA.
It is physically impossible for the photographs, X-rays and autopsy report to ALL be correct, yet it is logically impossible for them to be different.
Recent reviews of evidence and depositions by the ARRB led a military documents expert attached to that body, to conclude that the photographs of the brain held by the National Archives are not that of President Kennedy's brain and the official brain examination entered into evidence is phony.
To summarize:
The entire autopsy of JFK's body is so suspect as to be beyond believability and full of a plethora of holes (no pun intended) large enough to drive buses through.
Yet again, the Warren Commission found so little wrong with it that Earl Warren was able to avoid showing the autopsy photographs and X-rays to anyone else, because they were so grotesque.
The Lost/Suppressed/Destroyed/Altered Evidence
Now let us take some time to stop and review the obvious, documented cases of investigative misconduct that permeate these events. Each case followed by an asterisk (*) should have led to felony charges for destruction of evidence and/or obstruction of justice. No such case was ever filed against anyone. Those incidents include, but are not limited to:
1) The note left at Dallas FBI headquarters for SA James Hosty by LHO just days prior to the assassination. Hosty testified that he destroyed the note, under orders, after LHO's death. *
2) The FBI telex dated November 17, 1963 warning all FBI offices of the possibility of an attempt on the President in Dallas on November 22nd. This telex was subsequently removed from every FBI office on orders from J. Edgar Hoover.*
3) JBC's clothes. LBJ immediately ordered them to be sent to a dry cleaner, thus destroying their value as evidence. *
4) LBJ also ordered the limousine to be rebuilt before it had been thoroughly examined. The Secret Service was busy washing out the interior at Parkland Hospital, before any forensic examination took place.*
5) Humes' destruction of his original autopsy notes and his original report draft. He claimed to have done this because they contained bloodstains from the president. Yet, he stated that he wrote the first draft at his home on Sunday November 24th and he also stated that he burned a second copy of his notes. Neither of those would have contained bloodstains.*
6) The films taken by Beverly Oliver and Gordon Arnold, seized by "federal officers" and never seen again. Oliver's film would have had an excellent view of the grassy knoll at the time of the fatal shot; Arnold's would have shown all from slightly to the right of the Zapruder film. If the Z film was indeed altered, synchronizing the alterations may have proven impossible. *
7) The documented, by both testimony and photograph, bullet that was found imbedded in the grass between Elm and Main Streets. It was turned over to an "FBI" man, never to be seen again nor having been accounted for by the either the FBI nor the WC. *
8) The brain itself and the tissue samples taken by Humes at the autopsy, missing from the National Archives. According to Douglas Horne of the ARRB, the photos of the brain in the National Archives are not of Kennedy's. *
9) The "missile", as related by Navy Captain John Stover, the Commanding Officer at Bethesda, reportedly recovered at the autopsy and turned over to the Secret Service which also was never accounted for. Warren Commission documents show a receipt for this missile, signed for by the Secret Service. *
10) The autopsy photographs of the interior of the President's chest, whose existence Humes and others testified about *
11) The roll of film destroyed at the autopsy so that some of those present could remain anonymous, as related by both Stringer and Reibe.
12) The Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm Street, believed to have been hit by a bullet. It was removed mysteriously within days, without a work order and never found.
13) The piece of concrete, impacted by the bullet which wounded Tague. By the time authorities were forced to recover it, the real mark had been blatantly covered over. *
14) The slide used for the spectrographic analysis of the metal from that bullet, destroyed by the FBI to "save space". The slide was 3" long, 1" wide and 1/32nd of an inch thick. *
15) The autopsy pictures and X-rays, withheld by and/or from the Warren Commission and quite probably altered. *
16) The photographic equipment, belonging to LHO, recovered by the DPD from Mrs. Paine's garage. The official FBI report was altered so that a Minox camera, of a size used for covert photographic work (spying), is listed as a "light meter". Minox, in the early 1960's did not manufacture a "light meter". Additionally, the DPD officer who found the "light meter", said that he opened it and it had film inside. That film also has never been produced, and is now being explained as belonging to Michael Paine. If the truth is really that innocuous, why was the FBI so insistent on calling it a light meter?
17) The configuration of boxes in the "sniper's nest", rearranged by DPD before official pictures and fingerprint dusting began. This meant that the positions of the "fingerprints" meant nothing. Or, were they rearranged so that the fingerprints did incriminate?
18) The bullet casings recovered at the Tippit murder scene. They were originally reported as coming from an "automatic", not Oswald's revolver. The shell casings of those two types are markedly different in size and markings.
They were marked for evidence at the scene, one of the few times proper procedures were followed.
