55 years later...

[Oscar Navarro]

In my opinion, in that brief conversation with Jarman, it is obvious that Oswald was feigning ignorance.

You're not alone, Bill.

[Oscar Navarro]

So....you want to base it on the mcadams post of 1996?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leejob2.txt

"Lee made a favorable impression upon Roy Truly and got the job:

   He seemed quiet and well mannered. ... [he filled out an
   application]  And he told me - I asked him about
   experience that he had had, or where he had worked, and
   he said he had just served his term in the Marine Corps
   and had received an honorable discharge, and he listed
   some things of an office nature that he had learned
   to do in the Marines.

   I questioned him about any past activities.  I asked him
   if he had ever had any trouble with the police, and he
   said no.  So thinking that he was just out of the Marines,
   I didn't check any further back.  I didn't have anything
   of a permanent nature in mind for him.  He looked like
   a nice young fellow to me - he was quiet and well mannered.
   He used the word "sir", you know, which a lot of them
   don't do at this time.

   So I told him if he would come to work on the morning
   of the 16th, it was the beginning of a new pay period.
    (3H214-214)

Young Lee helped himself by lying about his past, during the interview
with Truly and on the job application."


It seems that this should have been a VERY VERY important piece of information that should not have been too hard to produce at the time of the assassination, fill out a job application with lies on it but can't produce it for the investigation 5 weeks later?
 
This certainly should have been one of the most important pieces of the evidence puzzle that an investigator would have looked at in a real investigation at the time and found that in Truly's filing cabinet.  Or was it something he read and shredded it - not keeping it?   Just as important would be to have looked at LHO bank accounts and tax returns to determine how he was funding trips to Russia and so on and whose payroll he was on.  The money trail could have told you alot about his activities and when and where he withdrew money.  Who cares about ordering a Carcano rifle out of the "Klein's mail order service" under the name of J. Hidell!     33 years after the fact,  we have Mcadams digging around and not producing a job application by LHO that would have been about 5 weeks old at the time of the assassination.  I wonder how he signed that one -HOL?!

Find that job application please, Mr. Navarro, authenticate please and we will discuss whether it was more than rhetoric.  That document is more important than his mail order for a gun 5 months before and would have been kept on file in Mr. Truly's office surely!  They can find all sorts of paper trails on the Carcano!    That is a very important factual piece of evidence to uncover as well.  The mail order document was easily found - alias name or not!  Why not the job application form?   We need more than a "she said he said report", typed up and presented as the evidence.    Wouldn't an investigative team want to know all that or do you just keep on following the trail by have someone drop carrots along the way to guide the herd of rabbits, (sometimes known as a warren!)?   

I was looking more for a timeline. Oswald had several jobs from the time he settled in Dallas after he came back from the USSR in 1962, while in New Orleans in 1963, and then his last job at the TSBD upon returning from Mexico in early October, 1963. You bring up the missing job application at the TSBD as being of the upmost importance but don't address how it came to be that Oswald got that job interview in the first place. Don't you think that is of the upmost importance?  I'll ask a few more questions that go in the general direction of were I believe your theory goes.

1) Do you believe Roy Truly was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?
2) Do you believe Ruth Paine was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?
3) Do you believe that Robert Stovall of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?

4) Do you believe that Ted Gangel of Padgett Printing Cpy. was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?

5)Do you believe that Linnie Mae Randle was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?

[Rob Caprio]

In my opinion, in that brief conversation with Jarman, it is obvious that Oswald was feigning ignorance.

Your opinion is duly noted, but this isn't evidence that LHO knew a shooting was going to happen.

[Rob Caprio]

Shaneyfelt analyzed CE-133A and CE-133B, along with the original negative of CE-133B... and the Imperial Reflex duo lens camera (Marina testified that she used that cameras to take the photos).

When a photo is taken, the camera leaves unique markings on the margins of the negative.  Shaneyfelt stated that these markings left on the negative of CE-133B were identical with markings left on the margins of the negative of a test photo which he took using that camera.

The negative of CE-133A was not available.

Shaneyfelt also examined both photos under magnification and found no signs of retouching.

There were variations of CE-133A and CE-133B that appeared in Life magazine (among others).  Shaneyfelt testified that when the photos appeared in Life magazine, they had been retouched, which is a common process used on photos when reproducing before publishing.

This issue was covered in my "Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions" series. Decide for yourself.

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

We have seen FBI photographic expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt said he could NOT positively ID the rifle in the Backyard Pictures (BYP?s) as being the same as CE-139 (the alleged murder weapon of John F. Kennedy (JFK)). He was also asked about some other key issues in this case. 

Let?s look a little deeper at this testimony.

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

He would be asked about Captain Fritz?s comment regarding Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) statement that his head was superimposed on someone else?s body in the BYP?s.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Captain Fritz of the Dallas Police has stated that in his interrogations, Oswald--Lee Harvey Oswald--stated, in effect, that while the face in Exhibit 133A was his face, the rest of the picture was not of him--this is, that it was a composite of some.

Have you examined 133A and 133B to determine whether either or both are composite pictures?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. And have you--can you give us your conclusion on that question?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it is my opinion that they are not composites. Again with very, very minor reservation, because I cannot entirely eliminate an extremely expert composite. I have examined many composite photographs, and there is always an inconsistency, either in lighting of the portion that is added, or the configuration indicating a different lens used for the part that was added to the original photograph, things many times that you can't point to and say this is a characteristic, or that is a characteristic, but they have definite variations that are not consistent throughout the picture. I found no such characteristics in this.

In addition, with a composite it is always necessary to make a print that you then make a pasteup of. In this instance paste the face in, and rephotograph it and then retouch out the area where the head was cut out, which would leave a characteristic that would be retouched out on the negative and then that would be printed.

Normally, this retouching can be seen under magnification in the resulting composite--points can be seen where the edge of the head had been added and it hadn't been entirely retouched.

This can nearly always be detected under magnification. I found no such characteristics in these pictures.

Representative FORD. Did you use the technique of magnification in your analysis?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

A few things need to be mentioned regarding this comment by Shaneyfelt. He said he could NOT rule out ?extremely expert composites? and this is a good possibility in this case.  I doubt they would have any old person do these composites. Also, I doubt you would need to magnify very much to see the line going across the face below the lips and above the chin.  They will NOT discuss this at all.

Furthermore, LHO was very explicit in who he said did the composites, but the Warren Commission (WC) of course did NOT mention it.

IF we go to their Report on page 625 we will see this statement by LHO:

Quote on

Captain J.W. Fritz exhibited to Lee Harvey Oswald a photograph which had been obtained by the Dallas Police Department in a search, by a search warrant, of the garage of the residence of Mrs. Ruth Paine, located at Irving, Texas, which photograph reflects Oswald holding a rifle and wearing a holstered pistol?He stated that the head of the individual in the photograph could be his but that it was entirely possible that the POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD SUPERIMPOSED THIS PART OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OVER THE BODY OF SOMEONE ELSE. He pointed out that numerous news media had snapped his photograph during the day and the possibility existed that the POLICE DOCTORED up this photograph. (emphasis mine)

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0325a.htm

This statement is key for several reasons. Firstly, notice how LHO is saying the picture was in all likelihood ?doctored?, and secondly, that the Dallas Police Department (DPD) did the doctoring!  Two witnesses would say in their testimony pretty much the same thing.

Mr. STERN - It was at this interview, was it not, that Oswald was shown photographs of himself holding a rifle and wearing a pistol in a holster?

Mr. BOOKHOUT - That's correct.

Mr. STERN - What was his comment about the photograph?

Mr. BOOKHOUT - His comment, as I recall, he was asked if this was his Photograph, and his comment was that the head of the photograph was his, but that it could have been superimposed over the body of someone else. He Pointed out that he had been apparently photographed by news media numerous times in proceeding from the homicide and robbery bureau to the lineup and back, and that is how they probably got the photograph of his face, and he went into a long discussion of how much he knew about photography, and knew that this--his face could be superimposed over somebody else's body holding the gun and pistol and so forth.

Now unless Bookhout means the media doctored the photo the ONLY other group who could benefit from these photographs would be the DPD (or FBI, CIA, ONI, DIA, etc?).  On page 628 of the WC Report we see the same comment from Inspector Thomas Kelly of the Secret Service (SS):

Quote on

Found among the effects were two different poses in snapshot type photographs taken of Oswald holding a rifle in one hand and holding up a copy of a paper called the ?Militant? and ?The Worker? in the other hand. Oswald was wearing a revolver in a holster on the right side. This photograph was enlarged by the DALLAS POLICE LABORATORIES and was used as a basis of additional questioning of Oswald at approximately 6:00 P.M. that same evening..

This interview was conducted with Oswald for the purpose of displaying to him the blow-ups of photographs showing him holding a rifle and a pistol which were found as a result of a the search warrant for the garage of Mrs. Ruth Paine?When the photographs were presented to Oswald he scoured at them saying they were fake photographs; that he had been photographed a number of times the day before by the POLICE and apparently after they photographed him THEY SUPERIMPOSED on this photograph a rifle and put a gun in his pocket(?). (WCR, p. 628) (Emphasis mine)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0326b.htm

Quote off

The above is very hard to read as the ink is very light in the copy found on numerous sites, but the gist is clear?LHO was blaming the DPD for making this photograph(s) he was shown.

Now back to Shaneyfelt. The WC defenders who claim it was shown LHO?s camera was used to take the photographs should read this comment.

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Shaneyfelt, did you attempt to determine whether 133A had been photographed through the camera, Commission Exhibit 750?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; I did not, because in order to make an examination to determine whether a photograph is made with a particular camera, you must have the negative or you must have a print of the negative that shows that shadowgraph area, and Commission Exhibit 133A does not show that shadowgraph

Therefore, no comparison could be made. It is not possible.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does the shadowgraph area show on 133B?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. No; it does not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Why does it not show on either 133 A or B?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Because they are printed in a normal processing procedure, where this area is normally blocked out to give a nice white border and make the picture a little more artistic. In the printing process, masks are placed over the area, or the shadowgraph, in order to cover it up, and the resulting print is a photograph with a nice white border.

Mr. EISENBERG. So that you have to have the negative to make the kind of identification you have made for us earlier?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

WC defenders can?t say the Imperal Reflex camera was used to take these photographs.  End of story.

The single posting of  a BYP that made LHO look the most guilty was the photograph that appeared on the cover of the February 21, 1964, edition of LIFE magazine.  IT allegedly shows LHO holding the alleged murder weapon and cemented his guilt to many Americans. This photograph was denoted with CE-754.  Here is what Shanyefelt said about it.

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0277a.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Shaneyfelt, I now hand you the cover of Life magazine for February 21, 1964, which consists of a photograph quite similar to Exhibit 133A, and I ask you whether you are familiar with this photographic cover?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I am.

Mr. EISENBERG. Have you compared Exhibit 754 with Commission Exhibit 133A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your conclusion on the basis of that comparison?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is my opinion that it is the same picture reproduced on the front of Life magazine, which is Commission Exhibit 754.

Mr. EISENBERG. Does Commission Exhibit 754 appear to have been retouched in any significant way?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it does.

This is important as it shows the photograph has been changed from the original form.  IT does NOT matter why or whether it is irrelevant to the main theme as expressed either.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you show the Commission that retouching?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I could. I might state that it has been my experience in the field of reproduction of photographs for publication, in which a halftone screen is made from which the photograph is then printed, it is normal procedure, and was at the time I worked for a newspaper, to retouch the photograph to intensify highlights, take out undesirable shadows, generally enhance the picture by retouching the photograph so that when it is then made into a halftone strip pattern for reproduction by printing, this retouching, if it is done well, does not show as retouching but appears to be a part of the original.

This retouching is done either by brush or by airbrush, which is a device for spraying gray or shades of gray or black, onto the photograph. I point to the area between the legs of the individual on Life magazine.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle that and mark it A on Exhibit 754?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Suppose I use arrows.

Mr. EISENBERG. Oh, sure.

Mr. SHANEYFELT. On Exhibit 746B, there is a shadow between the individual's legs.

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you mark that A?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I will mark that A. In that same area of the photograph on Exhibit 754, that dark shadow has been removed in this area, I will mark that A.

So a body shadow has been REMOVED.

Mr. EISENBERG. It appears there is a continuous fence slat there, where none appears----

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; the shadow has been removed. Lower down in that same area of the legs, near the calf of the leg, again, and I will mark that B, the shadow----

The body shadow was removed and replaced with a non-existent ?fence slat.?

Mr. EISENBERG. B on 754?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. 754; has been softened but not entirely eliminated. That same area is marked B on Commission Exhibit 746B.

Mr. EISENBERG. Has the weapon been retouched?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The weapon has been retouched by placing a highlight along the stock almost up to the end of the bolt. The highlight is brushed right across the top of the highlight that we have previously discussed at the nob or the curvature of the stock where it goes down and then back up to the curve.

The rifle has been retouched in the photograph.

Mr. EISENBERG. Looking at the photograph, at the weapon, the stock appears to be straight, which does not correspond to the Exhibit 139. As I understand your testimony, this is simply a retouching; this effect of a straight stock is simply achieved by retouching the photograph or doctoring it?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is my opinion. I would refer to it as retouching rather than doctoring, because what has been done has been retouched, and doctoring infers an attempt to disguise.

I agree, ?doctoring? would apply to the adding of LHO?s head onto the body!

Mr. EISENBERG. Could you draw an arrow marking that E? Would it have been possible to retouch the photograph so that the telescopic sight does not appear?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Oh, yes; that is possible. With a halftone process--it is possible to retouch, and then the halftone process destroys the retouching characteristics and makes it appear as a normal photograph rather than a retouched photograph.

Shaneyfelt is admitting you can retouch photographs and LEAVE NO TRACE to the vast majority of us.

Mr. EISENBERG. And again, based upon your newspaper experience and your experience as a photographer generally, could you state the possible purpose of such retouching?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The purpose of the retouching in reproduction work is merely to enhance the detail so that it will not be lost in the engraving process.

They didn?t just ?enhance the detail? though, did they? NO, they changed the rifle and removed a shadow so far.

Mr. EISENBERG. When you say "enhance the detail," why would a stock be retouched so as not only to enhance the detail, but actually to change the apparent configuration? Could you conceive of any reason for that?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I think the reason that the stock was retouched straight in the photograph on Life magazine, and my interpretation would be that the individual retouching it does not have a familiarity with rifles and did not realize there was curvature there, and in doing it just made a straight-line highlight without even considering whether that curved or not. There was curvature in that area which is not readily apparent--it is quite indistinct--and I think it was just made without realizing that there was curvature there.

Mr. EISENBERG. That is, the individual might have thought he was actually enhancing detail rather than putting in detail which was not present in the original?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is there anything else you would like to point out in this photograph, Exhibit 754?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. There is other retouching at the shoulder, to the left of the photograph as we view it; that area has had some retouching of the highlights. Along the barrel of the gun, or the stock of the gun above the hand, there is retouching, a little highlight enhancement there. These are all generally consistent with the type of retouching that we have previously discussed and I have previously pointed out.

Now we see retouching for the area left of the shoulder too. He can say this is normal, but the above statement regarding the shadow is NOT.

Why NOT call the person who worked on the photo for LIFE instead of asking Shaneyfelt why they would do this?

Also, if it is so normal why did even the WC lawyer try and correct him?

Mr. EISENBERG. When you said a highlight "along the rifle stock," you actually meant on top, above the rifle stock?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The upper edge.

Mr. EISENBERG. Is it the upper edge, or is it a place that does not correspond to the rifle stock?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It is an edge along the rifle stock that corresponds. I am speaking now of the highlight above the hand.

Mr. EISENBERG. No; you said before, in describing the highlight which you can see, you said they drew a highlight "along" the rifle the rifle stock. Actually it was drawn, as I understand it, considerably above the edge of the actual rifle stock?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; that is true.

What was the purpose of this? Why did they do it? Was it just for more detail as claimed or for some other reason? What about the telescopic scope? Remember, LHO allegedly used one to shoot JFK with.

Mr. EISENBERG. Without specific reference to 754, might an individual without experience in rifles have thought that the detail corresponding to the telescopic sight was extraneous detail, and blocked it out?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; it could be done.

Why was the WC asking him to guess what someone else might or might not do? Or why they would do it? Again, why NOT call the person that actually did the retouching at LIFE? The only thing we have to rely on is in the twenty-six volumes.  It is a letter from LIFE to Mr. Rankin of the WC.  It can be found in Shaneyfelt Ex. 12.

Quote on

?The prints you received were indeed the PRISTINE versions of the ones we used; they came from the same copy negative (I assume the Commission has the original negative). I thought you could compare them with the published cover and figure out how much retouching was done.

But here is the retouched print. You can take out the retouching (which we put in simply to make it more reproduceable because the original was not exactly the acme of photographic perfection) with a piece of cotton soaked in water or a finger moistened with saliva and have the original as we received it. I note, on close examination, that the retoucher was a little careless in making the rifle stock straight instead of a with a slight dip. There is a little more retouching around the bolt but a comparison with the original will convince you, I?m sure that nothing ESSENTIAL has been changed. (emphasis mine)

It was signed by Edward K. Thompson, Editor of LIFE magazine.

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0239a.htm

Quote off

First of all, if the copy that LIFE received was ?pristine? why did they need so much retouching? IF they were from a copy and NOT that good, why did the WC just NOT provide the ORIGINAL negative to LIFE to fix this issue? IF they couldn?t release it, then why NOT wait on the cover.  Why was there a RUSH to have this photo published SEVEN MONTHS before the WC would reach their conclusion?

Secondly, who decided what was ESSENTIAL to the message of the photograph? Thompson said ?nothing essential has been changed?, but what does this mean? We saw the shape of the rifle was changed, the scope was eliminated, and the body shadow between the legs was removed.  What else possibly was messed with that we don?t know about? Remember, Shaneyfelt said, ?With a halftone process--it is possible to retouch, and then the halftone process destroys the retouching characteristics and makes it appear as a normal photograph rather than a retouched photograph.?

Newsweek also would send a letter to Mr. Rankin about this photograph (which appeared in their March 2, 1964 issue) and what they did with it and this is in Shaneyfelt Ex. 16.

Quote on

Since the question of retouching of this photograph in various publications has been raised as an issue by CRITICS of the investigation, I believe that your inquiry warrants a somewhat more detailed response than you have invited.

I am informed by our editors that the photograph that they received was so poor in quality that, as a matter of routine procedure, it was retouched to improve it for reproduction. We are unaware that it was published anywhere WITHOUT RETOUCHING OF SOME KIND.

In retouching at Newsweek, the technician inadvertently brushed out the telescopic sight which?as we have since had an occasion to note?is visible only so barely in the original photograph that it might well escape any but the closest attention. There was, of course, no intention to alter the substance of the photograph. (emphasis mine)

It was signed by Gibson McCabe?President of Newsweek.

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0241a.htm

Quote off

Notice the jab at CRITICS in his letter! I guess if you are searching for the truth and question whether a photograph has been retouched or not you are critic! How could the average person be a ?critic? of the investigation in June 1964 anyway? The final report did not come out for three more months and the WC was acting in a CLOSED DOOR FASHION! I just find it funny a president of leading magazine, that is out for the truth supposedly regarding the things they covered, thought searching for the truth made you a critic!

Next, notice the ADMISSION that the photograph was retouched by EVERYONE! Again, if the copy negative they all received was so poor in quality, why was there such a rush to publish it then? What was the urgency of putting this on the cover or in their publications in February and March of 1964?

Newsweek, like LIFE, also brushed out the scope on the rifle supposedly.  (Perhaps there was NO scope to brush out?) Notice the comment that it was so hard to see that ?only the closest attention? would have spotted it. Well, excuse me, but when you are retouching photographs and planning on PUBLISHING THEM IN YOUR MAGAZINE SHOULD NOT THE CLOSEST ATTENTION be paid? I would think so, but obviously NOT at Newsweek.  Then we are just suppose to take his word for it that ?no intention to alter the substance of the photograph? occurred.

Shaneyfelt Ex. 17 is a letter  from the N.Y. Times to Mr. Rankin.

Quote on

The New York Times did NOT retouch photograph in any way that would change the facts of the photograph?that is to say, it did NOT alter any essential feature of the photograph. I have our copy in front of us, and the ONLY retouching that has been done is to outline Lee Harvey Oswald?s head  and right shoulder, to highlight the stock of the gun HE is holding, to put a CREASE in his trousers and tone DOWN somewhat the SHADOW CAST BY HIS FIGURE.

It was signed by Clifton Daniel?Asst. Managing Editor

http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0241b.htm

Quote off

Again, we see the use of the term ?essential feature? and again, we have to ask, who decides what is essential? Notice how they had no curiosity regarding the line above the person?s chin though.  He flatly states it is LHO when it was never shown the photos were genuine, and certainly NOT by the time of the letter (June 1964). What was the need for a CREASE in his pants? Was that essential? Also, notice how they had to ?tone down somewhat the shadow cast by his figure? as well!  What was it about this shadow that caused so much concern? Could it be that it did NOT MATCH THE TIME SHOWN BY THE NOSE SHADOW? What other reason could there be to either eliminate it (LIFE) or tone it down somewhat (N.Y. Times)?

The fact retouching took place on this alleged photo of LHO holding the alleged murder weapons is troubling.  The fact it took repeated letters by Mr. Rankin to get even these replies is even more troubling. What was the rush to publish these photos if the copy negatives they received were so poor? We should know that answer by now.  They wanted to rush this picture before the American people to prepare them for the preconceived outcome that would come in September 1964.

Given the many questions and disturbing issues with these photos (BYP) there should NEVER have been a rush to publish them UNTIL they were worked out, but as we have seen that would mean they would NEVER have been published as nearly FIFTY YEARS LATER none of the questions or issue have been resolved from the WC?s point of view.

The comments by Shaneyfelt and the men of the some of the most important publishing assets of this country sink the conclusion of the WC as their issues were NEVER properly addressed and resolved. In fact, this outline shows us there was a RUSH TO JUDGMENT and the man they had chosen ahead of time would be found guilty NO matter what they found to the contrary.

[Jon Banks]

She. Read the blurb again. At any rate, there isn't "a whole movement among scientists." There was a 20-year period starting about 1990 when the forensic science crowd began to systematically look carefully at the validity of existing methods, but that seems to have collected all the scalps its going to. Right now, it's the science side that's having issues, most notably in what is known as the  "reproducability crisis."
 

Reproducibility is what separates Facts and Laws from Theories.

[Jon Banks]

Here is the opening paragraph of Tobin's paper. In it near the bottom is the quote about the 2nd assassin.  Hard to say what was the ultimate goal of this research. Maybe just to show the rest of us how smart they really are. A second shooter armed with a carcano.....very smart. The premise and conclusion are basically not worth repeating.

CHEMICAL AND FORENSIC ANALYSIS OF JFK ASSASSINATION
BULLET LOTS: IS A SECOND SHOOTER POSSIBLE?
BY CLIFF SPIEGELMAN, WILLIAM A. TOBIN, WILLIAM D. JAMES,
SIMON J. SHEATHER, STUART WEXLER AND D. MAX ROUNDHILL
Texas A&M University, Forensic Engineering International,
Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University,
Hightstown High School and Chem Consulting
The assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) traumatized
the nation. In this paper we show that evidence used to rule out a second
assassin is fundamentally flawed. This paper discusses new compositional
analyses of bullets reportedly to have been derived from the same batch
as those used in the assassination. The new analyses show that the bullet
fragments involved in the assassination are not nearly as rare as previously
reported. In particular, the new test results are compared to key bullet composition
testimony presented before the House Select Committee on Assassinations
(HSCA). Matches of bullets within the same box of bullets are shown
to be much more likely than indicated in the House Select Committee on Assassinations?
testimony. Additionally, we show that one of the ten test bullets
is considered a match to one or more assassination fragments. This finding
means that the bullet fragments from the assassination that match could have
come from three or more separate bullets. Finally, this paper presents a case
for reanalyzing the assassination bullet fragments and conducting the necessary
supporting scientific studies. These analyses will shed light on whether
the five bullet fragments constitute three or more separate bullets. If the assassination
fragments are derived from three or more separate bullets, then
a second assassin is likely, as the additional bullet would not easily be attributable
to the main suspect, Mr. Oswald, under widely accepted shooting
scenarios [see Posner (1993), Case Closed, Bantam, New York].


Obviously, Tobin and the rest of the forensic dream team never understood its ramifications. In their zest and zeal to prove Guinn wrong and the existence of a conspiracy, these scientists fail to understand what their analysis of the results of their tests indicated.  Essentially, all the tests were performed on 6.5mm Carcano bullets from the same batches as LHO's and from these tests determined that there was a possibility the bullet  fragments recovered in the JFK assassination came from more than two bullets. Thus somehow proving to themselves that there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza. Apparently they don't realize what they are really saying is that there wasn't just one shooter in Dealey Plaza armed with a 6.5mm Carcano but two shooters both armed with 6.5mm Carcanos. Most people don't even want to believe there was one person there with a Carcano let alone two.

One additional brilliant finding from the paper: Way to go out on limb.

"Dr. Guinn may have been correct or incorrect about the number of bullets originating
from the JFK fragments; the state of knowledge even today, but definitely about 30 years ago, remains too uncertain".

The scientists didn?t set out to prove that there was a Conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. What they proved was, the method Guinn used to rule out multiple rifles was deeply flawed.

A British team of scientists (Randich and Grant) reached a similar conclusion.

The Lead composition of the JFK assassination bullets and fragments doesn?t rule out the possibility of multiple shooters...

[Jon Banks]

As for the autopsy photos and X-rays, in 1967 the autopsy pathologists (Humes, Boswell, and Finck), the acting chief of radiology (Ebersole) and one of the autopsy photographers (Stringer) viewed the autopsy photographs and/or X-rays and confirmed the photos and X-rays were accurate in the portrayal of the wounds of the President.

Under political pressure, yes, many witnesses changed their descriptions of the events or evidence.

But it doesn't change the fact that several dozen witnesses who saw Kennedy's wounds in Texas and Bethesda described something different than what would later show up in the photos and x-rays.

[Allan Fritzke]

I was looking more for a timeline. Oswald had several jobs from the time he settled in Dallas after he came back from the USSR in 1962, while in New Orleans in 1963, and then his last job at the TSBD upon returning from Mexico in early October, 1963. You bring up the missing job application at the TSBD as being of the upmost importance but don't address how it came to be that Oswald got that job interview in the first place. Don't you think that is of the upmost importance?  I'll ask a few more questions that go in the general direction of were I believe your theory goes.

1) Do you believe Roy Truly was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?
2) Do you believe Ruth Paine was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?
3) Do you believe that Robert Stovall of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?

4) Do you believe that Ted Gangel of Padgett Printing Cpy. was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?

5)Do you believe that Linnie Mae Randle was involved in a conspiracy to kill the President?

There were many innocent people involved and it doesn't mean they were in on any conspiracy!   Your argument is that they had to know the truth and therefore guilty of the crime.   The same sort of argument that you would say a prosecutor should face in the wrongful conviction of an innocent person after he has been found guilty of using only select pieces to gain a conviction in his case and not all that he has.

The reality is, there were very few people that needed to know the truth.  The rest was building a case to convict a LNer.   The less people you have that know that, the easier it is to keep a secret.   A few people working with evidence, eye witness accounts and statements can do wonders to point a case to have a deliberate outcome.  Sad but true.

A modern day example of this improper use of selected evidence brought into the light is DNA testing.  There have been so many cases where the DNA is the only thing that saved a man after being already convicted for a crime he didn't commit.  All the circumstantial evidence presented by the DA was compelling and yet one little DNA test later on, proved he was an innocent man.   Sometimes a little extra evidence was planted just to make sure because they knew he was guilty.  If you have convinced yourself of this ahead of time, then you seek to add to make the case watertight.  In these cases,  they don't throw the prosecutors in jail for these things.    The prosecutors are very good at picking and choosing evidence to get their desired end result and ignoring those facts that don't lead to a non-conviction!

So to, you must have an open mind with LHO.  He was killed and wasn't there to defend himself.    Eye witness accounts and statements can be easily obtained and signed off.   In fact the more you can get, the more conflicting it all is, the less reliable they become and the more easy it becomes to mislead and develop your own argument in the case.  So, lets not get into those 5 questions you are itching to have me answer.   Look at what hasn't been provide with it to solidify it and make it into a watertight case!   It is really more important to establish via job application, pay stubs, bank accounts and so on, the exact time he started working at the TBSD.  The traceable phone calls made from his home, collect calls and to who.  The paper would be unquestionable proof, not based on eyewitness or sworn testimony and act as independent evidence.

There have been many cases where a just man has been tried and found guilty for a crime that he didn't do.  It would be fairly easy to do in a case where the man (LHO) is dead already and can't even be questioned or provide  statements.   As a witness, if you are told by the DA or a rep, that a suspect was already guilty and we ask for "just a little extra help to clean up a few loose ends and make the case stick", you might think you are doing the country a favor and saving the taxpayer money too.    "I may even let you in on a little secret in the process to help get the statement from you that I need."   Here is a go at it, let your imagination run wild for a small paragraph!

These people can offer an argument which makes sense.  "Can you imagine what utter chaos the country will be thrown into if you can't help us out a little bit?   We so need to keep riots and civil unrest from occurring.  The simple solution is to have a lone gunman responsible if at all possible.   Heaven forbid that you could have a coup d'etat take place with more than one gunman present.    You certainly wouldn't want LBJ to be accused of a sinister plot to wrench the power out of JFK's hands now would you - that is treason man!   Can you imagine having a rumor like that going around?   Can you imagine then how the Russians would drop nukes on us as we would appear to be leaderless?  They would come attack us at night while we weren't ready in the middle of our unrest  and Communism would take over!  The stock market would crash - our liberty and freedom would be gone forever and you my friend would be held responsible if that were to occur.   You wouldn't want that to happen, now would you?"

Surely you can see my argument?  Strike a little fear in the people's hearts and see what can happen. Now back to reality!
 
IMHO, there is a need for documentation.   The obvious document to look at would be the TBSD job application as example.   It was discussed in Truly's statement.  Wouldn't that be perfect evidence if LHO lied and signed it?  It would establish without doubt when he started.  LHO's tax documents and bank account statements, telephone calls etc. would also show you exactly if he acted alone  and who had paid him and establish the timeline.   Would you mind opening your filing cabinet?  I know if he was only hired 5 weeks earlier, you wouldn't have thrown them out or have someone shred them already?  He is a new employee.  IF you want to fire him and he lied to you, that is an important document!!!  This was not investigated or brough forward?  Why not?   These rabbit trails are the critical ones if you want to know if he acted alone or as part of a larger group or sinister plot.  
What was so important to follow the purchase path of the rifle itself other than to make it a direct path from the store to him and not via someone else.  This again ties in with the "lonenut" narrative, acting alone.  What about all the various ammunition he used, is there a trail for that?  Why so many types, hard nose, frangible, various casings all mixed in his clip we are led to believe.  Even casing from pistol, some coming from an ammo belt.  Two different pistols.     Close examination of this combination of the various evidence is not very convincing when you try to find commanality among it and a coherent argument.

It is little wonder there is conspiracy theories?   A proper and independent investigation was not done!  Take it one step further:

Can you substantiate a motive as to why he hated a President so much that he felt he was called upon to take it upon himself to shoot him?   He loved Communism so much?   He felt his idol Fidol Castro was going to be assassinated by JFK and his gang?    The simple fact is, his being at the TBSD building began after JFK and Connally had decided in September on the Fund Raiser trip for JFK to Dallas!  Those are the real questions of the day!   

Furthermore, what do we know about his character?  Do we even know if he had a driver's license?   Was it customary for someone like him to be driven around - even to work - chauffeured - a man with wife and kids living the American dream?   At the same time, he was a marksman.   It seems strange even in the 60s that he wouldn't drive an automobile or be a normal sort of man - unless he was brainwashed into thinking he was part of some spy novel, was living the part and mentally deranged!   Maria didn't mention that!  In a few of the interviews she had later, the newsman all but put words into her mouth for her.
 
None of these things are questioned - all were deemed unimportant.   We only know that he proclaimed his innocence and that he wanted legal counsel - none provided!    Dying rather quickly without a story was a perfect ending - a perfect crime!