The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

Having said that, I am not sure if fibers could have been on that rifle for a long period of time, considering the fact that Oswald is supposed to have dismantled to rifle for transportation.

I cannot imagine that LHO would have dismantled the butt plate from the stock. And if the fibers were wedged between the butt plate and the wooden stock, they could have been there a long long time. (This is an argument that CTs have used against the fibers being evidence of LHO actually firing the weapon on 11/22/63.)

I haven't used that argument because it is pure speculation either way. And it leads to nowhere because fibers can not be matched to a particular source. At best when can be said is that the fibers are similar and that doesn't prove much.

There is a good color picture of CE 151 (obtained from the National Archive) on Pat Speer's website;

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence

and having seen that, there is no way IMO that Frazier, in natural light, could have mistaken that shirt for a grey jacket.

Sorry, but that particular photo of CE 151 is black and white. So are two others in that group of photos. The color photo of CE 150 does show that orange-yellow is a likely color of fiber to come from it. So I am conceding that the table of contents is probably in error.

Mistaking the shirt for a jacket isn’t all about the color only. The argument against this idea now is that, when shown CE 162 Frazier testified that he never saw LHO wearing it. So the idea that he mistook the shirt as a jacket (that didn’t look like CE 162) becomes more likely.

Sorry, but that particular photo of CE 151 is black and white

No, the photo on Pat Speer's site I was talking about is in color and just underneath a black and white photo. Perhaps you should have scrolled a bit further down. There are also two pictures of the sleeves of CE 151. They are not the evidence photos, but photos made for Pat by the National Archive. You'll find them under the caption "Color Blind?

Mistaking the shirt for a jacket isn’t all about the color only. The argument against this idea now is that, when shown CE 162 Frazier testified that he never saw LHO wearing it. So the idea that he mistook the shirt as a jacket (that didn’t look like CE 162) becomes more likely.

I guess you missed it when I added this to my last post;

Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.

So, yes, Frazier testified he had never seen CE 162 and CE 163, but he did see that the jacket had a zipper and since we know Oswald had only two jackets, it could very well be that Frazier was mistaken when he said he had not seen either jacket before.

[Charles Collins]

I haven't used that argument because it is pure speculation either way. And it leads to nowhere because fibers can not be matched to a particular source. At best when can be said is that the fibers are similar and that doesn't prove much.

Sorry, but that particular photo of CE 151 is black and white

No, the photo on Pat Speer's site I was talking about is in color and just underneath a black and white photo. Perhaps you should have scrolled a bit further down. There are also two pictures of the sleeves of CE 151. They are not the evidence photos, but photos made for Pat by the National Archive. You'll find them under the caption "Color Blind?

Mistaking the shirt for a jacket isn’t all about the color only. The argument against this idea now is that, when shown CE 162 Frazier testified that he never saw LHO wearing it. So the idea that he mistook the shirt as a jacket (that didn’t look like CE 162) becomes more likely.

I guess you missed it when I added this to my last post;

Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.

So, yes, Frazier testified he had never seen CE 162 and CE 163, but he did see that the jacket had a zipper and since we know Oswald had only two jackets, it could very well be that Frazier was mistaken when he said he had not seen either jacket before.

No, the photo on Pat Speer's site I was talking about is in color and just underneath a black and white photo. Perhaps you should have scrolled a bit further down. There are also two pictures of the sleeves of CE 151. They are not the evidence photos, but photos made for Pat by the National Archive. You'll find them under the caption "Color Blind?

I finally found the color photos in the Color Blind section. FWIW: my wife is a lot better with colors than I am. Without knowing much of anything about the situation other than it involves the JFK assassination, she says that she believes fibers that could be described as orange-yellow in color could have come from either shirt. And it dawned on me that if Pat Speer's argument that the FBI was trying to show that LHO was wearing CE 150 during the shooting, they might have intentionally avoided bringing up the other fibers and clothing in the WC hearings. Here is an intriguing snippet from Pat Speer's web site:

At the end of the lab report on the shirt and fibers sent the Dallas FBI, an Addendum reads "You should attempt to obtain the remaining items of clothing suspect is believed to have worn during the shooting for comparisons with the other fibers found on the K1 gun." (FBI file 62-109060 Sec 21, p193). As we will see, although the FBI will eventually obtain the rest of Oswald's clothing, there is no record of further tests of Oswald's clothing against these "other" fibers.

Emphasis added by yours truly. At any rate it adds some intrigue and tempts me toward withdrawing my concession regarding the table of contents.


it could very well be that Frazier was mistaken when he said he had not seen either jacket before.


If Linnie Mae is to be believed, you have a point about CE 163.

[Martin Weidmann]

No, the photo on Pat Speer's site I was talking about is in color and just underneath a black and white photo. Perhaps you should have scrolled a bit further down. There are also two pictures of the sleeves of CE 151. They are not the evidence photos, but photos made for Pat by the National Archive. You'll find them under the caption "Color Blind?

I finally found the color photos in the Color Blind section. FWIW: my wife is a lot better with colors than I am. Without knowing much of anything about the situation other than it involves the JFK assassination, she says that she believes fibers that could be described as orange-yellow in color could have come from either shirt. And it dawned on me that if Pat Speer's argument that the FBI was trying to show that LHO was wearing CE 150 during the shooting, they might have intentionally avoided bringing up the other fibers and clothing in the WC hearings. Here is an intriguing snippet from Pat Speer's web site:

At the end of the lab report on the shirt and fibers sent the Dallas FBI, an Addendum reads "You should attempt to obtain the remaining items of clothing suspect is believed to have worn during the shooting for comparisons with the other fibers found on the K1 gun." (FBI file 62-109060 Sec 21, p193). As we will see, although the FBI will eventually obtain the rest of Oswald's clothing, there is no record of further tests of Oswald's clothing against these "other" fibers.

Emphasis added by yours truly. At any rate it adds some intrigue and tempts me toward withdrawing my concession regarding the table of contents.

it could very well be that Frazier was mistaken when he said he had not seen either jacket before.

If Linnie Mae is to be believed, you have a point about CE 163.

Without knowing much of anything about the situation other than it involves the JFK assassination, she says that she believes fibers that could be described as orange-yellow in color could have come from either shirt.

Your wife's expertise nothwithstanding, the fibers could actually have come from a multitude of other sources. The evidentiary value of fiber evidence is extremely limited.

And it dawned on me that if Pat Speer's argument that the FBI was trying to show that LHO was wearing CE 150 during the shooting, they might have intentionally avoided bringing up the other fibers and clothing in the WC hearings.

Does this mean that you consider it possible that the FBI manipulated evidence and sometimes withheld crucial information from the Warren Commission?

If Linnie Mae is to be believed, you have a point about CE 163.

And if Frazier's testimony is to be believed about the grey jacket he saw on Thursday evening having a zipper, where does that leave us with regard to Roberts's claim that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a darker than grey jacket?

[Charles Collins]

Without knowing much of anything about the situation other than it involves the JFK assassination, she says that she believes fibers that could be described as orange-yellow in color could have come from either shirt.

Your wife's expertise nothwithstanding, the fibers could actually have come from a multitude of other sources. The evidentiary value of fiber evidence is extremely limited.

And it dawned on me that if Pat Speer's argument that the FBI was trying to show that LHO was wearing CE 150 during the shooting, they might have intentionally avoided bringing up the other fibers and clothing in the WC hearings.

Does this mean that you consider it possible that the FBI manipulated evidence and sometimes withheld crucial information from the Warren Commission?

If Linnie Mae is to be believed, you have a point about CE 163.

And if Frazier's testimony is to be believed about the grey jacket he saw on Thursday evening having a zipper, where does that leave us with regard to Roberts's claim that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a darker than grey jacket?

Does this mean that you consider it possible that the FBI manipulated evidence and sometimes withheld crucial information from the Warren Commission?


I wouldn’t go that far. They (FBI experts) are accustomed to testifying in legal proceedings. And unlike most of the ordinary citizen assassination witnesses, they answer the questions...period; without rambling on, etc. The WC investigators asked the questions, and the FBI was obligated to answer them honestly. But the FBI experts were not obligated to offer information that they were not asked about. And that is what I believe happened in the fiber evidence. They just didn’t offer up any information about fibers that they were not asked about. They believed that LHO was wearing CE 150, had fiber evidence that supports that belief. And didn’t want to muddy up the water. You and I are not immune from presenting our views similarly.

[Martin Weidmann]

Does this mean that you consider it possible that the FBI manipulated evidence and sometimes withheld crucial information from the Warren Commission?


I wouldn’t go that far. They (FBI experts) are accustomed to testifying in legal proceedings. And unlike most of the ordinary citizen assassination witnesses, they answer the questions...period; without rambling on, etc. The WC investigators asked the questions, and the FBI was obligated to answer them honestly. But the FBI experts were not obligated to offer information that they were not asked about. And that is what I believe happened in the fiber evidence. They just didn’t offer up any information about fibers that they were not asked about. They believed that LHO was wearing CE 150, had fiber evidence that supports that belief. And didn’t want to muddy up the water. You and I are not immune from presenting our views similarly.

Hang on... The FBI experts were not just witnesses. The WC had no investigators of their own and relied on the FBI to do all the investigative work. In other words, the FBI were not at liberty to withhold any kind of information from the WC.

Obviously, it is true that a witness, any kind of witness for that matter, normally simply answers questions and does not offer any information voluntarily. But when it comes to an investigator that's an entirely different matter. An investigator, or for that matter an investigative body as the FBI, does not have the right to withhold any results from their investigation to a court or, as in this case, a factfinding committee that the WC was supposed to be.

Even worse, if this had been a court case, the FBI would have violated the law by not disclosing all the evidence they had obtained, be it for or against the defendant.

They believed that LHO was wearing CE 150, had fiber evidence that supports that belief. And didn’t want to muddy up the water.

That's the definition of manipulating evidence.

You and I are not immune from presenting our views similarly.

You and I are birds of a different feather. You, as a WC defender, take on the roll as a prosecutor and I, as a WC skeptic, take on the roll of defense counsel. We both can be selective about the evidence we present and emphasize. An investigator does not have that same privilege.

[Charles Collins]

Hang on... The FBI experts were not just witnesses. The WC had no investigators of their own and relied on the FBI to do all the investigative work. In other words, the FBI were not at liberty to withhold any kind of information from the WC.

Obviously, it is true that a witness, any kind of witness for that matter, normally simply answers questions and does not offer any information voluntarily. But when it comes to an investigator that's an entirely different matter. And investigator, or for that matter an investigative body as the FBI, does not have the right to withhold any results from their investigation to a court or, as in this case, a factfinding committee that the WC was supposed to be.

Even worse, if this had been a court case, the FBI would have violated the law by not disclosing all the evidence they had obtained, be it for or against the defendant.

They believed that LHO was wearing CE 150, had fiber evidence that supports that belief. And didn’t want to muddy up the water.

That's the definition of manipulating evidence.

You and I are not immune from presenting our views similarly.

You and I are birds of a different feather. You, as a WC defender, take on the roll as a prosecutor and I, as a WC skeptic, take on the roll of defense counsel. We both can be selective about the evidence we present and emphasize. An investigator does not have that same privilege.

The Warren Commission had authority to investigate in any manner that they deemed necessary. And they often did employ independent experts, interview witnesses themselves, go to the scene of the assassination, etc.

There is a difference between withholding evidence and not volunteering evidence that is not requested. If the FBI wanted to actually withhold any evidence, chances are that Pat Speer wouldn’t be able to find any correspondence regarding it.

Edit: I don’t consider myself as a WC defender or prosecutor. I am a truth seeker. As I have demonstrated, I try to pay attention to both sides. However, I do believe that the WC did a good, job considering the circumstances. Some details are not completely satisfied. And it appears that the CIA didn’t cooperate completely. But I do believe that the WC got the basic points right.

[Martin Weidmann]

The Warren Commission had authority to investigate in any manner that they deemed necessary. And they often did employ independent experts, interview witnesses themselves, go to the scene of the assassination, etc.

The lawyers working for the Commission took testimony from witnesses, but for the investigation they relied completely on the FBI.

There is a difference between withholding evidence and not volunteering evidence that is not requested.

No there isn't. Not for an investigative body as the FBI. As soon as the FBI became the investigators of the WC it was their legal obligation to turn over all the evidence they collected. Otherwise it would be the FBI who determined the outcome of the enquiry and not the Warren Commission.

If the FBI wanted to actually withhold any evidence, chances are that Pat Speer wouldn’t be able to find any correspondence regarding it.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you saying that the FBI would ensure that all records about an investigative result they did not want to share would be destroyed? If so, then I disagree.

The FBI is a massively burocratic institution and their files are normally not open to the public. To get documents from them requires a lot of effort, as is demonstrated by the files of the late Harold Weisberg, who had to file thousands of FOIA's to obtain, mainly heavily redacted, documents. Back in the 60's the FBI had no reason to assume that their files would end up in the public domain as soon as they did. So, there may not exist any documents where one FBI official writes to another "let's just withold this" but the results of their investigations themselves were documented nevertheless. Obviously, if you come across an investigative result that wasn't reported to the WC you have found what Pat has found.

[Charles Collins]

The lawyers working for the Commission took testimony from witnesses, but for the investigation they relied completely on the FBI.

No there isn't. Not for an investigative body as the FBI. As soon as the FBI became the investigators of the WC it was their legal obligation to turn over all the evidence they collected. Otherwise it would be the FBI who determined the outcome of the enquiry and not the Warren Commission.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you saying that the FBI would ensure that all records about an investigative result they did not want to share would be destroyed? If so, then I disagree.

The FBI is a massively burocratic institution and their files are normally not open to the public. To get documents from them requires a lot of effort, as is demonstrated by the files of the late Harold Weisberg, who had to file thousands of FOIA's to obtain, mainly heavily redacted, documents. Back in the 60's the FBI had no reason to assume that their files would end up in the public domain as soon as they did. So, there may not exist any documents where one FBI official writes to another "let's just withold this" but the results of their investigations themselves were documented nevertheless. Obviously, if you come across an investigative result that wasn't reported to the WC you have found what Pat has found.

Asking witnesses questions is considered investigating in my book. The Warren Commission requested the FBI to investigate many items that they normally wouldn’t have. And they hired independent experts to verify the FBI’s results whenever they felt the need. The WC did not have their hands tied.



We are talking about two different things. I am referring to the testimony of the experts. And their answering only the questions that are asked during that testimony. The actual written reports that are the results of the investigation should be complete. What we typically discuss here in the forum most often is what is in the testimony.