Stu Wexler

The point made by Wagner is, to me, the best argument why Oswald had to be closer to some element of the DP plotting than many want to acknowledgr. A complete unwitting dupe scenario would raise all sorts of issues as a far as risks to conspirators. But I do not have the same type of personal commitment to insisting on his absolute innocence as some others do. I am more open to direct involvement than 95% of CTs, although I favor a fake plot wherein he was told to wait for a call in the lunch area, etc., while a "message" was sent to JFK, only to find out later that the plot was not as fake as he thought. But I admit there is some speculation there. I do think, building on Wagner's point, that the absolute key for researchers is to find out who was in a position to influence Oswald's actions in the month of Nov, 1963, who among said individuals had motive, means and opportunity re JFK, and then develop any evidence on said person(s). So I agree, in some ways, with Wagner. In fact, my choice for our biggest problem is a combo of the Chris Matthews, Gerald Posner argument that echoes some of his: I think we have to posit a conspiracy theory that accounts for the motorcade dispute developing to go past the TSBD and Oswald getting the job in the TSBD. [I have my answers, and they do not involve Ruth P being any kind of even quasi-witting conspirator.] But I am CT based on physical evidence, and based on Oswald's and Ruby's background. So I would just offer as the "problem for LNs" a very broad argument, one that Tink Thompson gave in 67 in SSID. Why does this case become more bewildering, with more questions, when we tug on any major thread the more we look? Why is it that in every major aspect of this case, from medical evidence to Oswald's background/file handling, the Oswald-alone theory coheres less rather the more we look? To believe the pure LN theory I have to believe a bunch of odd or unique developments (like a jet effect or a neuromusclar spasm or that Oswald dodged photo surveillance by sheer happenstance in Mexico City, etc.) that are not nearly as instrumental or odd as if I posit some sort of CT. So for example: if you dig into LHO, you find out from multiple sources that he kind of liked or admired JFK. It is not impossible that somehow he had a sudden change of heart. But if we dig even further we find out that, in places like New Orleans, there are people in his orbit who absolutely despised JFK. Etc. I have taught classes on the history of major crimes. I co-wrote a book with Larry Hancock which I believe solves the MLK case (the only critic of which is someone who said he could completely counter the book months before we even published it, misrepresented our discussion of James Earl Ray's motivations, failed to address 98% of the evidence we offered to the point that the names of our top suspects and witnesses are all but entirely ignored-- Martin Hay, ironically.**) Yet no case-- absolutely none-- presents the kind of fundamental questions about everything from the validity of the fundamental evidence to the life history of the key suspects, as JFK. ** Much more can and would he said if Jim D. would allow for counter-reviews or comments on his reviews. His policy on this allows for one-sided hatchet jobs. **

My father, a liberal JFK supporter his whole life, switched from a government to Castro-did-it theory once the Castro plots were detailed in the Church hearings and report. He especially was concerned with the timing of the Cubela plot and the famous exchange of the poison pen. He believed whether or not the Kennedy's ordered it, that Castro could have interpreted it that way and it as a betrayal (of the normalization talks) and, assassinating Castro as not only a response but as a hail mary to save his own life/regime. It was almost the only thing topic that could consistently get us into sometimes heated arguments. He was very effective at making the case. Our assertion that Castro would never risk something so dangerous was met with two points. First, every group who has been accused of the assassination was taking a huge risk, possibly to their own survival or future, something we almost always underestimate when analyze motives in this case (risk-reward). Castro would have been more desperate, on the other hand, than the mafia/CIA etc. becausd the risk of not doing something would be to his life directly. Second, and more importantly, he would point out that, if one looked closely at the Cuban Missile Crisis, they would see that the only party more reckless than Castro were the Joint Chiefs. My main point in response to him was that Castro was nothing if not crafty. And he never would have touched or involved Oswald in any way. That is not risky-- that is *gratuitously* risky. He had double agents within the exile movement, for instance, who he could have blamed for the crime. My father's response would be to argue for a hardliner rogue type plot within Cuba. I voiced serious skepticism any G2 agent would take a risk like that without approval. But I think the thing that gave my father the most pause was the material presented by James Bamford. I think anyone who reads The Puzzle Palace's section on the NSA intercepts and surveilance of Castro post Nov 22nd would have a hard time sticking with the theory. Stu

Is he claiming Oswald was part of an RFK assassination plot vs Castro? I think that goes too far in linking to RFK. But I absolutely think that Oswald may have gotten caught up in a Castro assassination plot and that helps explain some/most of what happened in Mexico City and parts of what happened in New Orleans. I think Garrison proposed that at one point. And I believe David Kaiser thinks it is a distinct possibility. That has been where I have been at for some time.

Has anyone in any of these legacy groups ever grappled with the very clear and alarming evidence that the CIA misled JFK about the prospects for the invasion fully knowing it would likely fail? Or, with that in mind, the fact that overtly committing air power after would be a clear violation of international law and norms? I keep waiting for them to shift the blame to where it belongs as we have known this for at least 20 years now (the latter point since 1961). Stu

https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/21494/jack-davis-oral-history?ctx=e8763525cd7e0f4ac6afd77f9c0ca7ff1cdc9547&idx=0 You can also go to the 50m mark, so just a few minutes in, and he describes it quite clearly-- it being Oswald sitting down next to him (Davis.)

See description

Three questions: 1. What is your background/expertise? 2. What software did you use? 3. Have you had any other experts double check your work? Stu

Greg, I would have to go back and find the study, but the issue with fingerprint analysis (and potential flaws) has less to do with the intrinsic ability of examiners to make a blind match (or mismatch) but with confirmation bias. In this study, they sent fingerprint examiners a set of two prints for comparison-- one lifted from a crime scene, one from a fingerprint card. The examiners were almost universally correct in their assessments, just as in the study you posted. There was one problem: these were not truly blind sets of fingerprints but prints the examiners in question had analyzed for police/the prosecution in past cases. And in some alarming percentage-- like 25% of them-- they offered a *different* opinion than the one they gave years before. The study's researchers argued that it was because in their earlier analysis, the examiners were given background information from the cops or prosecutors. Which was the actual problem in the Mayfield case as well. I was told about this by the lats Dr. Cliff Spiegleman a decade or more ago. Cliff had made it almost his life's work to make sure crime labs conducted almost every analysis completely blindly (not just fingeprints) because of confirmation bias issues. I would also add that there was a refutation-- "no match to Wallace"-- not long after Darby's match. From one of the former heads of a national fingerprint professional association. If you want an amazing presentation on the fingerprint issue-- find James Olmstead's 2003 Wecht Conference presentation on Youtube. Stu

Vince did you run down the Puerto Rican nationalists who were ID'd as the men arrested on the eve of the Chicago trip? They are named in documents. I have tried to see if there are any connections to usual JFK suspects and did not find any.

Could they have been trying to find a mole in the get-Castro regime change/assassination efforts? Given how often said operations had failed? Stu

Good job on this, Jim. Re: fact checkers. While folks like you a me would welcome a final episode that hashed out the debunking, I am not sure that is in the financial interest of Netflix to do so. Better to have the more sensationalist offering. If I gave them the benefit of the doubt, it is what I said earlier. People just do not understand the lengths some people will go to grift using or insert themselves into a famous crime or historical case. JFK is an extreme example. But it happened with the Black Dahlia case. I bet it happened with the Jack the Ripper case. And it can even involve multiple people. Stu

Could new AI tech help?

Has anyone made another go at enhancing the tapes of the Buell Frazier HSCA interviews. Some other attempts were borderline bizarre. I asked him about it at a Lancer conference and he confidently denied the rendition. Stu

I have the VHS somewhere for the original. Lol. Glad to know it is still good.

What is the best online version of the Z-film? Not just frames but a fully moving film. Stu