Stu Wexler

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

I have had a few days where I have wondered about Hurt's materials. I have quoted his book here more than once. He had a huge investigative bduget from I think he had established contacts from prior books. He may have deposited his materials at a university. The Easterling stuff really discredited him with people like Hoch (who I respect) and I think we maybe threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Looking further the above essay was written (I think) by Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn, who sure looks zany. But at the same time he appears to be sourcing it to *something* 1988 or before. Just without footnotes or endnotes!

The earliest reference I can find is the 1988 edition of Rights magazine. Seems like a right wing type deal. Unfortunately Google Books gives only a snippet view of the page.