Introduction - New Guy

[Greg Burnham]

Sure.

Listen to Pat Speer talk about the fictional T1 back wound?

You're right, Greg, the JFK cover-up is live and well: Pogo-time.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Hey Cliff,

49 out of 50 ain't bad. 35 out of 50 ain't bad. 5 out of 50 ain't even bad.

It only takes ONE item of reasonable doubt to dismantle their case. Our job isn't to prove that EVERY item creates reasonable doubt. But it is their job to prove that EVERY item falls short.

[David Von Pein]

Seriously, Dave, both brother and sister make separate and independent estimations of the length of the bag, both are mistaken and, incredibly, both estimate the length to be 24-27" inches?

Linnie Mae Randle wasn't always saying the package was 24-27 inches long. On the day of the assassination, in fact,

Linnie Mae told FBI agent James Bookhout that the length of Oswald's package was "approximately 3 feet"....

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/randl_l1.htm

And for David Wolper's "Four Days In November" film crew in 1964, she said the package was

"approximately 2-and-a-half feet long"....

Now, yes, it's true that both of those longer estimates supplied by Mrs. Randle are still wrong, because the package was, in reality, 38 inches long. But I don't expect every witness to nail things right on the money. Why would ANYBODY expect such pinpoint accuracy?

The fact remains, however, that both Frazier and Randle observed Lee Oswald with a large-ish (long-ish) brown bag on the day of the assassination.....and, subsequently, a long-ish EMPTY brown bag (with LHO's prints on it) turned up in the same place where a gunman fired shots at JFK.

Now, shouldn't those things make even the most stubborn "Anybody But Oswald" CTer stop and pause for a moment or two? And if not....why the heck not?

Edited June 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

deleted

Edited June 5, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[Ron Ecker]

The SBT - if debunked - makes it impossible for and single shooter from the rear to accomplish the shooting feat attributed.

True, and I think this amounts to "physical evidence" of a conspiracy, not just "circumstantial." If there are only two choices, one shooter or more than one shooter, then if what one shooter is supposed to have done is shown to be physically impossible, that is physical evidence of more than one shooter.

[Jon G. Tidd]

"There is plenty of circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy. Enough for any "reasonable" person to conclude there was more than one shooter. To deny this IMO has nothing to do with evidence or reason. It's almost like denying the theory of evolution for religious reasons or because one doesn't like it."

I agree that plenty of facts and alleged facts point toward conspiracy. One fact is that a couple of Dallas docs and some medical technicians have said they saw a rear skull blowout. This fact is important to many students of the JFK assassination. I say it is an important fact. It's important to those seeking the truth of the assassination. This fact is not evidence, however. Evidence can be thought of as that which a jury gets to consider. This fact would never get to a jury in a trial court. The individuals who made these statements could testify in a trial court. Their testimony would be subject to cross-exam. Why wouldn't the fact these individuals said what they said be admitted as evidence? Essentially, it's because the prior statements themselves can't be cross-examined. The prior statements are hearsay.

There's nothing inherently wrong with facts that aren't evidence. Evidence is special, however. It's not what you, DVP, or I for example say it is. It's what a judge rules is evidence. That's special. It has great significance in the law. In the law, circumstantial evidence is basically as good as direct or any other type of evidence. But all evidence has one thing in common: it gets to the jury because a trial judge rules it qualifies to get to the jury.

The biggest problem in the JFK case is that there was no trial of Marina's husband. Because of this, the only "evidence" in the JFK case is that admitted by the trial judge in the Clay Shaw trial. If one wishes to argue evidence, one should refer to that trial. If one wishes to rant about evidence, fine. But that's a distraction. I say, focus on the facts.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Linnie Mae Randle wasn't always saying the package was 24-27 inches long. On the day of the assassination, in fact,

Linnie Mae told FBI agent James Bookhout that the length of Oswald's package was "approximately 3 feet"...."

Nice try, little guy, but that information was contained in one of the FBI "reports". You know the ones, they were written in the third person by FBI agents, often without the subject of the report present, and the majority of them were neither seen nor signed by the person that supposedly gave the evidence.

In other words, they were lies, Dave, and most of this case is built on them.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Here is the FBI report on Linnie Mae Randle, unsigned, of course:

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Date 11/23/63

LINNIE MAE RANDLE, 2439 West Fifth Street, Irving, Texas, phone Blackburn 3-8965, was interviewed at the Dallas Police Department.

RANDLE advised that she is the sister of BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER, who is employed by the Texas School Book Depository and resides at her residence, stated that she met LEE HARVEY OSWALD through her brother, and has known OSWALD and his wife for about six weeks. RANDLE advised that OSWALD's wife is MARINA OSWALD, who resides at 2515 W. Fifth, Irving, Texas, and that OSWALD spends the weekends with his wife at the above mentioned address. Her brother, WESLEY FRAZIER, customarily drives LEE HARVEY OSWALD to 2515 West Fifth, Irving, Texas, on Friday night, and takes him back to work on Monday morning. He stated that OSWALD is also employed at the Texas School Book Depository.

On the night of November 21, 1963, she observed FRAZIER letting LEE HARVEY OSWALD out of FRAZIER's car at 2515 West Fifth. Subsequently, she asked FRAZIER why OSWALD was visiting his wife on Thursday evening, as he usually did not visit her until Friday evening each week. FRAZIER told her that OSWALD claimed he was visiting his wife the night of November 21, 1963, because he is fixing up his apartment and RUTH PAINE, with whom his wife resides at 2515 West Fifth, Irving, was going to give him some curtain rods.

RANDLE stated that about 7:15 a.m., November 22, 1963, she looked out of a window of her residence and observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD walking up her driveway and saw him put a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area of WESLEY FRAZIER's 1954 black Chevrolet four door automobile. Thereafter, she observed OSWALD walk to the front, or entrance area, of her residence where he waited for FRAZIER to come out of the house and give him a ride to work.

RANDLE stated while at the Dallas Police Department on the evening of November 22, 1963, officers of the Dallas Police Department had exhibited to her some brown package paper, however she had not been able to positively identify it as being identical with the above-mentioned brown package, due to the fact she had only observed the brown package from her residence window at a distance.

on 11/22/63 at Dallas, Texas File # DL 89-43

by Special Agent JAMES W. BOOKHOUT/cah/tjd

Date dictated 11/23/63

Here is an excerpt from her WC testimony:

"Mr. BALL. About how long would you think the package would be, just measure it right on there.

Mrs. RANDLE. I would say about like this.
Mr. BALL. You mean from here to here?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; with that folded down with this much for him to grip in his hand.
Mr. BALL. This package is about the span of my hand, say 8 inches, is that right? He would have about this much to grip?
Mrs. RANDLE. What I remember seeing is about this long, sir, as I told you it was folded down so it could have been this long.
Mr. BALL. I see. You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?
Mrs. RANDLE. A little bit more.
Mr. BALL. A little more than 2 feet."

Now Dave, we have to get something straight here. Was she mistaken on the day she gave her testimony, or was she mistaken when she gave information to Bookhout?

Or was Bookhout merely a filthy rat bag lying little snake who should have been strung up from a light post?

Edited June 5, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Jon G. Tidd]

Robert Prudhome,

The FBI report you quote at #37 would be hearsay in a trial court and therefore inadmissible as evidence.

I say this because some here assert they have evidence. What they have are mere facts. What is the difference? A fact is what it is. Evidence is that which gets to a jury via a court order.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Robert Prudhome,

The FBI report you quote at #37 would be hearsay in a trial court and therefore inadmissible as evidence.

I say this because some here assert they have evidence. What they have are mere facts. What is the difference? A fact is what it is. Evidence is that which gets to a jury via a court order.

And an FBI report is whatever the agent wants it to be, Facts are irrelevant.

[Jon G. Tidd]

"And an FBI report is whatever the agent wants it to be, Facts are irrelevant."

An FBI report is hearsay. Facts are immutable.

[David Von Pein]

Nice try, little guy, but that information was contained in one of the FBI "reports". You know the ones, they were written in the third person by FBI agents, often without the subject of the report present, and the majority of them were neither seen nor signed by the person that supposedly gave the evidence.

In other words, they were lies, Dave, and most of this case is built on them.

An FBI report is whatever the agent wants it to be. Facts are irrelevant.

If you really believe the things you wrote in the two quotes shown above, Bob, I can only have pity for you. Because those two quotes are--let's face it--just plain rubbish.

And what's with this "little guy" put-down of yours? Care to explain?

Edited June 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Josephs]

Seriously, Dave, both brother and sister make separate and independent estimations of the length of the bag, both are mistaken and, incredibly, both estimate the length to be 24-27" inches? Not sure I'd be calling anyone else's theories stupid, little man.

Bob... there was no paper bag in Oswald's possession that day. There was no rifle in the garage and no evidence it was ever there. There was no opportunity for Oswald to have unassembled the rifle, packed it into a bag and gotten it out of the house.

We can't have a discussion about a bag until someone can show Oswald made it, when he made it, how he made it, how he got it home how the rifle gets into it, how Oswald leaves with it in the morning and some corroborating evidence for the siblings. Wesley was arrested and his 30.06 and ammunition was also brought in the night of Nov 22nd. His sister was there too. Given the choice between being charged for the president's murder or an accessory (he drove the man to get his rifle and brought him back with it knowingly) and telling a little white lie about a bag in Oswald's possession... I believe he choise the latter.

Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.

Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.

Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

For the rifle to be in the garage, it needs to have been brought from New Orleans on Sept 24, 1963 when Ruth picks up Marina and kids.

Mr. JENNER - Was there a rifle packed in the back of the car?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - You didn't see any kind of weapon?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Firearm, rifle, pistol, or otherwise?

Mrs. PAINE - No; I saw nothing of that nature.

Mr. JENNER - Did you drive them to your home?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Were the materials and things in your station wagon unpacked and placed in your home?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes; immediately.

Mr. JENNER - Did you see that being done, were you present?

Mrs. PAINE - I helped do it; yes.

Mr. JENNER - Did you see any weapon on that occasion?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Whether a rifle, pistol or--

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Or any covering, any package, that looked as though it might have a weapon, pistol, or firearm?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Representative BOGGS - Did you see the rifle that he had in the room in your home?

Mrs. PAINE - In the garage, no.

Representative BOGGS - In the garage, you never saw one?

Mrs. PAINE - I never saw that rifle at all until the police showed it to me in the station on the 22d of November.

Mr. JENNER - Then, I would ask you directly, did you see him in the garage at anytime from the time you first saw him on the lawn until he retired for the night?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Until you retired for the night?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - Was he out on the lawn after dinner or supper?

Mrs. PAINE - I don't believe so.

Mr. JENNER - Did you hear any activity out in the garage on that evening?

Mrs. PAINE - No; I did not.

Mr. JENNER - Any persons moving about?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - The only thing that arrested your attention was the fact that you discovered the light on in the garage?

Mrs. PAINE - That is right.

-----------------

Jon - even a judge has to follow the rules of Real Evidence in determining whether to admit an item as evidence... I realize we are not judges yet there does remain some common sense involved. If we can show that an item of evidence is neither unique (due to false testimony or any other reason), or made unique, or we can illustrate a break or hole in the chain of custody, a judge may still admit it as evidence yet it's evidentiary value is greatly diminished.

I think for our purposes here, discussing whether evidence is Authentic has to be our first line of analysis.

Authenticating evidence for a court of law creates what’s called “REAL EVIDENCE”: Evidence

Real evidence is a thing the existence or characteristics of which are relevant and material. It is usually a thing that was directly involved in some event in the case

To be admissible, real evidence, like all evidence, must be relevant, material, and competent.

Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways—1) by identification of a unique object, 2) by identification of an object that has been made unique, and 3) by establishing a chain of custody.

I think the following blows "uniqueness" out of the water and we know that no photos are taken of this bag where it was found... hours later Monty emerges with his bag being help up by something inside it. (Monty claimed it was a venetian blind in a 6th floor statement). The bags below are all in excess of 3 feet and had been made with materials found at the TSBD. Another bag is found in an undelivered parcel supposedly addressed to Oswald but held for non-delivery. The testimony related to bringing this bag down is amazing... most specifically Montgomery's - the man photographed with the bag as he exits the TSDB

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Right over here is where we found that long piece of paper that looked like a sack, that the rifle had been in.

Mr. BALL. Does that have a number--that area--where you found that long piece of paper?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. It's No. 2 right here.

Mr. BALL. You found the sack in the area marked 2 on Exhibit J to the Studebaker deposition. Did you pick the sack up?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Which sack are we talking about now?

Mr. BALL. The paper sack?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. The small one or the larger one?

Mr. BALL. The larger one you mentioned that was in position 2.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Yes.

Mr. BALL. You picked it up?

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Wait just a minute no; I didn't pick it up. I believe Mr. Studebaker did. We left it laying right there so they could check it for prints.

Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was doubled - it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over.

Mr. BALL. How long was it, approximately?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. I don't know - I picked it up and dusted it and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know.

Mr. BALL. Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. No.

Mr. BALL. Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures.

Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142.

Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963.

Mr. BELIN. What did you do with the bag after you found it and you put this writing on after you dusted it?

Mr. DAY. I released it to the FBI agent.

Mr. BELIN. Did you take it down to the station with you?

Mr. DAY. I didn't take it with me. I left it with the men when I left. I left Detectives Hicks and Studebaker to bring this in with them when they brought other equipment in

Mr. BALL. Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building?

Mr. HICKS. Paper bag?

Mr. BALL. Paper bag.

Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up.

Mr. BALL. Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it?

Mr. HICKS. No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it.

Mr. BALL. I believe that's all, Mr. Hicks.

Mr. HICKS. All right.

So there we have it... Monty did not take it, Hicks did not see it, Studbaker claims he dusted it and "they" took it and Day has the FBI with it....

Montgomery is never officially asked how it is he has that bag in his possession in the photos - and whether the bag supposedly found yet no photo'd is the same.

This bag has 2 CE#'s 142 & 626. The Replica is CE364 and then there are a multiple of other views and photos of this bag...

CE2444 tells us the replica and original are not the same paper or tape

WCD5 p129 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=132&tab=page tells us a very different FBI story... Drain says that DAY found and kept the bag until giving it to Drain the night of 11/22 with everything else. That TRULY also saw this bag and furnished paper - yet not a word is spoken of this in his testimony... one page prior is the FBI report on Studebaker.

One doesn;t need to be a judge to see right from wrong, deviation from standard. the Evidence IS the Conspiracy while the FACTS remain a matter of opinion and POV. The accepted "facts" in this case can only shed light on the conspiracy...

In reality, there are few if any "facts" which can be stated with confidence in this case. Evidence is plentiful.

[Cliff Varnell]

Sure.

Listen to Pat Speer talk about the fictional T1 back wound?

You're right, Greg, the JFK cover-up is live and well: Pogo-time.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Hey Cliff,

49 out of 50 ain't bad. 35 out of 50 ain't bad. 5 out of 50 ain't even bad.

No, it is bad. It's busy work. Just like Salandria said.

50? Why make it so complex?

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

It's what Salandria, Fonzi and Schotz have been telling us for decades, words of wisdom forsaken.

It only takes ONE item of reasonable doubt to dismantle their case.

OR, we could cite the physical evidence in the case which is beyond any doubt at all and move on to more important subjects such as -- "What happened to the bullets causing the throat and back wounds?"

Our job isn't to prove that EVERY item creates reasonable doubt. But it is their job to prove that EVERY item falls short.

Outside of the Salandria Group the Critical Community has utterly failed to bring clarity to the case.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

Nice try, little guy, but that information was contained in one of the FBI "reports". You know the ones, they were written in the third person by FBI agents, often without the subject of the report present, and the majority of them were neither seen nor signed by the person that supposedly gave the evidence.

In other words, they were lies, Dave, and most of this case is built on them.

An FBI report is whatever the agent wants it to be. Facts are irrelevant.

If you really believe the things you wrote in the two quotes shown above, Bob, I can only have pity for you. Because those two quotes are--let's face it--just plain rubbish.

And what's with this "little guy" put-down of yours? Care to explain?

Perhaps you would like to explain to everyone why Linnie Mae Randle would tell the FBI that the bag was 3.5 feet long, and tell the Warren Commission it was 2 feet long.

[Brian Schmidt]

Gentleman,

Let's not allow our worst qualities to come out in a thread welcoming a new member. We should save the petty arguments for when (if) he actually challenges some of this stuff.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Brian Schmidt