Why Does DVP Rattle Cages Here?

[Kenneth Drew]

a) i take umbrage to "CT-ers do the same thing," especially in the context of being compared to DVPs tendency to do so. ALL CTers do not mis-assign values, and not nearly to the extent that he does (few do). And those who do to any great extent are soon ignored by their own, as well as the dark siders. ALL cannot be spoken for to begin with. you're welcome to qualify that with "some" or "many" or "most," but CT-ers do the same thing is incorrect.

yep, most of us assign a 0 to Brennan's claim - the main reason is because we can afford to; there is an ocean of other more valuable evidence with which we can work. Not so with SBTers. They cannot afford to scoot aside such potentially valuable evidence, because they have so little to turn to. It's vital to them to overemphasise the empty casings and the rifle and LHO's dodgy behaviour because they need a lot of points.

They are in a point deficit.

I was waiting for you to break open some good old fashioned AND Gate and OR Gate stuff - i tend to view it, too, in a 1s or 0s fashion (if else statements) which is known as - wait for it - logic. It works better though for me when I have to go with "if this" then "probably that" or "definitely that" and "unlikely that" instead of just "if this" then "that"; which takes it all back around to your value system, the need to assign varying values...

On a 1 - 100 scale, i give the empty casings on the 6th about a 15, whereas DVP seems to give them about a 90. 95... 98... i guess. and the more i read about the circumstances on that floor, the way the Detectives mishandled things, the way LHO's whereabouts are MORE THAN questionable, the more my value assignation to these casings changes. It becomes quite a complex circuit board when you keep adding variables.

and as far as the thread goes, it's my opinion that DVP simply does so on purpose. i think his own personal JFK ass. philosophy is mostly secondary to his intent to keep others from theirs. it reminds me of some toddlers i've known.

Several really good comments, Glenn. and as far as the thread goes, it's my opinion that DVP simply does so on purpose. i think his own personal JFK ass. philosophy is mostly secondary to his intent to keep others from theirs. it reminds me of some toddlers i've known. I do agree that DVP's intent is to keep anyone else from proving any part of a conspiracy. He knows the Lone Nut story is not true, but he doesn't have to 'prove' that it is because the Warren commission already did that. Even tho very few people that have actually looked into the killing agree with the WC conclusions. But he doesn't have to prove the WC right, because it's in the book as the governments position, even though the government changed their official position with the HSCA but they didn't go back and change the WCR.

On a 1 - 100 scale, i give the empty casings on the 6th about a 15, whereas DVP seems to give them about a 90. 95... 98... That's true. DVP can claim they are evidence of something just because they are there and the WCR makes conclusions about them. Yet, the fact they are found there has nothing to do with a shot being fired from there. Even if those casings are the ones that were actually found there on 11/22, it has nothing to do with when they were fired or says nothing about who they were fired by. And there certainly is no evidence that links those shell casings to any of the bullets that were actually in JFK's body.

DVP only regurgitates the same old song and dance, he apparently closed his mind long ago to even considering whether some parts of the story don't match and looks at no other possibilities. A simple example, absolutely no proof has ever surfaced that proves LHO ever owned a MC rifle or ever fired one. DVP is convinced, with absolutely no evidence that he did. truly ironic.

[Kenneth Drew]

Let's assign value:

Mr. BRENNAN. To my best description, [the shooter in the sixth-floor window was] a man in his early thirties, fair complexion, slender but neat, neat slender, possibly 5-foot 10.

Mr. BELIN. About what weight?

Mr. BRENNAN. Oh, at--I calculated, I think, from 160 to 170 pounds.

I assign zero value to this description. Why? Brennan could not have seen the shooter above hips. Right, DVP?

Jon,

I guess you're right.

Although Brennan said he could only see the shooter from the hips or belt line up, in reality, he could have seen a standing shooter only from the hips or belt line down.

BTW, Brennan also said he thought the shooter was sitting on the windowsill at one point before the limo came by, but was standing "like the black guys at the fifth-floor window" while shooting at JFK. Now if the shooter really was standing "like the black guys" when he fired the rifle, it beats me as to why Brennan would throw in the "sitting on the windowsill," too, but it is valuable information because it tells us that Brennan couldn't possibly have confused the two positions, could he? It's an interesting (because it reflects on Brennan's credibility) but rather moot point because the window, even if lifted as high as it would go, couldn't have been opened high enough to allow anyone to shoot through it from a standing position.

So why did Brennan say that the assassin was standing while firing? His testimony would have been more convincing if he'd said he saw the shooter firing from a sitting position. Maybe he didn't say that because he had to get in the "possibly 5' 10", 160 to 170 pounds" bit in, and in order to do so had to say he saw the shooter standing at the window.

Most importantly, I disagree, for very ironic reasons, with your assessment that Brennan's testimony here has "zero value." Brennan's testimony, given what you've pointed out, above, suggests that he was told what to say, and what he said suggests the transmission of FBI/CIA/Army Intell regarding the biological details of Robert E. Webster as "inherited" by Lee Harvey Oswald in a "dangle" / "mole hunting" operation begun by the the FBI and CIA in 1960 when Oswald was still in Russia.

Powell photo on the left; Dillard photo on the right:

--Tommy

See those 2 bottom photos? If the window where the two guys are looking out were at the same raised point as the window above it, what would the two men be seeing? Their faces would be behind the glass. Their window half is raised fully while the one on the 6th floor was only half raised.

[Kenneth Drew]

Something for CTers to ponder....

Howard Brennan's initial description of the gunman is remarkably similar to policeman Marrion Baker's description of the man he encountered on the 2nd floor just a couple of minutes after the shooting. And the man Baker encountered was undeniably Lee Harvey Oswald (although, incredibly, some CTers on the outer fringe of reality are now pretending that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor never even happened AT ALL, which is pure tommyrot, of course). Here's a 2014 exchange I had with two CTers about the similar descriptions provided by Brennan and Officer Baker....

BEN HOLMES SAID:

He [Lee Harvey Oswald] gave his *OWN* weight as 140... and a document from after his death gives his weight as "131," which due to the number given, is almost certainly the most accurate number of all.

David won't address this issue, even though Oswald's *TRUE* weight is clearly the issue, not the autopsy.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, Oswald's *TRUE* weight is not actually the overriding issue here at all. The overriding issue, as far as the eyewitnesses are concerned, is what those witnesses thought Oswald's weight was when they saw him on 11/22/63.

And the very best evidence for a person whose estimated weight was given as "165 pounds" actually being Lee Harvey Oswald resides in the 11/22/63 affidavit of policeman Marrion L. Baker, who said these exact words in that affidavit (and we know without any doubt that he is talking about Lee Oswald here, because Roy Truly verified that the person Baker stopped at gunpoint in the second-floor lunchroom was Oswald)....

"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." -- Marrion L. Baker; 11/22/63

HERE is Baker's affidavit.

Therefore, the real Lee Harvey Oswald, who did not weigh 165 pounds, did appear to weigh 165 pounds to Officer Baker on November 22 in that lunchroom. And the real Oswald also appeared to be "approximately 30 years old" to Baker too, perfectly matching Howard Brennan's estimate of the age of the sixth-floor assassin that he also saw that same day. And Brennan's weight estimate for the sixth-floor assassin also generally matches the incorrect weight estimate provided by Baker.

Plus: Baker thought (incorrectly) that Oswald was wearing a "jacket", when we know the "brown jacket" Baker spoke of was only Oswald's brown shirt (which was open and not tucked in). The "jacket" comment also matches another witness' incorrect assertion about Oswald wearing a jacket--and that witness is William Whaley.

But the conspiracy theorists have nowhere to run with all those mistakes that Officer Baker made about Oswald's description---because there can be no doubt whatsoever that Baker was describing a person who we know (via Roy Truly) was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Ergo, a weight estimate of 165 pounds for Lee Harvey Oswald most certainly does not mean that Baker (or Brennan) had to have seen someone other than Oswald in the Depository on November 22, 1963. And Marrion Baker's official affidavit is the thing that forever proves that fact.

BEN HOLMES SAID:

You're lying again, David.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The main point concerning the topic of Oswald's weight is clearly a point that Ben Holmes cannot grasp. And that important point is: The REAL Oswald was said to weigh 165 pounds by a witness who we know saw the REAL Lee Oswald (not some "imposter"). And that witness is Marrion Baker.

Holmes would be much better off just stating that Baker lied his eyes out in his 11/22 affidavit that I posted earlier, wherein Baker claims that the man he stopped in the lunchroom weighed 165 pounds (and was about 30 years old, which is also wrong).

Ben, do you think Baker was lying about the "165 pounds" and "approximately 30 years old" portions of his affidavit, just to conform to Howard Brennan's nearly identical description of the sixth-floor sniper and/or to conform to the Dallas Police Department's 12:45 PM APB radio broadcast concerning the description of the President's assassin?

Because if conspiracy clowns like Ben Holmes think Baker was being totally truthful in that affidavit, then they've got no choice but to admit that a witness who saw the real Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, definitely did think he weighed 165 pounds.

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

No matter what DVP says, I find it difficult to understand how a person weighing 131 pounds could be said to have weighed 165.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, are you saying Marrion Baker was lying in his affidavit? Because Baker definitely did see Oswald, and Baker definitely did estimate Oswald's weight to be 165.

And Ted Callaway also positively identified Lee Oswald (at a police lineup), and Callaway said this to the Warren Commission about Oswald's weight (varying by only five pounds from Baker's guess about LHO's weight):

MR. CALLAWAY -- "Just a nice athletic type size boy, I mean. Neither fat nor thin."

MR. BALL -- "What did you estimate his weight when you talked to the officer before the lineup?"

MR. CALLAWAY -- "I told him it looked to me like around 160 pounds."

Was Callaway lying too?

And there's also Howard Brennan, who (albeit belatedly) did positively identify Lee Oswald as the sixth-floor assassin. In his 11/22/63 affidavit, Brennan said the sniper in the TSBD window weighed "about 165 to 175 pounds".

But a key word used by Brennan in that same affidavit that is often overlooked by conspiracists is "slender". Brennan said the "165 to 175-pound" person was ALSO "slender". And Oswald was "slender".

David Von Pein

June 13, 2014

incredibly, some CTers on the outer fringe of reality are now pretending that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor never even happened AT ALL, give us a link to some CTer pretending that.

[Pat Speer]

Wonder how he knew who had killed JFK on 11/22 when the world didn't know it until the Warren Report reached a conclusion.

The world knew it by 11:26 PM CST on 11/22. It was obvious then. It's even more obvious today. Too bad you haven't joined the world yet.

That's a good point, David, although an inadvertent one.

Unlike most researchers, who are mostly concerned with who killed Kennedy, and why, I have spent much of my time researching what people were thinking, when they were thinking it, and why they were thinking it. Your video archive has proved most helpful in this effort, so thank you for that.

In any event, when one approaches the case from this angle, it's clear that the media had no idea what was going on on 11-22-63, and quickly tired of guessing. They then decided to sit back and let the government tell them what to think. Meanwhile, the government, by and large, also had no idea what was going on, and then decided it was easiest and best to let the public believe it was one wacko acting alone.

The problem, however, is that this wasn't an actual conclusion, but a decision, a political decision. They then had to find a way to confirm this decision. This, then, led to another political decision--the creation of the Warren Commission. While this commission was purportedly granted the autonomy to come to whatever decision it felt appropriate, the members of this commission were all completely entrenched in Washington, and extremely unlikely to say anything which would reflect badly on the Johnson Administration, or cause public alarm. When one reads the news of the day, in fact, it seems clear that the commission's relatively minor criticisms of the FBI, and the SS, came as a bit of a surprise to those "inside the beltway".

Now, one could argue from all this that the WC was a whitewash of a crime that didn't need to be whitewashed. But nobody really does that, do they? No, those suspecting there was more to it than Oswald are normally treated like idiots by those thinking he acted alone, because those thinking he acted alone "know" he did it all alone.

It's called cognitive dissonance. Virtually all of those thinking Oswald acted alone also claim some inside baseball understanding of Oswald's motivations--that he was crazy, a wife-beater, a dyed-in-the-wool commie, an America-hater, etc. While NONE of that is clear from the record.

In other words, they KNOW Oswald did it, based upon what they actually don't know at all, but only think they know.

[David Von Pein]

Nobody can ever prove Oswald's motive, Pat. All we can do is guess. And I've never been shy about saying that very thing.

But as far as the EVIDENCE incriminating Oswald --- well, that's a different matter. The evidence against him is truly overwhelming. You don't deny that, do you Pat?

And guilt is usually established by using evidence.

Edited July 16, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

Wonder how he knew who had killed JFK on 11/22 when the world didn't know it until the Warren Report reached a conclusion.

The world knew it by 11:26 PM CST on 11/22. It was obvious then. It's even more obvious today. Too bad you haven't joined the world yet.

So, do you agree with the statement from above: "What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little." -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963

According to your statement that the world knew at 11:26 PM, where was Mr Dreier of ABC News that he 'knew' it and made his statement prior to midnight?

[Kenneth Drew]

Nobody can ever prove Oswald's motive, Pat. All we can do is guess. And I've never been shy about saying that very thing.

But as far as the EVIDENCE incriminating Oswald --- well, that's a different matter. The evidence against him is truly overwhelming. You don't deny that, do you Pat?

And guilt is usually established by using evidence.

While there is a small amount of circumstantial evidence due to the set up, the statement that the evidence against Oswald is 'overwhelming' is, of itself, overwhelmingly an overstatement. If you are so absolutely sure, why not take Krusch's challenge and make some money off it?

"And guilt is usually established by using evidence " only if the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and I know of no evidence, and you certainly haven't shown us any, that proves any guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I know of nothing you have shown that would get a guilty vote.

By the time all exculpatory evidence is presented, along with yours, the net is 'not guilty'.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[David Von Pein]

In fact, I know of nothing you have shown that would get a guilty vote.

Yeah, sure, Ken.

All you have to do, Ken, is totally IGNORE all of these little nitpicky items in order to avoid a "Guilty" vote against Lee Oswald....

...The C2766 rifle.

...The documents establishing that OSWALD owned the C2766 rifle.

...All of the bullets.

...All of the bullet shells.

...Oswald's prints on various items (boxes, rifle, paper bag).

...The Tippit murder evidence (and eyewitnesses).

...Howard Brennan's WC testimony.

...Oswald's OWN ACTIONS and out-of-the-ordinary behavior on both Nov. 21 and 22.

Good luck, Ken, in finding 12 jurors who are willing to pretend that ALL OF THE ABOVE is "fake" stuff (including OSWALD'S OWN ACTIONS AND LIES).

(Are all of the O.J. jurors still alive? You might give them a call. They're about your only hope.)

Edited July 16, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

In fact, I know of nothing you have shown that would get a guilty vote.

Yeah, sure, Ken.

All you have to do, Ken, is totally IGNORE all of these little nitpicky items in order to avoid a "Guilty" vote against Lee Oswald....

...The C2766 rifle.

...The documents establishing that OSWALD owned the C2766 rifle.

...All of the bullets.

...All of the bullet shells.

...Oswald's prints on various items (boxes, rifle, paper bag).

...The Tippit murder evidence (and eyewitnesses).

...Howard Brennan's WC testimony.

...Oswald's OWN ACTIONS and out-of-the-ordinary behavior on both Nov. 21 and 22.

Good luck, Ken, in finding 12 jurors who are willing to pretend that ALL OF THE ABOVE is "fake" stuff (including OSWALD'S OWN ACTIONS AND LIES).

(Are all of the O.J. jurors still alive? You might give them a call. They're about your only hope.)

I'll take this one: ...Oswald's prints on various items (boxes, rifle, paper bag). (I'm gonna speak on this at Lancer this November.)

It seems clear to me that you, as many others, just take all these at face value. Oswald was a pathetic loser and the DPD and WC were honorable men so therefore the prints must be genuine.

But imagine this. You know nothing of Oswald. He is a blank person. All you know is that he said he was innocent.

And then take another look at the fingerprint evidence. And what do you find?

A palm print on a box top...that was not photographed in place on the 22nd. That was then placed back on a box on the 25th, that was in the sniper's nest. Well, who's to say this box wasn't a box Oswald touched while pulling orders elsewhere in the building...that was later moved to the sniper's nest? I mean, there's something fishy about all this. The photos from the 25th prove that Lt. Day was yet to sign this box top, and yet he testified that he signed the box top on the 22nd. He was lying. So what else was he lying about?

Two prints on a paper bag that supposedly held the rifle...that the only people to see Oswald with a bag said was not the bag they saw in Oswald's possession. And not only that...this bag was not photographed in the sniper's nest, or recalled by any of those initially viewing the sniper's nest. And not only that there are no photos showing these prints on the bag now in the archives. There are photos of prints, and there are photos of a bag, but there is nothing in these photos to show these prints are on the same bag, or even a bag of any kind. And then there's Lt. Day, who once again claimed he'd signed the bag when discovered, but who later admitted he wasn't in the building when the bag was discovered. Hmmm...if he was lying about this, then what else was he lying about?

And then there's the rifle print...which was supposedly found and lifted on the 22nd, but was never entered into evidence in any manner. Yes, amazingly, there is no paper trail of its existence, none whatsoever...until 4 days later...two days AFTER the FBI told the Dallas Police they'd found no legible prints on the rifle. And, yes, here, once again is Lt. Day, who claimed he'd failed to compare this lift to Oswald's prints beyond making a cursory glance, even though his department had known for TWO WHOLE DAYS that the FBI had made no mention of this print in their report, and who also refused to sign a sworn statement regarding the prints when asked to do so by the FBI.

Now, right there, on these three points, any lawyer worth his salt would be able to raise a reasonable doubt. But when one looks at the other prints it just gets worse.

Three additional boxes from the sniper's nest were removed from the building on the 25th. Problem number 1: There is no concrete proof these were the boxes in the sniper's nest on the 22nd. Problem number 2: Oswald's prints were found on but one of these boxes...in locations other than where they were presented in the WC's exhibits. Problem number 3: one print on one of these boxes has never been identified. Problem number 4: another print on one of these boxes that was previously identified as belonging to a member of the Dallas PD was later identified as belonging to a crony of President Lyndon Johnson's. Problem number 5: while the identification of this print as belonging to this crony has fallen into disfavor, none of those second-guessing this identification have subsequently re-affirmed the original identification of this print as belonging to the Dallas officer who'd moved the boxes from the depository, which means both that this print is currently unidentified, and that there is reason to suspect some of the other original identifications could be in error.

And, oh yeah, there's this. A piece of wood was removed from the sniper's nest window. There is no report in the DPD's archives on this piece of wood, and the results of any tests performed on this wood. Why? And what other pieces of the building which could have contained prints were removed, and then made to disappear?

And then there's the Dr. Pepper bottle. A Dr. Pepper bottle was found on the sixth floor, near a bag holding some fried chicken bones. This was supposedly the lunch of Bonnie Ray Williams. And yet there is no report showing that this bottle was dusted for fingerprints. While it was subsequently reported, moreover, that no prints were found on this bottle, this seems highly unlikely, seeing as greasy chicken is a fingerprint analyst's best friend, along with glass bottles. Well, it follows then that this report was made to disappear for one reason or another. Did the DPD throw the bottle out when they realized the prints didn't belong to Oswald, even though they didn't know whose prints were on the bottle? Or did the DPD "find" Oswald's prints on the bottle? Before realizing the bottle belonged to Williams?

Who knows? But, in light of all the other problems with the prints, you can bet some hotshot Johnnie Cochrane type could have soaked all this up, and used most every piece of supposedly slamdunk evidence against Oswald against those accusing him.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Thomas Graves]

In fact, I know of nothing you have shown that would get a guilty vote.

Yeah, sure, Ken.

All you have to do, Ken, is totally IGNORE all of these little nitpicky items in order to avoid a "Guilty" vote against Lee Oswald....

...The C2766 rifle.

...The documents establishing that OSWALD owned the C2766 rifle.

...All of the bullets.

...All of the bullet shells.

...Oswald's prints on various items (boxes, rifle, paper bag).

...The Tippit murder evidence (and eyewitnesses).

...Howard Brennan's WC testimony.

...Oswald's OWN ACTIONS and out-of-the-ordinary behavior on both Nov. 21 and 22.

Good luck, Ken, in finding 12 jurors who are willing to pretend that ALL OF THE ABOVE is "fake" stuff (including OSWALD'S OWN ACTIONS AND LIES).

(Are all of the O.J. jurors still alive? You might give them a call. They're about your only hope.)

I'll take this one: ...Oswald's prints on various items (boxes, rifle, paper bag). (I'm gonna speak on this at Lancer this November.)

It seems clear to me that you, as many others, just take all these at face value. Oswald was a pathetic loser and the DPD and WC were honorable men so therefore the prints must be genuine.

But imagine this. You know nothing of Oswald. He is a blank person. All you know is that he said he was innocent.

And then take another look at the fingerprint evidence. And what do you find?

A palm print on a box top...that was not photographed in place on the 22nd. That was then placed back on a box on the 25th, that was in the sniper's nest. Well, who's to say this box wasn't a box Oswald touched while pulling orders elsewhere in the building...that was later moved to the sniper's nest? I mean, there's something fishy about all this. The photos from the 25th prove that Lt. Day was yet to sign this box top, and yet he testified that he signed the box top on the 22nd. He was lying. So what else was he lying about?

Two prints on a paper bag that supposedly held the rifle...that the only people to see Oswald with a bag said was not the bag they saw in Oswald's possession. And not only that...this bag was not photographed in the sniper's nest, or recalled by any of those initially viewing the sniper's nest. And not only that there are no photos showing these prints on the bag now in the archives. There are photos of prints, and there are photos of a bag, but there is nothing in these photos to show these prints are on the same bag, or even a bag of any kind. And then there's Lt. Day, who once again claimed he'd signed the bag when discovered, but who later admitted he wasn't in the building when the bag was discovered. Hmmm...if he was lying about this, then what else was he lying about?

And then there's the rifle print...which was supposedly found and lifted on the 22nd, but was never entered into evidence in any manner. Yes, amazingly, there is no paper trail of its existence, none whatsoever...until 4 days later...two days AFTER the FBI told the Dallas Police they'd found no legible prints on the rifle. And, yes, here, once again is Lt. Day, who claimed he'd failed to compare this lift to Oswald's prints beyond making a cursory glance, even though his department had known for TWO WHOLE DAYS that the FBI had made no mention of this print in their report, and who also refused to sign a sworn statement regarding the prints when asked to do so by the FBI.

Now, right there, on these three points, any lawyer worth his salt would be able to raise a reasonable doubt. But when one looks at the other prints it just gets worse.

Three additional boxes from the sniper's nest were removed from the building on the 25th. Problem number 1: There is no concrete proof these were the boxes in the sniper's nest on the 22nd. Problem number 2: Oswald's prints were found on but one of these boxes...in locations other than where they were presented in the WC's exhibits. Problem number 3: one print on one of these boxes has never been identified. Problem number 4: another print on one of these boxes that was previously identified as belonging to a member of the Dallas PD was later identified as belonging to a crony of President Lyndon Johnson's. Problem number 5: while the identification of this print as belonging to this crony has fallen into disfavor, none of those second-guessing this identification have subsequently re-affirmed the original identification of this print as belonging to the Dallas officer who'd moved the boxes from the depository, which means both that this print is currently unidentified, and that there is reason to suspect some of the other original identifications could be in error.

And, oh yeah, there's this. A piece of wood was removed from the sniper's nest window. There is no report in the DPD's archives on this piece of wood, and the results of any tests performed on this wood. Why? And what other pieces of the building which could have contained prints were removed, and then made to disappear?

And then there's the Dr. Pepper bottle. A Dr. Pepper bottle was found on the sixth floor, near a bag holding some fried chicken bones. This was supposedly the lunch of Bonnie Ray Williams. And yet there is no report showing that this bottle was dusted for fingerprints. While it was subsequently reported, moreover, that no prints were found on this bottle, this seems highly unlikely, seeing as greasy chicken is a fingerprint analyst's best friend, along with glass bottles. Well, it follows then that this report was made to disappear for one reason or another. Did the DPD throw the bottle out when they realized the prints didn't belong to Oswald, even though they didn't know whose prints were on the bottle? Or did the DPD "find" Oswald's prints on the bottle? Before realizing the bottle belonged to Williams?

Who knows? But, in light of all the other problems with the prints, you can bet some hotshot Johnnie Cochrane type could have soaked all this up, and used most every piece of supposedly slamdunk evidence against Oswald against those accusing him.

Ken,

I've always been suspicious of the fingerprint evidence, myself.

The fact that the guy at the morgue said that some FBI types came in late one night while Oswald's corpse was still there and evidently got Oswald's prints (which may have been transferred to the rifle), the fact that one of "Mac" Wallace's fingerprints may have been found on one of the "sniper's lair" boxes, etc.

What do you mean when you say

A palm print on a box top...that was not photographed in place on the 22nd. That was then placed back on a box on the 25th, that was in the sniper's nest.

What was placed "back on a box on the 25th? A print? Another box?

Finally, a Devil's Advocate observation. The bottle of Dr. Pepper was probably cold when it was bought, and may have developed some moisture / condensation on its outside surface which prevented the adhering to it of anyone's fingerprints.

--Tommy

[Ray Mitcham]

Wrong insert

Edited July 16, 2015 by Ray Mitcham

[Robert Prudhomme]

A MISTAKE???? For Pete's sake, he only went up ONE floor! How could he possibly believe he had arrived at the 4th floor??

Maybe it was because of the way the TSBD's stairways were constructed. Perhaps someone better informed of the way the stairs were configured can chime in on this....but didn't it take two "sets" of L-shaped stairs to constitute a whole flight of steps? Frankly, I've always been a little perplexed by the configuration of the TSBD stairwells.

Anyway, Marrion Baker made a mistake in his 11/22 affidavit. And anyone who thinks it was anything other than an honest mistake is a person bent on creating a conspiracy where none exists at all.

Here's the sixth-floor diagram....

Nice try, Davey, but probably one of the lamest posts you have ever come up with. You actually are trying to tell us that, as Baker made the turn, INSIDE the stairwell, from one set of steps to another, he believed he had arrived at the 2nd floor?

Baker made no mistake in his statement when he said he was on either the 3rd or 4th floor. The only mistake he made was allowing himself to be pressured into changing his memory to the 2nd floor lunch room.

[Martin Hay]

which means both that this print is currently unidentified, and that there is reason to suspect some of the other original identifications could be in error.

It's been a long time since I looked closely at the issues around the prints but, as I recall, all the other prints on the boxes were said to have been matched to Dallas police officers or Deputy Sheriffs. However, I'm sure I read somewhere - I can't remember where off the top of my head - that many of the matches the FBI made on those prints were only 3 or 4 point matches. This would not ordinarily be considered a match. I believe here in the UK a minimum of 14 points is required.

[Peter McGuire]

Wonder how he knew who had killed JFK on 11/22 when the world didn't know it until the Warren Report reached a conclusion.

The world knew it by 11:26 PM CST on 11/22. It was obvious then. It's even more obvious today. Too bad you haven't joined the world yet.

That's a good point, David, although an inadvertent one.

Unlike most researchers, who are mostly concerned with who killed Kennedy, and why, I have spent much of my time researching what people were thinking, when they were thinking it, and why they were thinking it. Your video archive has proved most helpful in this effort, so thank you for that.

In any event, when one approaches the case from this angle, it's clear that the media had no idea what was going on on 11-22-63, and quickly tired of guessing. They then decided to sit back and let the government tell them what to think. Meanwhile, the government, by and large, also had no idea what was going on, and then decided it was easiest and best to let the public believe it was one wacko acting alone.

The problem, however, is that this wasn't an actual conclusion, but a decision, a political decision. They then had to find a way to confirm this decision. This, then, led to another political decision--the creation of the Warren Commission. While this commission was purportedly granted the autonomy to come to whatever decision it felt appropriate, the members of this commission were all completely entrenched in Washington, and extremely unlikely to say anything which would reflect badly on the Johnson Administration, or cause public alarm. When one reads the news of the day, in fact, it seems clear that the commission's relatively minor criticisms of the FBI, and the SS, came as a bit of a surprise to those "inside the beltway".

Now, one could argue from all this that the WC was a whitewash of a crime that didn't need to be whitewashed. But nobody really does that, do they? No, those suspecting there was more to it than Oswald are normally treated like idiots by those thinking he acted alone, because those thinking he acted alone "know" he did it all alone.

It's called cognitive dissonance. Virtually all of those thinking Oswald acted alone also claim some inside baseball understanding of Oswald's motivations--that he was crazy, a wife-beater, a dyed-in-the-wool commie, an America-hater, etc. While NONE of that is clear from the record.

In other words, they KNOW Oswald did it, based upon what they actually don't know at all, but only think they know.

Great Post , Pat.

" You don't know , what you don't know" and cognitive dissonance really apply to this case.

[David Von Pein]

ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Nice try, Davey, but probably one of the lamest posts you have ever come up with. You actually are trying to tell us that, as Baker made the turn, INSIDE the stairwell, from one set of steps to another, he believed he had arrived at the 2nd floor?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Bob, I just don't know. I was just throwing that out there as a possibility. And I said I was a bit confused myself as to the configuration of the staircases in the building. But I recalled from the Secret Service re-enactment films and the diagrams (like the one above) that the stairs were not laid out in one continuous set of steps from one floor to the next. So.....~SHRUG~.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Baker made no mistake in his statement when he said he was on either the 3rd or 4th floor. The only mistake he made was allowing himself to be pressured into changing his memory to the 2nd floor lunch room.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But if the whole "second-floor lunchroom encounter" was fake and bogus from the very start, then why would the people who were allegedly trying to frame Lee Oswald want to make it look like Baker and Truly saw the "patsy" on the SECOND floor instead of where YOU say Baker really did see an "Oswald-like" person on the third or fourth floor?

Keeping the patsy CLOSER to the sixth floor (i.e., the "Floor of Death") would be better than creating a fake "encounter" way down on the SECOND floor, don't you think?

And what about Oswald HIMSELF? Captain Fritz' report shows that Oswald said he WAS on the second floor when the policeman stopped him. So was Oswald himself lying? Or was it Fritz who was lying?

And what about Roy Truly's 11/23/63 affidavit? I guess it's nothing but a lie too, correct Bob? Because Truly, right off the bat, said the encounter took place on the second floor and inside the lunchroom.

And then there's the video featuring Jesse Curry that I posted earlier. Is that nothing but a lie too?

All those lies and liars just to put Oswald four floors away from the gunman's sniper's perch?

Yeah, right.

Edited July 16, 2015 by David Von Pein