Jump to content
The Education Forum

James DiEugenio

Members
  • Content Count

    5,077
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by James DiEugenio

  1. James DiEugenio

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    BTW, again for newbies like Derek, the reason I quote Pat Speer on this is because, although I deal with this phony bag issue in my book, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, I would have to type in lots of sentences since I do not have the book in Kindle form. In the trade paper format I deal with this issue at length, from pages 199-206. And from more than one angle. But Pat's book is an online production. So its easy to cut and paste. But he does a good job on Stombaugh and the bag. Bottom line: that rifle was not at the Paine home.
  2. James DiEugenio

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    Did Stombaugh bring up this point, again from Pat Speer: What's Goin ' On? No, scratch that, too. Before anyone convinced I am mistaken about the bag in the press photos' not looking like the one in the archives spends one precious second trying to prove me wrong, they should help straighten out some of the basic facts about the bag. Basic facts like...the actual location of the initials on the bag visible in Warren Commission Exhibit 632. You see, I've studied both the bag in the press photos and the bag in the archives photos, and I can't figure out where these initials could be on the bag. Although the palm print depicted in the exhibit was purportedly near the closed end of the bag, none of the press photos showing the closed end of the bag, and none of the archives photos showing the closed end of the bag, show these initials. My inability to figure out where these initials are on the bag, or even where the section of bag depicted in Exhibit 632 is on the bag, makes me wonder if the palm print depicted in Exhibit 632 was on either of these bags. Let's see how this can be... Perhaps the bag seen in the press photos was a bag found in the school book depository...that couldn't be linked to Oswald. Perhaps a second piece of paper was found, which could be linked to Oswald...perhaps this was a piece of paper pulled from one of the orders he'd pulled on 11-22. Or perhaps it was a piece of paper Oswald touched at the police station. Perhaps then Exhibit 632 is a close-up shot of this second piece of paper, and not of a bag. If so, well, then the bag currently in the archives was a bag created after the shooting, most probably from paper removed from the building on 11-22. Such a bag would not only be smaller than the bag shown Buell Frazier on 11-22, and therefore easier to pass off as the bag Oswald brought to work, but it would match the characteristics of the paper used in the depository, and thereby make its use by anyone other than Oswald seem unlikely. Or not. While I could be making a mountain out of a molehill, there's definitely some dirt here... I mean, just look at this mess... According to the report of the Dallas Detective who found the bag, L.D. Montgomery, the bag was initialed by Detectives Robert Studebaker, Marvin Johnson, and himself upon its discovery in the sniper's nest (24H314). All three of these men testified before the Warren Commission in Dallas on 4-6-64. So why weren't they shown the bag, and asked to verify their initials? Was it because the bag they'd signed had been switched with another bag? And that their initials had been forged onto a different piece of paper entirely?
  3. James DiEugenio

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    And in Stombaugh's testimony are these points brought up? (From Pat Speer) The Tell-Tale Tape You see, there's also the FBI photo of the bag before they coated it with silver nitrate (a chemical used to bring out fingerprints, which forever stains paper). This photograph is Exhibit 14 in Warren Commission Document CD 1, the FBI's 12-9-63 Summary Report on the assassination. Although the proportions of the bag in this photograph have been distorted by the photographer's taking this picture while the bag was laying flat on the floor before him, it is still suggestive that the bag in evidence is not the bag pulled from the building. The bag in the photograph has numerous pieces of paper tape along its right side. NO paper tape is visible anywhere on the front side of the bag in the news photos. There is also a piece of tape in the middle of the open end of the bag. No such piece of tape is visible in the news photos. The press photos do, on the other hand, show the paper by the open end of the bag to be badly crinkled. No such crinkling is apparent on the bag in the FBI exhibit. The bags in the photos, in fact, bear little resemblance to one another. Unless the side of the bag seen in Exhibit 14 is the opposite side of the bag seen in the news photos, then, we have conclusive evidence the bags are not the same.
  4. James DiEugenio

    Pierre Finck Learned his Lesson

    That is a mystery that has never been solved. Why was not someone like Halpern brought in to do the autopsy? In all the reading I have done on this subject I do not think I have ever see this problem addressed. I mean no one, like Galloway, at bethesda realize this was a problem? Halpern sure did. He compared sending Humes to do JFK's autopsy to a 12 year old doing a Chopin violin concerto at Carnegie Hall.
  5. As everyone understands who reads my book, the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, Pierre Finck did much to blow open the JFK case at the trial of Clay Shaw in 1969 in New Orleans. (pp. 300-303) Under some adroit questioning by Al Oser, he admitted things that the American public was never supposed to know. For instance, that there were dozens of military higher ups in the room, Admirals and Generals, (one of them turned out to be LeMay.) He also said that Humes shouted out, "Who is in charge here?" And a general replied, "I am". When asked why the back wound was not dissected, after eight different restatements of the question, FInck finally said, because Humes was ordered not to. This should have been front page news but we know how the MSM operates on the JFK case. Well, at Paul Seaton's site he extracts some of Finck's last testimony on the subject. (Piere passed on, I think last year.) This was before the ARRB and Jeremy Gunn. Man did Pierre learn his lesson. He just lied his head off this time around. He learned that in the JFK case, you don't tell the truth. It gets you in trouble. Read it and weep. http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/finck-notes.htm
  6. James DiEugenio

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    If newbies like Derek do not know what I am talking about with the possible wrong shirt and Mary Bledsoe, please read this: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/deeper-into-dave-perry Bledsoe has the credibility of Brennan.
  7. James DiEugenio

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    The paper bag to the blanket. This makes your argument even worse. First, you ignore the evidence of the fibers the DPD most likely put in the butt plate because they did not have anything else.. But to resort to the the bag? HA HA HA HA ROTF http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4d%3Asackoflies
  8. James DiEugenio

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    Davey now has to make like he does not understand that Stombaugh's failure to do anything at all to connect the rifle to the blanket was a big problem for the WC. Because, to any normal thinking person--automatically excluding Davey-- it indicated the rifle was not in the blanket. That is why they had Marina do what she did. Davey also ignores the fact that Speer also showed how they were so desperate to connect that rifle to LHO that it looks like the DPD stuffed some shirt fibers in the butt plate. But it is actually even worse than that. Why? Because it probably was the wrong shirt. This brings in the utterly risible testimony of none other than Mary Bledsoe, who may be worse than Marina.
  9. James DiEugenio

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    Davey just doesn't know when to quit. He is having a very bad day today. I don't know if DVP has ever heard of a guy named Stombaugh. But he was the FBI agent who was called as an expert for hair and fiber evidence. His testimony is in volume 4, and it is the epitome of just how bad the WC really was. The WC desperately wanted him to link the blanket to the rifle in any possible way that he could. He could not. He had to resort to the shirt and that got rather sticky. I can do no better than link to Pat Speer's analysis of Stombaugh and what his testimony really meant: "I noted it had been dusted for latent prints. So I proceeded to pick off what fibers were left from the small crevices and small grease deposits which were left on the gun. At the point of the butt plate, the end of the stock…I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed.” This duster would be Lt. J.C. Day, the same Dallas Crime Lab Detective who “found” Oswald's palm print on the rifle after giving it to the FBI and having them find no identifiable prints on the rifle. Day explained later that he'd lifted this palm print off the rifle on the night of the assassination before sending it to the FBI crime lab in Washington. He said he was surprised they'd found no trace of this print upon inspection. He admitted further that he had not protected this print, or marked its location, in any way. Nor had he sent a note along with with the rifle explaining the work he had performed, and that he'd lifted a palm print from the underside of the barrel on a part of the barrel only accessible when the rifle is disassembled. He'd also failed to photograph the print while it was on the rifle (which is pretty much standard procedure). From such mistakes reasonable doubts arise. Stombaugh, continued: “These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide…because this little group of fibers—little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh. The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old…the other fibers I cleaned up, removed the grease and examined them but they were of no value. They were pretty well fragmented…They all appeared old…in excess of a month or two months.” Returning to the “tuft,” Stombaugh explained: “this was just a small tuft. They were adhering to the gun on a small jagged edge. In other words the gun had caught on a piece of fabric and pulled the fibers loose. They were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up. They were folded very neatly down in the crevice…they were adhering to the edge rather tightly…it had the jagged edge sticking up and the fibers were folded around it and resting in the crevice…I believe when the fingerprint man dusted it he probably ran his brush along the metal portion here…Of the butt plate, and at the time the brush folded these down into the crevice...Because of the presence of fingerprint powder being down in and through the crevice here. It looked as if it had been dusted with a brush. You could make out the bristlemarks of the brush itself.” Stombaugh had thereby testified that the fibers found in the butt plate crevice did not end up there on their own, and were apparently folded down in there only AFTER Day had dusted the butt plate. When asked what it would take for someone to loosen the threads from the jagged edge, he responded “Well, I would imagine if one took a brush and started brushing pretty hard these would have worked loose and come out…They were adhering to the jagged edge...they were adhering pretty tightly to the gun. I believe through ordinary handling of the gun eventually they would have worked loose and fallen off...I had to take a pair of tweezers and work them out…And after I had the fibers lifted up which could have been the original position they were in, then I had to pull them off. They were wrapped around rather snugly to the sharp edge.” Later, when asked if the rifle should have had fibers from the blanket, he replied “No, because the gun was dusted for fingerprints and any fibers that were loosely adhering to it could have been dusted off. The only reason, I feel, that these fibers remained on the butt plate is because they were pulled from the fabric by the jagged edge and adhered to the gun and then the fingerprint examiner with his brush, I feel, when brushing and dusting this plate, stroked them down into that crevice where they couldn’t be knocked off. In time these fibers would undoubtedly have become dislodged and fallen off the gun” (4H56-88). If Oswald had been allowed an attorney, he (or she) would have just loved Stombaugh. Stombaugh pretty much admitted it's possible the fiber evidence was planted. He also gave an indication who did it, or at least knew about it. When asked if he was "unhappy" about being handed a rifle that had already been dusted for fingerprints, and asked to inspect it for trace evidence, Stombaugh replied: "I was; however, it is not uncommon for fingerprint processing to be given priority consideration. They wanted to know whether or not the gun contained any fibers to show that it had been stored in this blanket."He then explained who this "they" was: "Well, this is our Dallas office. They sent the gun in wanting to know this fact." In light of the above, we know why Marina said what she said. And we know why people like Ball did not want to use her at all. The woman is to be pitied, not used in any forensic way.
  10. James DiEugenio

    2nd Floor Never Happened

    "reasonable (LN) posters" Oxymoron.
  11. James DiEugenio

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    Oh puhlease. As attorney Larry Schnapf said, Marina Oswald would be utterly shredded upon any real cross examination. Even the junior lawyers on the WC did not want to use her as a witness, and in a real trial it is highly unlikely she would have been allowed to testify. But I would have preferred she would have since she would have been reduced to rubble.
  12. James DiEugenio

    2nd Floor Never Happened

    His other home should be Duncan McRae's forum. Over there its an anything goes mud wrestling pit.
  13. James DiEugenio

    Oswald was not in MC

    On this week's Black Op Radio, I comment on this issue briefly since Len was at the private Gary Aguilar seminar in San Fran and he previously played the David Josephs presentation. I think I have said this before, but in a nutshell what I think David is ultimately going to do is redefine the whole Mexico City scenario. He is going to do it based upon the latest documents that the CIA did not want to declassify. I believe that in the end, these will be the new tenets of MC: 1. Oswald was not in Mexico City. 2. The short blonde guy did the charade. 3. Ochoa and Echeverria set up the phony transportation materials up and back. 4. Phillips worked on the tapes and transcripts at the embassies, with Goodpasture covering up for him. 5. Once Hoover finally did some work in this area, he understood that is was all a pile of paper mache. He admitted this in private but not in public.
  14. James DiEugenio

    Oswald was not in MC

    In accordance with the pleas of people like Card, I will not post this on the--much frequented by FC and DVP thread--headed Bush not in Dallas, he is Dead. But I just want to add this on the last aspect discussed there: anyone who in this day and age tries to make the case that Oswald was in MC is simply not aware of the latest research on that subject. David Josephs made a very good presentation at Gary Aguilar's private seminar on December 15th in SF. Len Osanic was there. Len had film of that on his BOR program last night. As I said many months ago, his work on this subject is going to make a new paradigm in the field. What he does is called real research. He is one of the very few guys who is going through the newly declassified files. In some ways, he has gone beyond the Lopez Report. He and Dan Hardway are honing in on the new model, which I believe to be the correct one. LHO was not in MC, and a false trail was later set up by Phillips, Ochoa, and Echeverria. The latter got a big payoff: he became president of Mexico. Let us never forget what Hoover wrote six weeks after the assassination. In his personal marginalia he wrote that he would not trust the CIA anymore due to the snow job they gave him on Oswald in MC. That is one of the single most important discoveries of the ARRB. And it has turned out to be true.
  15. James DiEugenio

    2nd Floor Never Happened

    Davey, I did read your stuff, that is why I called it nonsense. You have more spin than a heavy duty Maytag dryer at top speed.. Once anyone of say an IQ of 90 reads the actual documents they see what happened.
  16. James DiEugenio

    2nd Floor Never Happened

    Is Von Pein really saying what I think he is saying? That he does not see the difference between the two reports? Wow. Any moron can see how crucial the differences are. This is why I had so many reservations about letting him back on this forum. Just because he doesn't have a life--which he has admitted--we have to put up with his nonsense?
  17. James DiEugenio

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    There was never any rifle at the Paine household. Which would not mean they could not have framed Oswald through the Paines anyway. They could have just said that he picked it up previously and gone through with that whole blanket act.
  18. James DiEugenio

    2nd Floor Never Happened

    Well, those are two really good sources: Mark Fuhrman and Mr Goat Experiments. At least he didn't quote Allen Dulles.
  19. James DiEugenio

    “Hogwash” by the silly wc rascals.

    Now, if these were all burned how do we know what was in them? Especially in relation to a part of McKnight's book, p. 162. Let me quote from my review: But with this established, Specter and Humes moved on to a second deception. Namely that Commission Exhibit 397 was the documentary record upon which the official autopsy report was based. This exhibit consisted of a set of notes, and the handwritten revision of the incinerated draft of the autopsy report. One of the note pages was the autopsy "face sheet" (body diagram with wounds marked), and the others were notes of Humes' talk with Dr. Malcolm Perry of Parkland Hospital about the tracheotomy he had performed on President Kennedy in Dallas. But this cannot be the entire record since the final, single-spaced, 6-page autopsy report contains many facts that are not contained in these documents. After a thorough analysis, McKnight concludes: There are, give or take, about eighty-eight autopsy "facts" in the official prosectors' report. About sixty-four of these "facts" or pieces of medicolegal information (almost 75%) cannot be found in either the published notes or CE 397. Some fifteen of these pieces of information involve measurements and numbers that are not found in the published record. (p. 162) So where did these other "facts" come from?
  20. James DiEugenio

    Pierre Finck Learned his Lesson

    Please note this exchange: Q: Let me quote from two paragraphs of the affidavit and then I will ask you if that helps refresh your recollection to any events. Paragraph X states: "I clearly heard Dr. Finck, who was speaking sufficiently loudly for his words easily to be overheard, complain that he had been unable to locate the handwritten notes that he had taken during the autopsy on President Kennedy. Dr.Finck elaborated to his companions with considerable irritation that immediately after washing up following the autopsy, he looked for his notes and could not find them anywhere. He further recounted that others who were present at the autopsy also had helped him search for his notes to no avail.............Dr. Finck concluded his story by angrily stating that he had to reconstruct his notes from memory shortly after the autopsy." The question, Dr. Finck, is do these two paragraphs help refresh your recollection first on the question of whether you took notes during the autopsy? A: I don't know." "Q: Dr. Finck, would it have been your regular practice during the course of an autopsy in which you participated to take notes and measurements? A: Yes. Q: Would that be a standard practice and procedure that most prosectors would engage in during the course of an autopsy? A: Yes. Q: Dr. Finck, did you keep any kind of diary or written record of events that you were involved in? A: I don't know. Q: Dr. Finck, you have no idea at all whether you kept something like a diary in ? A: I don't remember. He does not remember if he kept a diary?
  21. James DiEugenio

    Thursday at Ruth Paines House

    Because he had an argument with Marina and wanted to straighten it out with her. That is in the WCR.
  22. James DiEugenio

    2nd Floor Never Happened

    Oh yeah, Davey. There are literally hundreds of benign explanations for every single anomaly there is in the JFK case. And that is because you know, like VB, that Oswald did it. (Davey does not want to admit he just got another pie in the face.)
  23. James DiEugenio

    Pierre Finck Learned his Lesson

    Yes it does Ron. It was a vacuum operation. FInck did not admit that anywhere that I know of, not even on the stand at the Shaw trial. And he would not have admitted it here except that Gunn had him cornered. These guys did not want to testify at all before the ARRB. They all had to be subpoenaed. Note how non committal he is in all of his replies. In a real murder inquiry, he should have been indicted for perjury.
  24. James DiEugenio

    “Hogwash” by the silly wc rascals.

    Have you ever admitted on your site that Humes told the ARRB and Jeremy Gunn that he not only incinerated his notes but his original autopsy report also? Have you ever indicated on you rite that his original BS story about not having the blood of the president on report as a souvenir was a pile of BS since he wrote the report in the confines of his home? If you have not then who is pot and who is kettle?
×