Pat Speer

Just a thought...Melvin Perrell is a pseudonym. Mel Perrell=Mal Peril=Grave Danger. Perhaps the name was used as some sort of a code... One of the reasons I suspect the Veciana story is true is that the name he gave for his CIA contact was Maurice Bishop. Within the CIA's top ranks, there was James JESUS Angleton, William KING Harvey, J.C. KING, and Richard Helms, who supposedly used the name KNIGHT. It only makes sense then that someone walking among them would use the name BISHOP.

12-11-63 article in the Pacific Stars & Stripes 'Joking' Threat to Kill Johnson Lands Cuban in N.Y. Jail NEW YORK (AP) A Cuban national who police said had done target practice with a .22 caliber rifle was held Monday in $25,000 bail after being accused by the Secret Service of boasting he would assassinate President Johnson. The Cuban, Omar Padilla, 19, was arrested 20 hours before Johnson arrived here Sunday to attend the funeral of former New York Gov. Herbert H. Lehman. Police said Padilla admitted telling co-workers at an engraving plant that assassinated President John F. Kennedy had been "asking for it" because of "the lack of security." "I'm going to shoot Johnson," police quoted him as telling fellow employees. Padilla said he made the remark in jest. Saturday morning, police found a makeshift target, range in an eighth floor stockroom at the building where Padilla works. There were 19 holes in the target. Police arrested Padilla later Saturday at his home. A .22 caliber rifle was found in the bedroom. Padilla said he bought it, along with 50 shells, last Wednesday. 1-7-64 article in the Winnipeg Manitoba Free Press WASHINGTON (CP) — Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill John Fitzgerald Kennedy? The chief counsel for the Warren commission says the signs point that way but that the commission still has not enough evidence to remove all doubt. So the investigation into the crime likely will continue for months. For example, while Dallas police once reported a finger-print on the alleged assassination weapon—an Italian-made, bolt-action rifle—J. Lee Rankin, commission general counsel, said Monday there was no fingerprint; only a palm print. The palm print—identified as that of Oswald who bought the rifle from a mail-order firm was found in the underpart of the weapon. A palm print was supposed to have been found on the brown wrapping paper in which Oswald was believed to have brought the rifle into the Dallas schoolbook warehouse, where he worked. Again there isn't one. OTHER POINTS PUZZLE There are other points which bother and puzzle the former U.S. solicitor-general who directs the legal staff of the seven-man commission headed by U.S. Chief Justice Earl Warren. Paraffin tests showed there was evidence of gunpowder on Oswald's hands, indicating the accused assassin had fired a hand weapon, but there were no similar gunpowder traces on his face, Rankin said in an interview. Some authorities maintain the paraffin tests on Oswald's face would have been positive if he if he had fired a rifle, as police said he did,' Rankin added. Eyewitnesses have testified that Oswald fired a pistol to kill Police Constable J. D. Tippit shortly after Kennedy was assassinated and a police alarm sounded in Dallas last Nov; 22. On that day Kennedy was hit by two bullets fired into his limousine as his motorcade entered a road turn-in downtown Dallas. A third bullet hit Texas Governor John Connally, who was sitting in the limousine's jump seat, Connally has recovered from his wounds. Rankin said that because of the conditions of the bullets, they could not be positively identified as coming from the rifle found in the warehouse. However, spent shells were found near the sixth-floor window where the assassin was believed to have been perched. The three bullets were estimated to have been fired within 6 1/2 seconds, said Rankin. While rifle experts maintain the firing of three shots in such a short period is possible, the evidence indicates that the last two shots came almost "on top of each other." "Can a man operating a bolt action rifle fire two shots so quickly?"' asked Rankin. 'That is an example of the kind of thing that bothers us." "What the commission wants to be able to do," he said, "is to publish a report that would eliminate doubt." Last month the Federal Bureau of Investigation gave the commission its report, concluding Oswald committed the crime unaided. But the commission apparently was not completely satisfied with the FBI summary. It called for all documents on which the FBI report was based. The commission intends to re-examine every aspect of the case; to account if possible for every development on the day of the assassination. Accounts Differ "We cannot even get witnesses to agree on what Oswald wore that day," Rankin said, as another indication of his difficulties. He could confirm, he added, that Oswald left his Russian bom wife a set of instructions the day before a sniper shot-at former Maj.-Gen.Edwin Walker last April in Dallas. A published report said the written i n s t r u c t i o n s advised Mrs. Oswald that something was developing that might cause her husband to be absent for some time or to be arrested. She was given directions as to the location of the jail and given a key to Lee's post office box. Rankin said that identifying Oswald with the attempted Walker assassination did not, by itself, add much judicial evidence to the Kennedy assassination. "We intend to gather evidence from all key witnesses, including Oswald's wife and Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy and others." "Mrs. Kennedy has also indicated she intends to co-operate fully in providing detailed testimony for the sake of historical accuracy."

Does anyone here have JFK First Day Evidence by Gary Savage? If so, can you tell us if the photos in the book are available elsewhere? Plopping out some money to buy a book to look at photos still in the Dallas Archives, and available online, kind of rubs me the wrong way. I'm particularly interested in photos of the primary evidence--the shells, the gun, the bag, etc... If anyone here has the book and can scan those photos, and post them online, it would be much appreciated.

I have attempted to post this on Washington Decoded: Further research indicates that Operation 40--far from being an infiltration team later maligned as an assassination team by conspiracy theorists, as Mr. Bohning's article implies--was accused of being an assassination team by Manolo Ray within days of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. On the CIA's own website, here: http://www.foia.cia.gov/ on pages 141--143 in #24 of the top 25 documents section, entitled Proposed Operations Against Cuba, one can find the the notes of JC King, Chief of the CIA's Western Hemisphere Division, after a May, 1961 meeting with Ray. In point 3 of this memo, King notes that Ray complained about Operation 40, which he'd learned was a "mopping up" operation designed to eliminate his followers in Cuba after a successful invasion. SO, if Operation 40's reputation has suffered over the years, and is now reduced to their being an "assassination squad", this accusation is not some new wacky conspiracy theory started by John Simkin--or even Marita Lorenz--but is an accusation rooted in the Bay of Pigs invasion, and Manolo Ray's distrust of Cubans affiliated with Batista. Since this distrust has apparently not receded over time, and--to my knowledge--Ray has never retracted his accusations, Operation 40's connection to assassination will remain subject to speculation.

Pat, where can one find a transcript of the Weisberg civil suit? Thanks, David A researcher who appreciated my efforts on the paraffin test sent me some of the depositions from Weisberg's FOIA case. He told me he got them from Weisberg's attorney, Jim Lesar. I imagine one can get all these transcripts from the Weisberg Archives at Hood College. Perhaps Lesar can be talked into putting them up on Mary Ferrell. Anyhow, there's not all that much of substance in the depositions. It's mostly obfuscation and attitude. Intriguingly, three out of the four FBI honchos to be deposed retired within a few months of each other in 1975, just as pressure for a new investigation was mounting. Two of them--Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier--insisted that they were being used as expert witnesses by Weisberg, and refused to answer any questions about the JFK case not related directly to their previous testimony, unless Weisberg paid them their going rate. So much for their being dedicated civil servants, dedicated to exposing the truth. P.S. If you're looking for their answers to any particular question, I'll look back through them and post their answers. But, outside the quick questions on Willis, most of the questions had to do with the ballistics tests, particularly the NAA tests on the bullet fragments.

From patspeer.com, chapter 4: By early September, the government has begun preparing for the release of its report. On 9-1-64, in an attempt to tie up some loose ends, the Commission takes testimony from FBI photo expert Lyndal Shaneyfelt. This is the the third time he's testified. He discusses the various photos of Oswald with his rifle, and how the newspapers and magazines showing these photos had tampered with them, and accidentally created the illusion the rifle was not the rifle recovered at the Book Depository. He then discusses photos of Oswald's shirt, which essentially prove nothing other than that Oswald had been wearing that shirt when arrested. He also discusses a photograph by Phil Willis. This photo was taken, per Willis' testimony, a split second after the first shot. Egged on by Norman Redlich, Shaneyfelt testifies "it is my opinion that photograph A of Shaneyfelt exhibit no. 25 was taken in the vicinity of the time that frame 210 of the Zapruder film was taken. This is not an accurate determination because the exact location of Mr. Willis is unknown. This would allow for some variation, but the time of the photograph A, as related to the Zapruder film, would be generally during the period that the President was behind the signboard in the Zapruder films, which covers a range from around frame 205 to frame 225." Redlich then interjects "Prior investigation has also revealed that when viewed from the southeast corner window of the sixth floor, the President emerges from the oak tree at approximately frame 210." Redlich then asks Shaneyfelt if it would be possible to fix Willis' exact location, and thus the exact time of his photograph as compared to the Zapruder film. Shaneyfelt replies "Yes, it would be possible having Mr. Willis' camera, to fix his location with some degree of accuracy..." When then nudged by Redlich "You are reasonably satisfied, however, that the technique that you have used to fix his location is a reasonably accurate one upon which you can base your conclusions which you have stated today?" Shaneyfelt responds "Yes, yes. I feel that the exact establishing of the position of Mr. Willis would not add a great detail of additional accuracy to my present conclusions." Well, wait a minute. On June 4, Shaneyfelt testified in a curious manner that Kennedy appeared to be unhit before he went behind the sign around frame 210 of the Zapruder film. Now he has testified that the Willis photo was taken around frame 210, the exact moment, as Norman Redlich was so kind to point out, that Kennedy was first visible to the sniper's nest after passing under the oak tree. A more accurate location for Willis might mean that Willis took his picture before Kennedy went behind the sign. It might be an indication that someone fired a shot when Kennedy was hidden from the sniper's nest. It might be an indication there was a second shooter. That Shaneyfelt refused to accurately plot Willis' location, and thus the timing of his photo, when added to the fact that he and Redlich went to such great lengths to assure everyone a more accurate assessment was unnecessary, when added to the fact that this testimony is being taken in the last weeks of the Commission, suggests the possibility that both men know the photo was taken when Oswald couldn't have fired the shot, and were trying to keep this off the record. (Sure enough, it was subsequently demonstrated that the photo was taken at frame 202 of the Zapruder film, before Kennedy went behind the sign. Equally intriguing, when asked a series of questions about his work on the Willis photo in a 1977 civil suit brought by Harold Weisberg, Shaneyfelt testified "I may have" three times and "I don't recall" five times, and asserted blandly that "I am sure the record speaks for itself." Yes, it does--to those who listen.)

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/The_critics/L...l_Guardian.html uhhh...he read in a paper that a film was shown, and since he hadn't heard of the Muchmore film, assumed it was the Zapruder film.... If Mark Lane--who's jumped at every chance there is to claim conspiracy--saw the Zapruder film on TV in the days after the shooting, don't you think he'd have made a big stink about it for years afterward?

John, just a quick thought. You might want to include that the CIA's own internal history of the Bay of Pigs operation discussed the possibility they had an assassination capability and an assassination list. Discussion of this list and the names on the list can be seen on page 11, here: http://www14.homepage.villanova.edu/david.barrett/ch7.pdf Operation 40 would, presumably, have been the logical recipient of this list, should it have become "operational". As I plunge forward in my research, I'm finding, more and more, that many of the people writing on the CIA and the sixties have never read the Church Committee hearings, or the Pfeiffer history, etc. Instead, they rely on quotes and comments from sources, mostly former agents. This appears to be Bohning's preferred MO. This is a LOUSY way to get at the truth, IMO. The recollections of most of these sources were questionable 30 years ago, and are even more questionable today.

Bohning clearly has an agenda. Evidently, he finds the belief that Op 40 had an assassination capability offensive on some level. As I pointed out in my response on Holland's site, Sturgis' sworn testimony details that he was asked to commit an assassination by an agent of the CIA. By singling out that this was the only time he was asked to commit an assassination on American soil, moreover, he gives the strong implication that he'd been asked to commit other assassinations on foreign soil. (I haven't read his testimony in awhile, so correct me if I'm wrong.) Anyhow, while the page on Op 40 may very well have some mistakes--I, for one, would not be surprised if that photo with all the Italians and/or Cubans gathered around a table is a red herring, and actually some guy's bachelor party--the raison d'etre for Bohning's "attack" if you will, is that he wants everyone to know that Op 40 was not in the business of killing people. To this end he wants us to believe that "assassination" was not in the CIA's play book, outside of the unsuccessful ZR/Rifle project. This is historical revisionism at its blindest. This ignores the still-redacted assassination lists prepared for the 54 Guatemalan coup, and similar lists prepared for the Bay of Pigs invasion--both of which pre-dated ZR/Rifle. In short, there is NOTHING in the record to make us think that Op 40 was not designed to enter Cuba after a successful invasion at the Bay of Pigs, and murder political rivals to America's chosen leader. From the political climate of the time, moreover, there is every reason to believe that among those slated for execution was Manolo Ray. When Ray made a brief appearance on this website, I asked him if he had any knowledge of a group called Op 40 and if his information indicated they were supposed to kill him. He never answered. Maybe he thought my question was in bad taste, I don't know. But I took it as an indication that it's still a touchy subject in the anti-Castro Cuban community. For me, Bohning's article confirms this belief.

I find this new article by Don Bohning a bit strange, considering he's a member of this forum and could just as easily have posted it here for all to see. I mean, if he's worried that people are gonna be misled, why not come here and set them straight, as opposed to posting it on a website where newbies rarely dwell? http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2008/06/simkin.html

Thanks, Greg. That makes it clearer. They were together, and Jarman did the talking, but then, over time, Norman started telling the story as if he did all the talking. By the way, the earliest record on Norman is an 11-26 FBI report. At that point he said he couldn't recall even SEEING Oswald on the 22nd! http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=29 Methinks the man has a credibility issue!

Harold Norman's memory seems to have improved dramatically between 1964 and 1993. This is what he told the WC: Mr. Ball. Did you remember seeing him at any time that morning? Mr. Norman. Yes; around about 10 or 10:15, somewhere in the neighborhood of that. Mr. Ball. Where did you see him? Mr. Norman. Over in the bins by the windows, I mean looking out, you know, at Elm Street, towards Elm Street. Mr. Ball. On what floor? Mr. Norman. The first. Mr. Ball. Looking out on Elm through windows, is that right? Mr. Norman. Yes, sir. I was looking out the window. He happened to come by to fill orders. Mr. Ball. Did he say anything to you? Mr. Norman. No; he didn't. Mr. Ball. Did you say anything to him? Mr. Norman. No. http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol3/page188.php If the story Norman told Frontline is the truth, that would mean that he was lying to the Warren Commission. The very fact that FRONTLINE would present this new story as though it was credible shows an appaling lack of objectivity on their part. It seems that, In 1993, Norman is adopting as his own the story told by another co-worker, whose name escapes me at the minute. Good eye. I remembered that Oswald spoke to someone that morning but you're right, it WASN'T Norman, it was James Jarman! Mr. JARMAN - Yes, sir. I talked to him again later on that morning. Mr. BALL - About what time? Mr. JARMAN - It was between 9:30 and 10 o'clock, I believe. Mr. BALL - Where were you when you talked to him? Mr. JARMAN - In between two rows of bins. Mr. BALL - On what floor? Mr. JARMAN - On the first floor. Mr. BALL - And what was said by him and by you? Mr. JARMAN - Well, he was standing up in the window and I went to the window also, and he asked me what were the people gathering around on the corner for, and I told him that the President was supposed to pass that morning, and he asked me did I know which way he was coming, and I told him, yes; he probably come down Main and turn on Houston and then back again on Elm. Then he said, "Oh, I see," and that was all. Even worse, in BOTH stories, Oswald was on the first floor. So what is Norman talking about? Saying Oswald could have went either upstairs or downstairs? The thought occurs that by the nineties Norman was just making crap up trying to make a little scratch. In 86 he testified in Bugliosi's mock trial of Oswald. He said he heard three clear shots...this is obviously rehearsed testimony. His Warren Commission testimony--what that hypocrite Bugliosi holds to be a sacred historical record--makes it more than clear, after all, that Norman had only a fuzzy recollection of one of the three shots. In re-reading Norman's and Jarman's testimony, however, it seems likely that they were together sometime between 9:30 and 10:15--probably around break time--and that they jointly ran into Oswald, with Jarman doing the talking. Norman then, over the years, gradually changed his story to HIS talking to Oswald, and to Oswald laughing as he walked off.

I haven't heard that before. Sounds strange. Pat, Could you provide any links (youtube/google video) to the PBS program? You youngin's with your Youtube. I don't think it's online, but here's the transcript. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...etc/script.html The logical interpretation of Norman's words is that he was talking about looking down from a window sometime before lunch. But it sure seems strange that he says "we was waiting" when Kennedy was at least an hour away, and radios were playing all over the building. It's not as if he was just gonna show up un-announced. Maybe he momentarily blurred his recollection of watching the motorcade with his memory of seeing Oswald earlier in the day, and mis-spoke. I suppose my interest in Norman was piqued by my discovery of this quote the other day... (11-09-83 AP article found in the Indiana Gazette) ""I didn't see the gun barrel but I did see the debris that fell in one of my friend's hair. I could hear a gun going off above us, and the debris fell each time there was a shot," said Norman. The debris was dust and tiny pieces of concrete broken loose by the concussion of the rifle, he said. "I sure do see that scene — sometimes pretty regularly. Sometimes I'll be driving down the street and thinking about it," he said. "I can close my eyes and see President Kennedy again. One minute he's smiling and waving and then he's slumped back and wounded.'' Norman said he never believed a conspiracy was involved in the assassination, but he also never fully believed his coworker —Oswald—was the trigger man." Now what does that mean? If he never believed there was a conspiracy, but also never fully believed Oswald was the trigger man, then he must have suspected that some other lone nut killed JFK, right? And that the DPD and FBI framed Oswald. Now, that would be strange!

Harold Norman told PBS' Frontline, in its 1993 program "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?": "We were looking out towards Elm Street, so he walked up and asked us, said, "What is everybody looking for? What's everybody waiting on?" So we told him we was waiting on the President to come by. He put his hands in his pocket and laughed and walked away, so I don't know where he went, or if he went upstairs or downstairs or where." What the heck was he talking about? If "we was waiting on the President to come by" then this must have been lunchtime, right? That means Norman saw Oswald downstairs or on the fifth floor. But if it was downstairs then why does he say that Oswald may have went downstairs afterward? Could Norman have really seen Oswald on the fifth floor just before the shots rang out, and never have bothered to tell anyone? What's your interpretation of his statement? Frontline presents it as if it's consistent with an event taking place in the morning.

A couple of more thoughts on the COPA meeting, which I'll record here for posterity and discussion. One is that, while witness Di Pierro has, in recent years, argued against the second gun theory, by claiming he saw Sirhan place his pistol within a few inches of Kennedy's head, Shane O'Sullivan, in his film, confronts him with his earlier statements suggesting Sirhan was feet away when he began firing, and he does not acquit himself well. It seems likely that Di Pierro has tried to make sense of the incident, and has gradually come to re-remember it in accordance with the official story... A second point which should be made--I have no idea if this is well known or not--is that Ted Charach, the creator of The Second Gun, the first book or movie to bring up the possibility RFK was killed by Thane Cesar, the bodyguard standing behind him, now insists that his research and movie were secretly funded and supported by....LIFE Magazine. Apparently, the decision-makers at Life in 1969 and 1970 were of a far different breed than those making the decisions in 1963.

Karl...side of what? Many CTs are not exactly enamored with Fetzer's books. Vince Palamara has said he's been swayed by Bugliosi's book, a book most here believe to be dishonest. In chapter 9b at patspeer.com, in fact, I believe I prove it to be dishonest. But trusting Bugliosi on this issue does not make one a fascist. Bugliosi, it should be pointed out, has not only written a book about the illegality of the Supreme Court's appointing Bush president, but has just written a new one declaring President Bush to be a murderer. Hardly the work of a neo-con or neo-fascist.

Thanks, Vince. Great stuff. Do you happen to know where the 1988 or afterward Clint Hill, Sam Kinney and Rufus Youngblood TV interviews came from? Were they from 60 Minutes? The Today Show? I recognized the voices of the narrators, but couldn't quite place them. Thanks, again.

I was able to attend much of COPA's convention in L.A. In comparison to the JFK assassination I am a novice when it comes to the RFK assassination, and this served as a quick blast of cold air. The convention was held in a back room of a bowling alley adjacent to a hotel. While this back room--presumably used for things like local Chamber of Commerce meetings--was small, it helped keep the meetings intimate. Unfortunately, sometimes they became too intimate, and people would interrupt the speakers with irrelevant questions. The other problem with this setting was that sometimes people in the bowling alley would use the wrong setting on the intercom, and announce "Attention All Bowlers" into the room. Most of those in attendance appreciated the surreality and shrugged it off. On Friday, Dr. Robert Joling and Phil Van Praag spoke about their recent research and their new self-published book. I believe much of this was web-cast. Anyhow, they make a very compelling case--using the Pruszynski tape of the shooting and the ballistic evidence--for the existence a second gun. They were accompanied by Paul Schrade, RFK's friend, and a fellow victim of the shooting in the pantry. There was a Japanese TV crew in attendance but I'm not sure if any other reporters were there to observe their presentation. Also speaking was Dr. William Pepper, Sirhan's attorney, whose goal is to get Sirhan to meet with hypno-therapists, so that they can find out what Sirhan was doing in the pantry, and if he can remember the shots. He said his efforts are currently being blocked by the California Bureau of Prisons, which won't permit Sirhan--who was briefly treated as a terrorist after 9/11--close contact with his visitors. Pepper asked for any and all ideas on how they can move forward. He was introduced by former Congresswoman and current Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. At the close of the evening, Mark Sobel showed the first two-thirds of his film RFK. This film featured an interview with Vincent Di Pierro, in which Sobel played him the LAPD's interrogation tape of himself, in which he recanted his earlier statement that he'd seen a woman in a polka dot dress. A saddened Di Pierro acknowledged that he really did see a woman in a polka dot dress, and that he was intimidated by Hernandez into changing his story. The next day I arrived too late to catch the presentations of Bill Turner and Lisa Pease. I spoke to Bill the night before and he confirmed that he still suspects Gerry Owen was somehow involved, and that Sirhan's connections to organized crime figures may have played a role as well. I have Lisa Pease's book The Assassinations and will re-read her articles on RFK in the near future. The first speaker after lunch was Darwin Horne, a last minute addition. Darwin Horne was a Secret Service agent for many years. He's in his 80's. But he still spoke emotionally about the days after the shooting, when he was assigned to guard the Kennedy family and accompany RFK at the hospital, at his funeral, and at his burial. He was defensive of the Service as a whole, and spoke negatively of agents who later bad-mouthed their protectees. He said that the agents who spoke out about JFK's dalliances have been ostracized by their fellow agents. He also said a few things that could lead one to believe Talbot's view of RFK and Ethel--that they believed JFK had been killed by a conspiracy. He said that, while Bobby trusted U.S. Marshals, the family as a whole had a dislike for cops. He said they had a code for any situation where there were too many cops around ---"TMBS--too many blue suits". Perhaps this reflected their belief that the DPD had something to do with Jack's death. He didn't say this, of course. Horne also spoke briefly about assassins--he said that assassins generally strike just to get famous, etc. This, apparently, is the company line. As Horne was in protective services for decades, this apparently reflects the training of the Secret Service--LOOK OUT FOR NUTS. I think this is a dis-service, as most assassins, historically, have had motives beyond just getting famous. After Horne spoke Michael Calder spoke briefly about his efforts to identify just who made the decision to move RFK through the pantry. Afterwards, Summer Reece, a friend of Sirhan's former attorney Larry Teeter, spoke about her ongoing efforts to get his 200 boxes of papers back from the California Bar Association. They were picked up after his death in the interest of justice, as the people living in his house had thrown them all around, but they have not made them available to anyone associated with Sirhan's case. She said they coughed up 14 boxes at one point, but that included in these boxes were parts of 64 other cases, or some such thing, so there was reason to suspect much of Sirhan's file is still in their possession. Her efforts continue. After she spoke Shane O'Sullivan spoke and showed his movie. The first half of his film, detailing the assassination and its aftermath, is excellent, and features Sandy Serrano, who went on TV and talked about the polka dot dress lady in the hours after the shooting, recanting her statements on the LAPD's tapes. Shane then interviews her and she echoes Di Pierro's statements to Sobel...that they were pressured by the interviewer into changing their statements out of fear. At this point I kind of wished Sobel and O'Sullivan could have made one film, featuring both Sobel's footage of Di Pierro and Shane's footage of Serrano. If this footage were shown on 60 Minutes or some national news magazine, it would cause a public outcry, IMO. The last part of Shane's film deals with his search for the identities of the men he'd previously identified as CIA agents. He now backs away from that claim, but has an ongoing interest in them. (Just a thought--perhaps the man he'd previously thought was David Morales was part of an LAFD team on the premises). After Shane's film Mark Sobel showed the last part of his film. This part was quite interesting and featured an interview with Scott Enyart, who claimed to have taken photographs of the shooting. When he finally won the release of his photos from the California Archives, of course, they were stolen from the courier. This is fishy as heck, and troubles Enyart to this day. I was not able to return on Sunday. In sum it was quite interesting for me, and gratifying to meet fellow Forum members Shane and Bill and Frank Caramelli in the flesh. It was also a treat to get to spend time with Paul Schrade, Bill Pepper, Robert Joling, Phil Van Praag, Lisa Pease, Ted Charach, and John Judge, among others, with whom I'd never previously had contact. I left the meetings optimistic that Joling and Van Praag's research, along with Shane's and Mark's films, along with Pepper's commitment to Sirhan, will lead this case to a greater public awareness over the next year or so. Thane Cesar should get himself a lawyer.

There is the little matter of the tape recording left by Howard Hunt to be played by St. John after his father's death. I knew Howard quite well and I can attest that it is his voice on the recording. So even if one wants to question the credibility of St. John, which I don't, the real story is the actual tape recording of his father's words implicating LBJ and certain named CIA agents in JFK's assassination. When you listen to the tape, it's clear that it's Hunt and that it is a "confession". The only questions then are is it a faked confession by Hunt the elder to help his son make some money, or is it a let's play make-believe session taped by the younger, or is it...the real deal. St. John can go a long way to demonstrating the latter by letting the tape be submitted to some tests--to make sure it wasn't spliced together--and also to release the whole tape and all other tapes he made of his father in the period--so that context can be better established. I presume he's working on a book as we speak. Hopefully, said tests will be conducted independently and discussed in the book. One wonders of course if the CIA will plan a disinfo campaign against Hunt. If Vince Palamara suddenly appears as an expert on Hunt watch out. (A joke).

To quote Bugliosi from the Introduction to his book, "My professional interest in the Kennedy assassination dates back to March of 1986 when I was approached by a British Production Company, London Weekend Television, to prosecute Lee Harvey Oswald....." This was the infamous "mock" trial in which Gerry Spence was the defense attorney. It makes me wonder when and why "London Weekend Television" come up with the idea of prosecuting Oswald. uggghh...could it be they thought it was an interesting project? The program shown overseas was much longer than the drastically edited version shown in the states. Even so, one of the witnesses making it onto U.S. TV was Eddie Lopez, an HSCA investigator who concluded the CIA had been involved in impersonating Oswald in Mexico. He comes across as honest, but not bedrock. When watching his testimony, however, you can sense that his testimony was not too pleasing to certain people. This may account for this no doubt very costly program's never making it onto video or DVD, and only being shown a few times in the states (and not once after the release oif JFK, as far as I can tell). Every version in circulation that I am aware of was taped off someone's TV. NOW, if you want to claim the CIA was involved in the overseas distribution of Beyond Conspiracy, we can talk. It seems more than coincidence that this fairly crappy program has been re-edited with replacement Peter Jennings' for international distribution. That's exactly the kind of thing the CIA would be involved in. It doesn't even violate their charter. BTW, I read that Vince Palamara took his video off of Youtube. Evidently, he came to believe it was embarrassing. Hardly the behavior of a CIA mole.

Except they're not. There is virtually no evidence that the CIA has undertook or is capable of undertaking 20-year plans to deceive future generations. They work in the here and now. Until VB's book, a book twisting facts to create a fiction, and a product of a fevered mind, came along, VP was a thorn in the side of the U.S. Government, using the words of SS agents to cast aspersions on the official story that the government wasn't involved. Holding that this was all part of some grand scheme or limited hang-out is utter foolishness, IMO. The guy changed his mind. People do that. Sometimes it's based upon new facts that come to their attention. More often it's based upon their circumstances changing. There's that old expression that you can't trust a young conservative or an old liberal. It wouldn't surprise me that, as Vince has gotten older, he has become a little more desirous of recognition and respect from mainstream America, and has realized that his work as a CT is a hindrance to his gaining that respect. He's at a point where he wonders if it was all worth it. And then along comes Bugliosi asking Vince if he'll give him a quote for his book. "Sure" thinks Vince P, that way I can make a public divorce from CT-land, and maybe get some attention for my book. Maybe now I can get it published. It could be as simple as that.

Wade, O'Donnell has been largely discredited. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...amp;mode=linear

This idea that assassins are always part of some right-wing plot or power grab is incorrect. Last year I read a book on the history of Anarchism. A number of world leaders were killed between 1870 and 1920 by single-assassins fueled by Anarchism. Most of them used bombs. Capitalism at that time was far more oppressive than today, and even more oppressive than it will likely become in the near future. Many among the lower 80% felt they were part of a slave class, and had no hope. It wasn't much of a leap from there to think it perfectly reasonable to kill authority figures and force the survivors to take notice. People like J. Edgar Hoover rose to power as a direct response to this threat. Which could be one of the reasons he so readily believed Oswald killed Kennedy because...because he hated America. The problem with that theory is that Oswald didn't fit the profile. Not only was Oswald married with children, he, unlike earlier anarchist assassins, failed to admit his guilt and proclaim the reasons for his crime. Perhaps, as speculated by Norman Mailer, Oswald was hoping to have a show trial, at which he would have taken the stand and proclaimed his reasons. But why wait? He would never have had as big an audience as he had before the cameras in Dallas. It doesn't really fly. P.S. I just noticed that Obama made a special visit today to speak to a pro-Israel lobby and tell them they have nothing to fear from him. Hmmm... Maybe he's afraid of them...

From patspeer.com, chapter 3 http://www.patspeer.com/chapter3%3Alooking...nspecter%27seye Ye Olde Switcheroo? On 4-6-64, the Commission takes the testimony of Dallas Detective Robert Studebaker. He briefly discusses the finding of the bag found in the sniper's nest. He offers no explanation for why he failed to photograph this bag where it was found. This bag we should recall, is believed to have been used by Oswald to bring the assassination rifle in to work. The only witnesses to Oswald with a bag, however, have insisted the bag carried by Oswald was far smaller than this bag. Studebaker testifies the bag he found was "I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long" and "Approximately 8 inches" wide. (7H137-149). This catches our attention. On 3-11-64, Counsel Joe Ball had got one of the two witnesses to see Oswald with a bag, Buell Frazier, who'd previously said the bag he saw was 5 or 6 inches wide, to agree that the bag he saw could have been as wide as the bag found in the sniper's nest. Ball then got the second witness, Linnie Mae Randle, to testify that the width of the bag found in the sniper's nest was "about right." Of the bag found in the sniper's nest, Ball said, furthermore, that "This package is about the span of my hand, say 8 inches." This suggests the package shown both Frazier and Randle was about 8 inches wide. There's a huge problem with this. Photographs of the bag pulled from the sniper's nest on the day of the assassination suggest it was about a foot wide. An FBI memo on the creation of a replica bag, furthermore, states that the paper used was 24 inches wide (CD7, p292). One can only assume the paper would have been folded in half to make the bag, and that the resulting bag would be 12 inches wide like in the photos, right? The words of a 12-2-63 FBI report on the showing of this replica sack to Randle are also telling. When discussing her impression of the package she saw on 11-22, it states "Her designation on the replica sack was found to be 8 1/2 inches for the width of the original package she'd seen Oswald carrying." (CD7, p299). She couldn't have designated an 8 1/2 inch width on a package only 8 inches wide, now could she? From this it seems clear that someone or some group, possibly the FBI in unison with the Warren Commission, has pulled some evidentiary origami, and has altered the proportions of the bag between early December, 1963, and March, 1964. That someone might be James Cadigan, the FBI's paper expert, who testified only 3 days before Studebaker. When asked if he found any marks inside the bag on 11-23 that could tie it to the rifle, he testified: "I couldn't find any such markings." When asked if one could make an inference from this he testified further that: "I don't know the condition of the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument." When asked further if, assuming the rifle had not been wrapped in cloth, it should have left marks of some sort, he replied: "The absence of markings to me wouldn't mean much. I was looking for markings I could associate. The absence of marks, the significance of them, I don't know." (4H89-101). Clearly, Cadigan and his superiors were not the curious sort. They had Oswald's rifle. Within a few more days they had a replica bag. All they had to do was put the rifle in the bag and re-enact Oswald's trip to work and see if the bag was scratched or marked by the grease on Oswald's gun. That they failed to do so, and that the Warren Commission failed to ask them to do so, reveals either their incredible incompetence or deliberate negligence. One might suspect the latter. While Cadigan has testified that the tape found on the paper bag was 25/1000 of an inch wider than a tape sample taken from the depository on 11-22, only to say that this doesn't really matter, he has failed to provide any measurements for the bag he studied, both inside and out. Why wasn't he asked this? Why has Ball asked Studebaker about the size of an object he only saw for a minute, when only days before he had Cadigan, who'd studied this object in detail, at his disposal, and had failed to ask him? And is it a coincidence that Studebaker has said the bag he found in the sniper's nest was 8 inches wide, and that the bag now being shown to witnesses is 8 inches wide, when the bag pulled from the sniper's nest was clearly much wider? Has someone pulled a switcheroo? Are the FBI and the Dallas detectives in cahoots? Is Ball in on it? The testimony on the bag couldn't smell any worse if the bag had been wrapped around day-old fish. From chapter 4 at patspeer.com Most Definitely Not in the Bag Should one think the commission's failure to clear up how the shots were fired was an isolated failure, one should be reminded that, as the Dallas Police, the Secret Service and the FBI before them, the Warren Commissioners were unable to figure out how Oswald (or anyone) got the assassination rifle into the building. The only two people to see Oswald with a bag on 11-22, Buell Wesley Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle, after all, both testified that the bag they saw in his possession was way too small to have held the rifle. The Warren Commission, not surprisingly, assumed they were mistaken. But the problem with the bag, when compounded by other factors, elevates the case to what many believe is a reasonable doubt. Consider that Jack Dougherty, the only one to see Oswald come into the building, didn't even recall his carrying a small package, let alone a large package, when he came inside. Consider that no one else saw Oswald with a package in the building. Consider that the paper bag purportedly used by Oswald to transport the rifle to work was made from materials found within the school book depository, and was apparently, due to the nature of the tape's being all torn from one piece and its being automatically moistened as it was pulled from the machine, made on the premises. Consider that the company' s shipper, Troy West, testified that Oswald had never worked at his shipping table, and that people didn't just come up and use his shipping paper and tape, and that, besides, he was always at his shipping table, even during lunch. Consider that nobody else saw Oswald take paper or tape from the table on 11-21, or at any other time. Consider that Buell Wesley Frazier, who gave Oswald a ride home on 11--21, didn't notice a large paper package in Oswald's possession, or any stiffness in Oswald's movements to suggest he was hiding such a package under his shirt. Consider as well that Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine, two grown women living in a tiny house, failed to notice such a stiffness in Oswald's behavior when he came home from work, and failed to see the bag in the house or in the garage, after he arrived. Consider that there is no photograph of the bag where it was purportedly found near the sniper's nest. Consider that the bag removed from the building, and as photographed by the Dallas Morning News, Dallas Times-Herald, and Fort Worth Star-Telegram, appears to be far wider than the bag placed into evidence by the FBI. Now take the next step and consider that the paper bag was, according to the report of the Dallas Detective who found it, L.D. Montgomery, initialed by Detectives Robert Studebaker, Marvin Johnson, and himself upon discovery in the sniper's nest (24H314), and that none of them were asked to verify their initials or even shown the bag when testifying before the Commission on 4-6-64. Now consider the testimony of Lt. J.C. Day on 4-22-64: 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. Do you have any identification on that to so indicate? Mr. DAY. It has my name on it, and it also has other writing that I put on there for the information of the FBI. Mr. BELIN. Could you read what you wrote on there? Mr. DAY. "Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day." Mr. BELIN. When did you write that? Mr. DAY. I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left our possession. Mr. BELIN. All right, anything else that you wrote on there? Mr. DAY. When the sack was released on November 22 to the FBI about 11:45 p.m., I put further information to the FBI reading as follows: "FBI: Has been dusted with metallic magnetic powder on outside only. Inside has not been processed. Lieut J. C. Day." Well, why is there no mention of the other men's initials on this sack? Day had been called away to inspect the rifle on the other side of the building at the time the bag was found. Day's statement that he wrote his name on the bag "at the time the bag was found before it left our possession" can therefore be taken as a suggestion that he wrote his name on it sometime later that day, before it was given to the FBI. Could the sack initialed by Day have been a different sack entirely? Amazingly, yes. Consider the next section of Lt. Day's testimony: Mr. BELIN. Did you ever get the kind of sample used at the School Book Depository? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, I had the bag listed as---- Mr. BELIN. Commission Exhibit 626 or 142. Mr. DAY. On the first floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and I noticed from their wrapping bench there was paper and tape of a similar--the tape was of the same width as this. I took the bag over and tried it, and I noticed that the tape was the same width as on the bag. Mr. BELIN. Did it appear to have the same color? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN. All right. Then what did you do? Mr. DAY. Sir? Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do? Mr. DAY. I directed one of the officers standing by me, I don't know which, to get a piece of the tape and a piece of the paper from the wrapping bench. Mr. BELIN. Handing you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 677, I will ask you to state if you know what this is. Mr. DAY. This is the tape and paper collected from the first floor in the shipping department of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963. Mr. BELIN. Does this have any identification marks on it? Mr. DAY. It has my name, "J. C. Day, Dallas Police Department," and also in my writing, "Shipping Department." Mr. BELIN. Any other writing on there that you recognize? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; Detective Studebaker, who was with me, and in his writing it says, "Paper sample from first floor, Texas School Book Depository, Studebaker, 11-22-63." The tape also has Studebaker's writing on it, "Tape sample from first floor." (4H 249-278) There is no mention of the size of this sample. As it was not considered evidence, furthermore, it was not even photographed by the Dallas Police in its original state (as far as I've been able to ascertain). An 11-26-63 report by the FBI's Vincent Drain on his flights from and to Dallas with the primary evidence, moreover, notes that "sample of brown paper used by Texas School Book Depository and brown tape used by Texas School Book Depository were not returned since Chief Curry stated these were not evidence and had only been sent to the FBI Laboratory for comparison purposes." (CD5 p161). As this decision was made before the FBI gained jurisdiction over the case it suggests that the Dallas Police were not particularly concerned about the samples at this time. Perhaps they'd felt they could have the FBI testify that the sample paper and sample tape matched the bag and tape placed into evidence without having the samples placed into evidence as well. Or perhaps this indicates that the FBI, having helped the Dallas Police with the creation of a new and improved bag complete with Oswald's fingerprints, thought it a waste of time and an unnecessary risk to send back to Dallas a sample far smaller than the sample originally obtained by Day, and as seen by other Dallas detectives not in on their scam. Adding to this possibility is that, on June 9, 1964, as a response to a May 20th Warren Commission request, the FBI took the paper bag back to Dallas, and inadequately traced back its chain of custody. While the chain of custody on the other items brought back to Dallas--the various bullets, cartridges, and bullet fragments related to the assassination, and even the blanket used by Oswald to store his rifle in the Paine family's garage--were traced back to the first ones to discover them, the brown paper bag was never shown to Montgomery, Johnson, or Studebaker, the three men who first saw the bag in the depository, and who reportedly initialed it on the premises. It was shown to just one man: Lt. J.C. Day. The words to this report are as follows: "On June 9, 1964, Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Crime Laboratory of the Dallas Police Department, Dallas, Texas, was exhibited the wrapping-paper bag, C10, by Special Agent Vincent E. Drain, Federal Bureau of Investigation. After examining this bag, Lieutenant Day advised he could positively identify this bag as the one he and Detective R.L. Studebaker found on the Sixth Floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Lieutenant Day stated this paper bag was marked on November 22, 1963 by him. This bag was subsequently delivered on November 22, 1963 to Special Agent Vincent E. Drain for transmittal to the Laboratory of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington D.C., for examination." (24H418). Notice that there's no mention of Montgomery and Johnson, the detectives who, according to the Dallas Police Department's own records, found the bag and took it over to the crime lab. (24H260). Notice also that Day says only that he marked the bag on the 22nd, not that he marked it on the scene. Notice as well that the agent tracing the chain of evidence, Vincent Drain, was the one who first took the bag to Washington, and the one who later claimed returning the paper sample to Dallas was unnecessary. Day's claim that he found the bag, and Drain's failure to track down Montgomery and Johnson, and even Studebaker--who'd previously testified that they'd found the bag--is undoubtedly suspicious to those even slightly prone to suspicion. But, wait, it gets even more suspicious. Drain had discussed the bag with Day at an earlier time as well. An 11-30-63 report by Drain on an 11-29-63 interview of Day reveals: "Lt. Carl Day, Dallas Police Department, stated he found the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated the manager, Mr. Truly, saw this bag at the time it was taken into possession by Lt. Day. Truly, according to Day, had not seen this bag before. No one else viewed it. Truly furnished similar brown paper from the roll that was used in packing books by the Texas School Book Depository. This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case which was found near the scene of the shooting of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The Dallas Police have not exhibited this to anyone else. It was immediately locked up by Day, kept in his possession until it was turned over to FBI agent Drain for transmittal to the Laboratory. It was examined by the Laboratory, returned to the Dallas Police Department November 24, 1963, locked up in the Crime Laboratory. This bag was returned to Agent Drain on November 26, 1963, and taken back to the FBI Laboratory. Lt. Day stated no one has identified this bag to the Dallas Police Department." (CD5, p129). Beyond offering us yet another witness purported to have seen the bag in the depository not shown the bag at a later date by either the Warren Commission or FBI (Roy Truly) this report has numerous, undoubtedly suspicious, errors. Not only does it say Day found the bag, it says no one else viewed it. There's no mention at all of Montgomery, Johnson, and Studebaker. The report also errs in that it says the bag was "immediately locked up by Day", and that it was not exhibited to anyone else. This conceals that on this same day, 11-29-63, Drain interviewed Dallas detective R.D. Lewis, who acknowledged giving Buell Wesley Frazier a polygraph in which Frazier was shown the bag and refused to identify it as the bag he saw Oswald carry into the building. (CD7, p291). Is it just a coincidence that Drain's report on Day, containing false information, was written up on 11-30, and included in the FBI report of 11-30, and that Drain's report on Lewis, conducted on the same day, wasn't written up till 12-1 and forwarded to Washington till 12-10, after the completion of the 12-9 summary report given to the President and Warren Commission, and leaked to the press? The report on R.D. Lewis presents another problem as well, though not an insurmountable one. Although Day testified that "the sack was released on November 22 to the FBI about 11:45 p.m." Lewis claimed it was shown to Frazier during Frazier's polygraph examination. Well, when was this polygraph examination? Drain's report on Lewis doesn't say. According to the report of Officers Rose, Stovall, and Adamcik, the detectives tasked with picking up Frazier after the shooting, however, "R.D. Lewis arrived on the fourth floor about 11:20 PM and conducted the polygraph examination until approximately 12:10 AM 11-23-63." (21H602). Unless Frazier was shown the bag towards the beginning of his examination, he would have to have been shown a different bag than the one released to the FBI.

Greg and Bernice, this is what I've got so far on the bag. Some of the early chapters on my webpage are written from the perspective of an all-seeing FBI agent. I did this to show that the FBI's early conclusions are not only in opposition to what we know now, but to what they should have known then. From patspeer.com, chapter 2. http://www.patspeer.com/chapter2%3Alooking...eeyesofanall-se Not Exactly in the Bag "On 12-1-63 we read another report about another roadblock. The FBI still can't figure out how Oswald, or anyone, got the rifle used to kill Kennedy into the building. On 11-29, agent Vincent Drain followed up on Buell Frazier and his refusal to ID the paper bag found in the sniper's nest as the bag Oswald had brought to work. He talked to Dallas Police Captain Will Fritz, who confirmed that Frazier had told him on the day of the shooting that the bag he saw was "about two feet in length, and of brown paper." (CD7, p290). He talked to Dallas Detective R.D. Lewis, who confirmed that Frazier, while being given a polygraph test, "was shown what appeared to be a homemade brown heavy paper gun case." Lewis stated further that "Frazier said that it was possible this was the case, but he did not think it resembled it. He stated that the crinkly brown paper sack that Oswald had when he rode to work with him that morning was about two feet long." Detective Lewis also told Drain "that if this was not identical to the sack that was turned over to the Bureau, it is possible that Oswald may have thrown it away." (CD7, p291). Apparently, Lewis believed Frazier. On 12-2-63, we find out that agents Odum and McNeely, desperate to get around this roadblock, had visited the school book depository on the day before. There they gathered up some paper and some tape, and created a replica sack to show those who knew Oswald. Significantly, this report tells us the "paper was described as "60 pound paper, 24 inches wide" and that the tape was "gummed, brown paper tape, three inches wide, made on 60 pound paper stock." (CD7, p292). They then took the original sack, which had been stained by the FBI during testing, and this replica sack, over to show Ruth Paine, at whose home Oswald had stayed the night before the shooting. She "advised that she does not recall seeing Lee Oswald in possession of any sack resembling either of these sacks, nor does she recall seeing him in possession of paper or tape of the type used on either of these sacks." (CD7, p293). Perhaps hoping he would change his mind, they then showed these sacks to Buell Frazier. In their 12-2 report, Odum and McNeeley re-tell Frazier's story. They write: "As he started to drive out of the yard, Frazier glanced back and noticed a long package, light brown in color, lying on the back of the rear seat and extending from approximately the right rear door to about the center of the seat...Frazier designated an approximate spot on the back seat where he felt the package extended to from the right rear door and measurement by Special Agents Bardwell D. Odum and Gibbon E. McNeeley determined that this spot was 27 inches from the inside of the right door, indicating that Frazier estimates that as the length of the package." They then recount Frazier's recollection of how Oswald carried the package into the building: "Oswald had this package under his right arm, one end of this package being under his armpit and the other end apparently held with his right fingers...Frazier stated that when he saw this package under the arm of Oswald, he reached the conclusion that the package was wrapped in a cheap, crinkly, thin paper sack, such as that provided by Five and Ten Cent Stores." They then describe showing Frazier the replica sack. Agent Odum held the sack under his arm, and they measured how much of the sack was visible to Frazier, when held under his arm. It was 9" by 1". According to Odum's report, Frazier then advised Odum "that he now realizes that his conclusion that the sack was thin, crinkly paper, of the type used in Five and Ten Cent stores, was based to a considerable extent upon the fact that the color of the sack was a very light brown as compared with the type of dark brown paper used for heavier grocery sacks. He noted that the color of the replica sack was the same color as the package which he had seen in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963." Odum then shows Frazier the original sack. He writes: "Frazier examined the original found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22,1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack." This is incredibly disingenuous, and fails to note that Frazier was shown this sack, on the night of the shooting, before it had been discolored by the FBI's tests, and had refused to identify it as the sack or bag brought into work by Oswald. Odum then reports: "Frazier indicated on the replica sack the estimated width of the package in possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, and this was found to be an approximate width of six inches". (CD7, 294-297). They then showed the sack to Frazier's sister, Linnie Mae Randle. She also has her doubts about the sack. Odum reports: "Mrs. Randle states that at the time she saw Oswald walking across the street, he was carrying a long package wrapped in brown paper or a brown sack in his right hand. It appeared to contain something heavy. She stated that it was long but did not touch the ground as he walked across the street. She examined a replica of the sack...She stated that this was the same kind of paper that made up the sack or package that she saw Oswald carrying, and was the same heavy grade of paper, since she recalls noting that there was something heavy in the sack when she saw it, and it was the same color paper as the sack she had seen on the morning of November 22, 1963. She was shown the original paper sack...She stated that if the original sack was previously the same color as the replica sack, that the original sack could have been the one which she saw Oswald carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963...The action of Oswald walking across Westbrook Street was re-enacted by Special Agent McNeeley, carrying the replica sack...in accordance with Mrs. Randle's observations, Special Agent McNeeley grasped the top of the sack with his hand...When the proper length of the sack was reached according to Mrs. Randle's estimate, it was measured and found to be 27 inches long. She demonstrated the width of the sack as it appeared to her, noting that it did have something bulky in it originally. Her designation on the replica sack was found to be 8 1/2 inches for the width of the original package she had seen Oswald carrying." (CD7, p298-299). Here, once again, Odum acts as though the recollection of the witness is consistent with the sack carried by Oswald being the sack found in the sniper's nest. This just isn't true. Two witnesses saw the sack. The FBI performed two tests to determine the length of the sack seen by the witnesses. They put the replica sack in Frazier's back seat. This confirmed for Frazier that the sack he saw was about 27 inches long. They then re-enacted Oswald walking across the street to get Randle's best estimate of the length of the sack. This led her to conclude the sack she saw was...27 inches long. We've seen some evidence photos. The sack found in the sniper's nest was 38 inches long, approximately 40% longer than the sack described by both Frazier and Randle. We've also seen photos of the original sack, as it was brought out of the school book depository. It appears to have been well over 10 inches in width. This gets us thinking. As the paper roll in the school book depository, according to Odum and McNeeley's report, was 24 inches wide, and there has been no report of the edges of the bag having been cut, or of scraps of this paper having been found in the garage where the rifle was stored, the bag was most likely this 24 inches folded in half, and taped along its edge. This means it was 12 inches wide when laying flat. If it had held the disassembled rifle, of course, it would have bulged up in the middle. We do a quick test with some books and a newspaper to determine the width of this bag, when holding a rifle, as it would have been seen by Frazier and Randle. It would have appeared 10 inches wide, or thereabouts. If the bag when holding a rifle was 38 by 10, however, it would have covered 380 sq. inches on the back seat of Frazier's car. The sack described by Frazier, meanwhile, is 27 x 6, 162 sq. inches...LESS THAN HALF this size! No wonder he'd refused to ID the bag."