Pat Speer

Yes, in the Tippit case. But my point was that police departments rarely dusted shells for prints. It would be interesting, of course, if there was evidence they did dust the shells found at the Tippit crime scene, and then pretended they didn't, as this could suggest they found a print that wasn't Oswald's.

I read quite a bit on fingerprints and fingerprinting a few years back and was surprised by much of what I learned. One surprising fact was that fingerprints are rarely found on shells--to such an extent even that crime scene investigators will frequently not even bother to dust them. As I recall, there were a couple of reasons for this. One is that the shells are small and curved and rarely pick up a sufficiently-legible print even under the best circumstances. Two is that the act of firing the bullet burns off some of the residue on the outside of the shell. As a consequence, then, the likelihood of finding a suspect's prints on a shell was less than 1 in 100. Now, I'm just going off memory here, but I remember being surprised by all this, and realizing that Capt. Fritz's holding onto one of the shells found in the sniper's nests was not the egregious breach of protocol I once assumed it to be. I mean, he was the lead investigator. Not only would he not want to send all "his" evidence to the FBI lab, but he would doubt the FBI would find anything of value on a spent shell. So he held onto one of the shells. Perhaps, just perhaps, he did so, moreover, because he wanted to make sure the shells sent back by the FBI had the same markings as the shell he'd held onto. If they didn't, of course, he would know the fix was in. P.S. A second point should be made as well. Prior to 1968, solo fingerprints were used to confirm the guilt of suspects only. IOW, there was no consulting the FBI fingerprint file for a solo print. SO... finding a print that wasn't Oswald's would lead them nowhere. It would suggest his innocence without telling them who did it. (We saw this happen with the sniper's nest prints, some of which were made to disappear from the record after (presumably) failing to match up with Oswald.)

FWIW, both xxxx Tuck and Bobby Jr. pushed Russian propaganda in that interview. They cited numbers from what they claimed was one of the recently leaked documents that indicated the Ukrainians were suffering more casualties than the Russians, when the document they cited was a faked version of the original document. Evidently, the Russians got ahold of these documents early on, and disseminated faked versions throughout the internet, to spread lies about the war and maximize U.S. embarrassment. (This story was broken I believe by Philip Bump of the Washington Post.) In any event, RFK Jr. would do well to distance himself from Tucker and his fellow Russian suck-ups.

So...if you're a fan of both Stanley Marks and the Beatles, does that make you a Marks-ist/Lennon-ist?

This is not a surprise. If you walk up to Groden on the knoll today he will tell you that Livingstone behaved inappropriately around young girls, and that this was a factor in their parting ways after High Treason. I have been privileged to meet a lot of researchers who got their start in the 80's or before, and I don't recall any of them saying they thought Livingstone was a stable individual who got a bad rap. On the contrary, most all have personal anecdotes as to his instability.

It's all beside the point, David. Whether or not YOU think DeMohrenschildt talked to Moore about Oswald, or whether or not Bugliosi's research supported as much, has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making... To be clear that point is that, by the time Marina changed her opinion about her husband's guilt, she would almost certainly have heard a number of things--true or not--such as DeMohrenschildt's discussing Lee with the CIA--that would lead her to believe there was more to it than Lee acting alone. You indicated she was swayed by conspiracy theorists, when the reality is that the historical record (which Bugliosi claimed to love) had received a number of additions between early 1964 and the early 1980's that would lead many to re-appraise Oswald's guilt, or at least his sole guilt. Marina was one of them.

So you refute my point by confirming my point? 2 + 2 = 4. Moore was CIA. Moore spoke to DeMohrenschildt about Oswald. It doesn't mean Oswald worked for the CIA or even that DeMohrenschildt worked for the CIA. But Marina's subsequently finding out Lee's "best friend" had discussed him with a CIA employee might very well have made her think there was more to the assassination than just Lee. That is the point I was making. And it cannot be reasonably disputed.

So both? You are stating as fact that J. Walton Moore never talked to DeMohrenschildt about Oswald? Based on what?

Are you disputing that Moore talked to DeMohrenschildt, or that he asked him to keep tabs on Oswald?

It appears to be the handwriting of two different people, presumably Fonzi and Hardway. Hardway has been made aware of this, and will (hopefully) transcribe the important sections and make a comment on the release.

To my understanding, you are correct in that Marina never disavowed her statements as to fact, in relation to the byp, etc. But your claiming she backed away from her belief her husband acted alone as a lone nut because she was under the influence of crazed theorists is incorrect, IMO. At the time of the WC, she was in the dark about much of her husband's activities, and the activities around him, that later led her to believe he was not some lone nut. As but a few examples... She did not know that the CIA had asked DeMohrenschildt to keep tabs on her husband. She did not know Ruth Paine's family had ties to the CIA. She did not know that the tapes and photos of her husband in Mexico City were not him, and that he may have been impersonated. She did not know about the Odios' claims Lee came to their door in the company of anti-Castro Cubans. She did not know about Veciana's claims he saw Lee meet with a CIA handler. By the 1980's, when she changed her opinion as to her former husband's guilt, she was presumably aware of all of this. It was not unreasonable for her to change her mind under the circumstances. The strange behavior she'd seen upfront now had an explanation--Lee was a low-level agent of some sort, or trying to be such an agent.

To be clear, those pictures were first published by Howard Roffman, and are available on my website and in Gil's article.

Let me guess. He says someone told him this in an un-filmed and unrecorded interview decades after the fact, that he never got around to telling people about before the interview subject had died.

That version of the Moorman photo has been photoshopped or whatever to depict a hole on the back of the head where none is visible in the original photo. Shame on Bob. P.S. To be clear, there is a shadow or dark shape in the original photo that covers much of the back of the head, including the left side of the the head. But the dark shape on the photo in the Groden video appears to be centered right where Groden has long claimed there was a blow-out wound. It's been altered.

Wait. Were they saying you could see the hole visible on the open cranium photo in the Moorman photo? That's only totally deceptive. Bob, Bob, Bob...

Where did you hear this? I have written quite a bit on the subject and have never found any evidence for as much. What I did find--and what Gil discusses--is that it appears there was a set of curtain rods tested by the DPD before any curtain rods were "discovered" in Mrs. Paine's garage. Since the SS agent submitting these to the DPD, John Joe Howlett, was the agent who'd performed a re-enactment in the TSBD a few days after the shooting, for that matter, it is not unreasonable to assume he received the rods at that time. But there's no evidence for it, of which I am aware.

Greetings, Gil. A minor quibble. Since no one in the online research community gets paid, our only compensation is credit. I believe it was Alan Ford (of the JFK Assassination Forum) who discovered the problem with the DPD's forms, and brought it to the attention of others, including myself. You might want to mention him when you discuss the forms. Just a thought.

I met her a number of times at a number of Lancer Conferences, and thought it may have been her but that her story had been amplified to make it more interesting. But last I saw she was playing footsie with Judy Baker--which I took to be a slap in the face of Deb Conway. So I now believe she just craves attention. It doesn't mean it wasn't her--if it wasn't her she took an incredible chance coming forward when she did when the real lady was probably still alive. But it makes me doubt most everything she has said.

My recollection is that he found it upon his return from Haiti, inside the cover of a record album he'd loaned the Oswalds, which had been returned to his possession by...Michael Paine. So Michael Paine not only came forward late in life to say he saw the photo--something he never said in 1964--but was also responsible for handing off one of the photos to Demohrenschildt. I'm on the fence about the Paines but this is most certainly curious.

Thanks for that background. The Redlich memo was published by Howard Roffman in his book, Presumed Guilty, written in 1975. Roffman was a protege of Weisberg's, so I assumed he got it from Weisberg. But you know what happens when you assume things. It 's certainly possible it was released as a result of the Abzug hearing.

Here is Redlich's memo. I'm fairly certain it was released in response to one of Weisberg's lawsuits in the early 70's. I consider it more significant than anything Belin would say later for a number of reasons. One is that Belin was not remotely involved in the re-enactment, and was essentially repeating what he'd heard from others. Two is that Redlich's proposal was successful, and was the basis for the re-enactment. That he put in writing in the proposal for the re-enactment, that it didn't have to be accurate, and was designed to show whether or not the single-bullet theory was remotely possible (as opposed to being likely) speaks volumes, IMO, and is far more significant than anything an underling like Belin would say later. April 27, 1964 MEMORANDUM TO: J. Lee Rankin FROM: Norman Redlich The purpose of this memorandum is to explain the reasons why certain members of the staff feel that it is important to take certain on-site photographs in connection with the location of the approximate points at which the three bullets struck the occupants of the Presidential limousine. Our report presumably will state that the President was hit by the first bullet, Governor Connally by the second, and the President by the third and fatal bullet. The report will also conclude that the bullets were fired by one person located in the sixth floor southeast corner window of the TSBD building. As our investigation now stands, however, we have not shown that these events could possibly have occurred in the manner suggested above. All we have is a reasonable hypothesis which appears to be supported by the medical testimony but which has not been checked out against the physical facts at the scene of the assassination. Our examination of the Zapruder films shows that the fatal third shot struck the President at a point which we can locate with reasonable accuracy on the ground. We can do this because we know the exact frame (no. 313) in the film at which the third shot hit the President and we know the location of the photographer. By lining up fixed objects in the movie frame where this shot occurs we feel that we have determined the approximate location of this shot. This can be verified by a photo of the same spot from the point where Zapruder was standing. We have the testimony of Governor and Mrs. Connally that the Governor was hit with the second bullet at a point which we probably cannot fix with precision. We feel we have established, however, with the help of medical testimony, that the shot which hit the Governor did not come after frame 240 on the Zapruder film. The governor feels that it came around 230, which is certainly consistent with our observations of the film and with the doctor's testimony. Since the President was shot at frame 313, this would leave a time of at least 4 seconds between the two shots, certainly ample for even an inexperienced marksman. Prior to our last viewing of the films with Governor Connally we had assumed that the President was hit while he was concealed behind the sign which occurs between frames 215-225. We have expert testimony to the effect that a skilled marksman would require a minimum 2 seconds between shots with this rifle. Since the camera operates at 18 1/3 frames per second, there would have to be a minimum of 40 frames between shots. It is apparent, therefore, that if Governor Connally was hit even as late as frame 240, the President would have to have been hit no later than frame 190 and probably even earlier. We have not yet examined the assassination scene to determine whether the assassin in fact could have shot the President prior to frame 190. We could locate the position on the ground which corresponds to this frame and it would then be our intent to establish by photography that the assassin could have fired the first shot at the President prior to this point. Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin. I had always assumed that our final report would be accompanied by a surveyor's diagram which would indicate the appropriate location of the three shots. We certainly cannot prepare such a diagram without establishing that we are describing an occurrence which is physically possible. Our failure to do this will, in my opinion, place this Report in jeopardy since it is a certainty that others will examine the Zapruder films and raise the same questions which have been raised by our examination of the films. If we do not attempt to answer these questions with observable facts, others may answer them with facts which challenge our most basic assumptions, or with fanciful theories based on our unwillingness to test our assumptions by the investigatory methods available to us. I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture. It may well be that this project should be undertaken by the FBI and Secret Service with our assistance instead of being done as a staff project. The important thing is that the project be undertaken expeditiously.

Belin wasn't really revealing anything.. This came right from Redlich's memo in which the 5-24-64 SBT re-enactment was proposed.

I have read dozens of books and articles on the history of ballistics and the early literature (pre-assassination) was divided chiefly along the lines of lead bullets vs. jacketed bullets. There was little if any discussion of the difference between a steel jacket and a copper jacket. One runs into the same problem when it comes to high-velocity vs. low velocity. Some have argued that the M/C was a medium velocity weapon, and thereby did not fit the profile for the wounds--which were attributed to a high-velocity rifle. This was nonsense. The discussion at the time was almost entirely high-velocity (supersonic--hunting and military rifles) vs. low velocity (subsonic--handguns and varmint rifles). There was little discussion of "middle-velocity" weapons until the 60's, when the rise of the AK-47 and M-16 (AR-15) forced those studying wound ballistics to differentiate between WWI and WW2 era rifles firing larger bullets at a slower velocity and Vietnam era rifles firing smaller bullets at a greater velocity. Context is everything. If you go back through the DPD's reports for that era I suspect you will find they regularly called jacketed bullets steel-jacketed, even if they were copper-jacketed. Heck, these guys were from Texas. They might not have even known the difference.

I'm sorry, but you are the one who looks ridiculous. When it comes to a job--any job--familiarity with the job, and experience with those with whom you will be working--are at the top of the resume. I would agree that certain jobs require more than just experience--that they require a certain vision, charm and leadership ability. But, on paper--based purely on work experience--Joe Biden is the most qualified Prez in history.

My understanding is that WWII military surplus rifles were dirt cheap in comparison to new hunting rifles, and that that was why Oswald (and people of Oswald's economic background)_ bought them.