Pat Speer

Since echoes keep echoing back... From patspeer.com Chapter 9: When one reads a rarely-cited HSCA analysis of the way gunshots are heard in Dealey Plaza, one can see for oneself that it is indeed fairly easy to distinguish shots from echoes in Dealey Plaza. The writer of this report, Harvard Psychoacoustics Professor David Green, makes a point of stating that although his hearing was impaired in his left ear, and he was unable to hear the echoes with the clarity of the trained observers, he was nonetheless able to localize the shots based on their initial blast with a similar degree of accuracy as the experts. In the report, the trained observers state that there is a strong echo from the Post Office Annex on the south side of the plaza that comes a second after a shot fired from the TSBD. They said it was readily distinguishable as an echo, but that someone on the knoll hearing this echo might misinterpret the original source of the sound as coming from an area directly behind himself. OK, so that could be an explanation as to why the witnesses on the knoll were incorrect, but what about those in front of the TSBD? Well, the report goes on to say that it would be difficult for someone standing in front of the TSBD to immediately localize a sound high overhead, and that some of the witnesses may have localized on a subsequent echo coming 8/10 of a second later from the area of the overpass “especially if the rifle had been fired from well within the TSBD.” This disclaimer indicates that Dr. Green didn’t really believe his offered explanation, as he knew or should have known that the rifle in the TSBD was seen sticking out the window and that the window was not open sufficiently high enough for someone to fire from back inside the building. Similarly, since the theoretical ability of a lone sniper to shoot accurately from this window is based upon his use of the boxes stacked in front of the window for support, this statement argues against a lone gunman’s ability to shoot 3 accurate shots from the sniper’s nest without his giving away his position to a far greater degree than actually occurred. This disclaimer, therefore, can be taken as yet another argument for shots or sounds coming from more than one location, as a lone sniper shooting from the sixth floor window should have been more readily identifiable. Indeed, in his 9-11-78 appearance before the committee, Green made this point abundantly clear. Early in his testimony, he offered: "when you are situated immediately under the Texas School Book Depository, which was our general location for the second sequence of shots, two things are rather confusing. First of all, the N wave comes right over your head so you tend to localize the source directly over your head or on occasion you directly localize the source in whatever direction you were facing. You could, for example, move your head into different directions. I once looked down Elm Street in this direction fairly well convinced that the sound came from this direction, and the other observers did likewise, pointed their heads in different directions and said that that influenced their judgments. Also when you are in this location the sound sweeps down the building and the apparent source of the sound is rather large, probably because it scattered off the regular surface of the building. That was caused by the blast wave." He was then asked if this confusion caused his observers to incorrectly identify the source of any of the shots, and responded "They certainly made some inaccurate responses. I would say in the order of 10 percent." Well, this suggests it really wasn't that confusing. And sure enough, Dr. Green summed up his tests as follows: “there are certain locations that are best for observing certain shots and in the general region of the book depository, right on the street beneath it, in our opinion it was extremely easy to tell it came from the book. There was a massive sound to the right and rear that sort of crawled down the building, presumably due to scatter on the regular surface of the building and it was quite evident.” Unstated but implied in Green’s report is his knowledge that 11 of the 14 witnesses in this “general region” in front of the depository, including those on its front steps, nevertheless believed the shots came from somewhere else, with 9 pointing west, the direction of the railroad yards and the knoll. Green’s attempts to account for this anomaly by suggesting that the rifle was fired from well within the building, as opposed to the more logical possibility that the bullets were undercharged in order to create less noise—which was believed to have been beyond the “lone nut” Oswald’s capabilities-- or that the witnesses were simply responding to the last sound they heard, which came from the west, is nevertheless informative, as it indicates a second rifle firing from well within either the Dal-Tex or County Records buildings would not necessarily have been interpreted as coming from those locations, even if the weapon were not equipped with a silencer. But that is not all the report has to offer. Although, strangely, no rapid fire sequences with shots alternating between the grassy knoll and the TSBD were attempted for the study, the witnesses were able to distinguish isolated shots between the locations with relative ease, with over 85% accuracy, including pistol shots from the knoll and rifle shots from well within the TSBD. When one looks only at the results of the rifle shots fired from the window and any shot fired from the knoll, one sees that the observers correctly identified the source 73 out of 80 times, no matter where they stood in Dealey Plaza. When one looks only at the results gleaned from the observers while they stood near the knoll, one sees they correctly identified the source of the shots 26 out of 26 times, claiming that the un-silenced shots fired were readily identifiable as coming from the stockade fence, which argues against a shot coming from that location, as most the witnesses nearby, including Abraham Zapruder, believed the shots came from somewhere further back. (Why they failed to perform tests using silenced weapons is never explained.) When one looks only at the results gleaned from the observers while they stood on the street in front of the Depository, in addition, it reveals they correctly identified the source 18 of 20 times. These actual results reveal that the report’s musings about people being confused by echoes on the knoll and shock waves in front of the TSBD was so much hooey, offered most likely so that the HSCA would have the option of defending the Warren Commission’s conclusions. Instead, the results reveal it’s fairly easy to identify the source of a shot fired in Dealey Plaza under normal circumstances. And yet the single-assassin theorists maintain that the 7 out of 9 witnesses between the knoll and the limousine who heard shots from behind them were wrong, in a location where the observers were right 26 out of 26 times, and also that the 5 out of 6 witnesses on the North side of Elm who said shots came from the west, were wrong, in a location where the observers were right 18 of 20 times. These results indicate that it is the single-assassin theorists who are wrong, yet again.

As important as the wording is the date. This is September 1964, 10 months after the shooting and 9 months after the beginning of the WC's investigation. The Warren Report, including the section on the curtain rods, has already been written and approved by the commissioners. There was no way in hell that they were gonna go back to square one and ask around about the curtain rods. So, much as they did with the barrel print--where they asked Hoover to verify it had been on the rifle, but took no sworn testimony on this point--they asked the FBI to give them some cover on this and get Truly to say no curtains rods were recovered. This is transparent smoke. Sure, Truly was in charge of the depository, but there were a number of outside companies within the building. Why weren't the employees of these companies, which used the same lunch room as the TSBD workers, asked about the curtain rods? And why, for crying out loud, did someone change the dates on the DPD report on some curtain rods, to make it appear these rods were tested after they'd been recovered from Ruth Paine's garage, when the original report proves they were tested before being recovered from Ruth Paine--and were most probably a different set altogether? .

Here are the curtain rods, as published by the WC. I'm not sure what that dark shape you see is, but if I recall they said there were roll-up blinds on that shelf as well.

I'm not sure why you think I missed the ends of the curtain rods in my chapter. I am fairly certain I was the first to notice them. From chapter 4h at patspeer.com:

If we're gonna go down that road, Mark, we have to accept the possibility that 1) Brennan lied about seeing Oswald out of fear the real killer would hunt him down if he didn't, 2) Jack Ruby lied about his reasons for killing Oswald out of fear the plotters in JFK's death would gun him down, and 3) the FBI and DPD crime lab people all lied out of fear of getting in trouble should they not properly pin the tale on the Oswald. It's a slippery slope. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you're gonna say Frazier lied to save his butt you have to accept that LBJ and Warren ran a whitewash to save their own butts. The problem is, of course, that Frazier has more credibility than those other upstanding citizens.

You are correct in that the results of the polygraph were not published. But it can not be doubted that Frazier was asked about the bag and that he passed, seeing as the DPD officers involved deferred to his insistence the bag shown him was not the bag he saw earlier that day in Oswald's possession. .

Nope. The FBi's paper analysis traced the sack paper to a particular roll that was in use on the 22nd, and for but a few days before and after. The only day he visited Irving in this period was the 21st.

From patspeer.com, Chapter 9... And now the moment we’ve been waiting for (at least the moment I’ve been waiting for)…the results of our eyewitness analysis. With 70 witnesses out of the plaza or to the south of Elm Street, 70 witnesses in the motorcade, and 154 assorted witnesses on bridges, along Elm Street, or in the School Book Depository, we’ve looked at the words of 294 witnesses to see if they add up to something. Of this 294, 89 failed to tell us much that would indicate when and how the shots were fired. Of the remaining 205, 102 made statements suggesting there were three shots fired, with the first shot being heard between Z-190 and Z-224 and the last 2 shots being heard in rapid succession after a short pause. Another 57 made statements suggesting that the first shot was heard between Z-190 and Z-224, but made no statements indicating the last two shots were bunched together. Another 13 heard the last two shots fired closely together, and yet another could only swear to hearing two shots, but thought there may have been a third, which was wholly consistent with the last two being fired closely together. This means that 173 of the 205 witnesses described the shots in a relatively consistent manner. Of the remaining 32, 18 heard four or more shots, and another 3 made statements indicating there was a shot after the head shot. This leaves just 11 witnesses whose statements can reasonably be seen as supporting the shooting scenario theorized by John Lattimer, Gerald Posner and Dale Myers. And 8 of these 11, once their words are compared to the various photographs and films, can be used to argue for a different scenario. This leaves just 3 witnesses who can be used to support the LPM scenario over other scenarios—J.M. Head, Mrs. Robert Reid and Geneva Hine. Well, Head told us nothing about the timing of the shots, other than that there was a bigger gap before the last shot. (I mean, he may have thought the first two shots were bang-bang with a two second gap before the last shot--we don't know). And Reid testified in a manner supporting that the first shot was fired after frame 160. Now that leaves Hine, who didn't even see the impact of the shots. She merely described the shooting in a manner more consistent with a first shot at frame 160 than at 190. That’s it. The TV simulations depicting a first shot miss and a five second gap between the second and third shots are therefore incredibly at odds with the available evidence. No matter how many shooters fired on the motorcade, no matter who fired the fatal bullet, the statements of the eyewitnesses indicate THE SHOOTING DID NOT HAPPEN AS PURPORTED BY LATTIMER, POSNER, MYERS, AND BUGLIOSI.

I'm sure the FBI was putting the best spin possible on what Frazier told them. We know they were fudging, moreover, because that report failed to acknowledge that Frazier had been shown the original sack, in its original color, while attached to a lie detector on the night of the shooting, and not only refused to ID the sack, but convinced the DPD the sack he saw was another sack. He was a kid. The fact is the FBI put the replica sack in the back seat and Frazier said the sack he saw was half that size--half that size, not even close. As far as your pockets theory, oh my. The paper comprising the paper bag was roughly 3 1/2 feet by 2 feet...of shipping paper, which is thicker than writing paper. It crinkles when you fold it. I have worked in a warehouse where such paper was used. When I spoke to Frazier about this, I prefaced my question by explaining that I'd worked with this paper, and couldn't believe Oswald "smuggled" such a large piece of paper out to Irving on the 21st without his--Frazier's--noticing. I then explained that the FBI and WC had tested the various paper rolls and had concluded that that roll was in use on the 21st, and maybe a few days before, and that the 21st was the only time Oswald could have smuggled the paper out to Irving. I then asked him if it was possible Oswald had the paper stuffed down his shirt or some such thing on the ride out to Irving. It was as if I'd asked him if his mom could be an alien. He looked me in the eye and said, with the stern voice of a school principal: "THAT... DID... NOT... HAPPEN." P.S. We didn't talk about Walker or Tippit, but I suspect he hasn't spent much time thinking about them, because...because...he knows what he knows, and he knows the bag was not large enough to hold that rifle.

Pure smoke. Circular reasoning. "I refuse to believe something, so it mustn't be true." I have talked with Frazier on several occasions. He knows the evidence against Oswald. He also knows what he knows. And what he knows--for a fact, in his mind--is that the Oswald he knew was an unlikely assassin, and that the bag he saw in Oswald's possession was much smaller than the bag later put into evidence. He knows this for a fact. He has no doubt. He has also stated--as a fact--that Oswald did not have the bag in his possession on the 21st. He knows this for a fact. So put aside the grandstanding stuff, David. Let's say you ran into Johnny Bench on the street as he came outside a grocery store. Let's say he excused himself to take a pee and went into a local biker bar. And then all hell broke loose. Sirens came roaring down the street right up to the bar. An APB is then put out on Bench. He gets arrested. You're horrified. He killed three people in a bar? Johnny Bench? And then he gets killed in police custody. You're blown away. Now imagine that over the next few days an "official" story emerges as to what happened. There are no witnesses to the brawl itself. Nevertheless, the authorities claim Bench brought a Louisville Slugger into the bar inside a long paper bag, and just teed off on the bartender. Now, you know this is bs. You saw the bag in his possession and it was a grocery bag. So what do you do? Do you say "Well, the authorities are never wrong, and never lie, so I must be mistaken--Johnny Bench must be a cold-blooded killer?" Or do you say "Yikes! I don't know what happened, but I know what didn't happen, and Johnny Bench did not go into that bar with a Louisville slugger in a bag and just start braining a bartender!" I know what I'd do.

No one forced Putin's hand. This is entirely his doing. His dream has been to reconstitute the Soviet Union, and there is no Soviet Union without Ukraine. I am shocked that so many are willing to Monday-morning quarterback this, and wring their hands over what so and so should have done to prevent this. But that's just me. I'm biased. I grew up with Ukrainians. My best friend devoted his life to helping Ukraine prepare itself for the invasion he knew was coming. He'd lived in Kyiv and Moscow and knew it was just a matter of time before the bear decided to eat the salmon.

McClelland was one of the doctors and he said he never felt pressured. What many fail to realize is that emergency room doctors are frequently proven wrong and/or over-ruled by pathologists. A man on his last breath is brought in to the ER. A doctor tries to revive him, but it's too late. The doctor's impressions of the cause of death could very well be wrong. He thought it was a heart attack but it was an OD on heart medicine or some such thing.

Oswald would want an attorney who would give him a fair shake, and not hold his background as a commie symp/leper against him. This makes perfect sense. if I was a leper, I would want a doctor who'd had experience dealing with lepers, and not one who thought they were icky. Wouldn't you? As far as the rifle, it's clear to me that whoever removed it from the garage wanted it to look like it was still in the blanket. Would Oswald have done as much on the morning of the shooting? It's possible. It's possible he was worried Marina would notice it missing. But would she alert the authorities if she did? I don't see that as a real concern. It's more likely by far that someone had taken it before the evening of the 21st, and was hoping Oswald wouldn't notice its absence. The Paines, after all, were purportedly unaware of the rifle's existence. So their noticing the blanket was empty would probably just bring a shrug. These were Quakers, after all, who never locked their garage, or, presumably, their house.

My position is not secret. I suspect Oswald was innocent of killing Kennedy, and was set up. But I think he was involved in something--perhaps he was told someone was gonna roll a protest banner down from the window, or something equally innocuous. But he was involved in something. I think he realized he'd been set up, and fled. I suspect as well that he killed Tippit while in flight, and that he may have had good reason to do so, as Tippit may not have been as innocent as we would like to believe. I think/know the WC was a whitewash.

Day said he went downstairs and tore off a piece of paper as a sample, yes? So when did this happen? By all scenarios, he was upstairs (at a time no one had seen the bag) and then left the building with the rifle. So when did he go downstairs to check the paper? Did he put the rifle down somewhere when he messed with the paper? Was the bag with him at this time? And, if so, why is there no corroborative testimony from Truly or anyone working at the TSBD..."Yeah, I saw Lt. Day come down with the bag and compare it to our paper, and then take a sample." We have Day's word he did this--but not when--and we have Studebaker, his assistant, saying he was there as well, but Day concealed Studebaker's involvement when first asked about this. Why? The "official" story has so many holes you can't count 'em, and its because Specter/Ball/Belin refused to get to the bottom of this stuff. So let's say Day left the bag and paper sample at the depository when he left with the rifle. Why, then, was it another hour or so before Montgomery and Johnson left with the bag? And why didn't they take the paper sample with them? And why was the bag never photographed by the DPD until AFTER it had been sent to the FBI, and AFTER Oswald's prints had supposedly been found on it? Was the DPD that incompetent/reluctant to photograph evidence? Really? If you can't smell a rat here then I strongly suggest you buy a rat terrier. They're nice dogs and they're quite good at sniffing out rats.

I'm pretty sure the 1980 book he mentions is Modern Legal Medicine, Psychiatry and Forensic Science. This was "discovered" by myself some years back. It is a huge volume put together by a trio of doctors, with HSCA FPP member Charles Petty overseeing and writing the sections on Forensic Pathology and gunshot wounds. In it, he claims that the exits for shored wounds, while small, are still not as small as the entrance for that bullet. Well, this helped explain why the HSCA FPP presented JFK's back wound as far larger than its measured size--they needed to so they could pretend the throat wound was an exit for this bullet. (I can still recall the look on Dr. Wecht's face when I showed him this in 2014.) As stated, the book is huge, and was almost certainly written during Petty's time on the HSCA panel. In any event, I was the first to "discover" this book. More problematic, in my opinion, is another book I "discovered"--this one put together by Fisher and Petty, with a grant from the Justice Department. Entitled Forensic Pathology: a Guidebook for Pathologists, this slim volume was put out in July 1977. The majority of this book was written by members of the HSCA FPP. So here we have an actual transfer of money from the Justice Department--whose findings were under review---to Fisher--whose findings were under review--to members of the HSCA FPP...mere months prior to their being tasked with conducting this review. It smells to high heaven.

I go through the witnesses one by one on my website. NONE of the first responders on the scene who said they saw the shells before the arrival of Fritz recalled seeing the bag. Fritz himself said he failed to see the bag, even though, as I've demonstrated ad nauseam, he was photographed standing within inches of its purported location in the Alyea film. There are six witnesses to the bag in the sniper's nest, as I recall. (Day made statements indicating he was there but ultimately admitted he wasn't.) We have Montgomery and Johnson who claimed Monty discovered the bag while Johnson watched. And then there's Day's assistant Studebaker who made out that he was there as well. The official story, apparently, is that Monty found it while Johnson watched, and that they then called Studebaker over--who had the camera on him, but somehow failed to take a picture of the bag. Well, this is a problem from the start--as this could only have happened 20 minutes or more after the discovery of the sniper's nest. But it gets worse. Belin was so desperate for confirmation he wrangled Sims, one of Fritz's assistants, into saying he saw the bag, but his testimony was a mess. And he didn't stop there. As first demonstrated on my website, Belin went to Dallas with no plans on interviewing two motorcycle officers--they never filed reports on the shooting, and their names did not appear on any list. But he ended up taking their testimony anyhow--because clearly he saw the problem, and had begged for help from the DPD. So he questioned them real quick to say they saw the bag, even though they had never stood in the sniper's nest, and had no contemporaneous reports or notes saying they saw the bag. The problem is that they seemed confused over what bag they saw--whether it was the lunch bag or the rifle bag. In short, then, the bag story rests purely on the shoulders of Montgomery, Johnson, Studebaker, and Day--whose stories kept changing. A defense attorney would have destroyed them on the stand. Heck, I could have destroyed them on the stand and I was little more than a baby at the time. (A joke.) From patspeer.com, chapter 4c: Shining a Light on Sims The 4-6-64 testimony of Dallas detective Richard N. Sims reflects that he too was confused. When asked if he'd seen the paper bag found in the depository, Sims testified: Mr. SIMS. Well, we saw some wrappings--a brown wrapping there. Mr. BALL. Where did you see it? Mr. SIMS. It was there by the hulls. Mr. BALL. Was it right there near the hulls? Mr. SIMS. As well as I remember--of course, I didn't pay too much attention at that time, but it was, I believe, by the east side of where the boxes were piled up---that would be a guess--I believe that's where it was. Mr. BALL. On the east side of where the boxes were would that be the east? Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; it was right near the stack of boxes there. I know there was some loose paper there. Mr. BALL. Was Johnson there? Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; when the wrapper was found Captain Fritz stationed Montgomery to observe the scene there where the hulls were found. Mr. BALL. To stay there? Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. That was Marvin Johnson and L. D. Montgomery who stayed by the hulls? Mr. SIMS. Yes, sir; they did. I was going back and forth, from the wrapper to the hulls. (7H158-186). Let's stop right here. With the high-lighted statement, Sims either mis-spoke or was misquoted. He almost certainly meant to say "when the rifle was found", and not "when the wrapper was found," and that he "was going back and forth, from the rifle to the hulls" and not "from the wrapper to the hulls." The wrapper and the hulls were, after all, but a few feet apart...at least according to Studebaker... In any event, it's silly in the extreme to assume Sims was going back and forth between the wrapper and the hulls, and that this somehow shores up that he saw a "wrapper" in the sniper's nest. And no, I'm not kidding. Here is the pertinent section of Sims' report on his activities for 11-22-63: "At 1:20 PM. Lt. J.C. Day and Det. R. L. Studebaker arrived on the sixth floor. Capt. Fritz asked Lt. Day to take pictures of the hulls and the surrounding area. About 1;25 P.M. someone called for Capt. Fritz, and he left Det. L.D. Montgomery and Marvin Johnson to stay with the hulls. Capt. Fritz, Sims and Boyd went over to near the stairway where one of the officers had called Capt. Fritz. Someone said the gun had been found... Sims went back to where Lt. Day was and told him the gun had been found. Lt. Day or Det. Studebaker took another picture of the hulls and said they had already taken pictures of the scene. Sims picked up the empty hulls, and Lt. Day held an envelope open while Sims dropped them in the envelope. Lt. Day then walked over to where the rifle had been found." (24H319-322). So, yes indeed, Sims did go back and forth between the rifle and the hulls. And did not go back and forth between a wrapper and the hulls. Still, what a mess! In his testimony, Sims acknowledged that Detectives Johnson and Montgomery were stationed by the hulls (which were found by the sniper's nest) and seemed to be aware that they "found" a bag, but never mentioned witnessing the "discovery" of this bag.. Sims also described the "bag" as "loose paper," and not as a carefully folded and taped piece of wrapping paper in the shape of a gun case. He also "guessed" the location where the bag was found. This suggests then that Sims had but a vague recollection that some paper was found, or was supposedly found, but had no real recollection of its appearance or of its discovery, even though he had stood but a few feet from the bag's purported location when picking up the hulls from the sniper's nest. Well, this, in turn, reinforces that either no one placed much importance on the "bag" when it was first observed in the depository, and that its possible importance only became apparent later on, or that Sims was trying to support that a bag was found in the sniper's nest when he had actually never seen one. In any event, it seems likely Sims stood in the corner before the arrival of Day and Studebaker, and even before Johnson and Montgomery were assigned to guard this location...but nevertheless had no clear recollection of a bag's being in this corner. In further support of this conclusion, moreover, it should be noted Detective Sims' report on his activities on the day of the assassination makes no mention whatsoever of the bag or its discovery. And that's not even to mention that Sims left the depository with Capt. Fritz and Det. Boyd,, and that neither Fritz nor Boyd had any recollection of Sims (or anyone else) telling them about this bag before they left the building. Now, should one wish to believe Sims' vague recollections of a bag or wrapper when asked about it 4 1/2 months after the assassination are authoritative, and clear evidence the bag was found in the sniper's nest as claimed by Studebaker, Montgomery, Johnson, and Day, then one should be informed that Sims also testified that he didn't know who took custody of the hulls found in the sniper's nest, even though it was, according to everyone else...HIM...and that, as a result, he was forced to return to the stand and claim he'd since been reminded that he'd carried the hulls around in his pocket all day on 11-22-63, and that he now remembered his doing so. What a witness! Hello? Anyone? On 4-9-64, Warren Commission counsel David Belin took the testimony of Dallas Motorcycle officers Clyde Haygood and E.D. Brewer,. They claimed to have been on the sixth floor during the search of the depository, and to have seen an "approximately rifle length" and "relatively long" paper sack, respectively, in the southeast corner of the building. Unfortunately, however, their stories just muddied the waters... Mr. BELIN. What did you do then? Mr. HAYGOOD. Went up to another location there. Mr. BELIN. You saw some shells there? Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes. Mr. BELIN. Where did you see them? Mr. HAYGOOD. They were there under the window. Mr. BELIN. Which window? Mr. HAYGOOD. On the southeast corner. Mr. BELIN. South side or east side? Mr. HAYGOOD. On the southeast corner facing south. Mr. BELIN. See any paper bags or anything around there? Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes; there was a lunch bag there. You could call it a lunch bag. Mr. BALL. Where was that? Mr. HAYGOOD. There at the same location where the shells were. Mr. BELIN. Was there a coke bottle or anything with it? Mr. HAYGOOD. Dr. Pepper bottle. Mr. BELIN. See any long bags which would be a foot or foot and a half or more long? Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes; just a plain brown paper bag with tape in the corner. Mr. BELIN. What tape? Mr. HAYGOOD. Yes; there was just brown paper tape on it. Just a brown paper bag with paper tape. It had been taped up. Mr. BELIN. How long was that, if you can remember? Mr. HAYGOOD. The exact length, I couldn't say. It was approximately rifle length. (6H296-302). Hmmm... Although Haygood claimed he saw both the lunch sack and the paper bag, there are a number of problems with his account. First, he claimed he saw the lunch sack by the rifle shells. This is a blow to his credibility, as the lunch sack was actually photographed two aisles over. Belin then pressed Haygood to see if he remembered seeing a bag a foot and a half or so long--the approximate length of the bag now in the archives when folded over--and Haygood remembered the bag as being "approximately rifle length." This suggests, then, that Haygood, as Biffle--if Biffle actually did see the bag--only saw it after it had been "discovered" and moved to a new location by Montgomery...which does little to suggest it was actually on the floor of the sniper's nest as claimed. Brewer was even less help. Mr. BELIN. Did you go and take a look at the cartridge cases? Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN. How many cartridge cases did you see? Mr. BREWER. Three. Mr. BELIN. Where were they? Mr. BREWER. They were there under, by the window. Mr. BELIN. What window? Mr. BREWER. In the southeast corner of the building, facing south. Mr. BELIN. See anything else there at the time by the window? Mr. BREWER. Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece of chicken. Mr. BELIN. Anything else? Mr. BREWER. A drink bottle. Mr. BELIN. What bottle? Mr. BREWER. A cold drink bottle, soda pop bottle. Mr. BELIN. Anything else? Mr. BREWER. In relation to what? Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else in the southeast corner? Mr. BREWER. There was a paper, relatively long paper sack there. Mr. BELIN. Where was that? Mr. BREWER. It was there In the southeast corner. Mr. BELIN. Under the window? Mr. BREWER. No, sir. To the left of it. To the east of it. Mr. BELIN. To the left as you faced the window? Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN. Did the window come right up next to the corner there, do you remember? Mr. BREWER. No, sir; it didn't come up next to the corner. It was offset. Mr. BELIN. Can you remember how far at all, or not? Mr. BREWER. No, sir; I don't remember the exact distance of it. Mr. BELIN. Was any part of the paper sack under the window, If you remember or not? That long paper sack? Mr. BREWER. No, sir. Mr. BELIN. Do you remember anything about what the sack looked like? Mr. BREWER. Well, it was assumed at the time that it was the sack that the rifle was wrapped up in when it was brought into the building, and it appeared that it could have been used for that. Mr. BELIN. Well, you mean you assumed that before you found the rifle? Mr. BREWER. Yes, sir; I suppose. That was discussed.(6H302-308). Notice that Brewer, as Haygood, seems to think the lunch sack was found by the shells. They were thereby similarly confused. Notice also that Brewer does not describe the paper bag or the timing of its discovery, but "supposes" that it was found before the rifle and that people immediately assumed it had been used to carry the rifle. Well, that's pretty silly. If the bag was folded over, as claimed by Studebaker, or folded twice, as claimed by Johnson, people would not immediately associate it with having been used to carry a rifle, particularly in that the rifle had supposedly not yet been discovered, and could very well have been stashed in a gun case. As we've seen, Captain Fritz testified that the bag was not "found" or discussed while he was in the southeast corner of the building. He also indicated he was not aware of it at any time before leaving the building. His testimony, moreover, was supported by Detective Boyd, who arrived and left with Fritz, and who also had no recollection of the bag. If the bag had been discovered, dusted, and discussed before the discovery of the rifle, or even before Fritz left the building shortly thereafter, certainly someone more involved in the investigation than common motorcycle officers like Haygood and Brewer would have remembered this fact, and have remembered it long before 4 1/2 months after the assassination. There's also this: Haygood and Brewer were not included on the 3-24-64 list of witnesses to be deposed for the commission in Dallas. There is little of substance in their testimony, beyond their claiming they saw the bag in the sniper's nest. This, then, suggests the possibility they were called primarily for that reason--to support that the bag was where their fellow Dallas Police Department employees Montgomery, Johnson, Studebaker, and Day claimed it to have been, and suggest it's just a coincidence it was previously overlooked by Dallas Sheriff's Deputies Mooney, Walters, Craig, McCurley, and Faulkner. To wit, an undated list of Warren Commission deposition assignments (found on the website of Commission counsel Howard Willens) lists the reasons various witnesses are to be called, and makes note that both Haygood and Brewer saw the paper bag in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. And this even though neither Haygood nor Brewer had written a report claiming as much... Well, pardon me, but this suggests that Belin had put the word out that he needed witnesses to come forward and claim they'd seen the bag in the building, and that he got but two takers on his offer-- two motorcycle cops whose observations and recollections had been held in such low regard by their superiors that they hadn't even been asked to write a report on the events of the day. Now note that both Haygood and Brewer described the sniper's nest, and placed the lunch sack in the sniper's nest, but were then prodded by Belin with an "anything else?" into saying they'd also seen a long paper bag in the sniper's nest. Yep, this was coaxed testimony, if not suborned perjury. Now, to be clear, Belin and the Warren Commission were but the first in a long line of Oswald accusers to employ smoke and mirrors and/or lie, so they could use the bag against Oswald. First Day Evidence, a 1993 book written by Gary Savage, the nephew of Dallas Crime Lab Detective Rusty Livingston, is a product of this tradition. On page 155, Savage relates "When the sniper's nest was first discovered by Mooney, a paper bag approximately 42" long by 8" wide lay folded in the extreme southeast corner of the sixth floor to the left of the window." Now, this is a two-fer. Not only does Savage conceal that Mooney swore he saw no such bag in the corner, he conceals that the length of the bag was not 42" (which would be long enough to conceal the rifle), but 38" (too short to conceal the rifle, which thereby necessitates that the rifle was brought into the building while disassembled). But wait, Savage wasn't done. On page 156, Savage finishes his trick by assuring his readers that "the testimony of many officers placed the bag in the corner window when it was originally found." No, not many, and not really. So...why the desperation? I mean, the bag was most assuredly initialed upon discovery, and shown to those who'd initialed it in sworn testimony, so they could authenticate it as the bag they'd discovered. Right? Nope.

Seriously, David, there's no way they could have missed this. One of them? Maybe. All of them? No way.

While I haven't read the book, it appears that much of it is a new look at territory previously covered by Kathy Cunningham, Gary Aguilar, and myself. The one new thing I've spotted in Kent's interviews and Jim's review is the correspondence between members of the Clark Panel. I don't believe anyone else has read this correspondence. So, bravo. I did spot what appears to be an error in Jim's review, or, if not, Kent's book. Jim writes: "The Clark Panel met for two days and the second day was not a whole day. (p. 77) Boswell and Humes appeared before the panel. " My understanding is that Humes and Boswell were not allowed to meet with the Clark Panel, and that Fisher and his gang moved the head wound entrance without consulting anyone who'd actually viewed the body. If they were in fact consulted--well, that's news to me.

You are correct in thinking that the rifle and bag would have been allowed into evidence. But you should realize that entering that bag into evidence could have been a disaster, as bad as entering the glove into evidence at the O.J. trial. There are tremendous problems with the bag, that a competent defense attorney would have been able to use to raise reasonable doubt. First and foremost, none of the discoverers of the sniper's nest saw it, even though it was purportedly laying right out in the open within inches of where they had been standing. There are also issues with who found it, when it was found, and precisely where it was found. It's as big a mess as you can imagine. At times, I ponder what I would have done if I'd been tasked with arguing for Oswald's guilt. I would avoid the bag supposedly found in the building, much as the WC ended up avoiding the chicken lunch the original reports claimed Oswald had left behind in the sniper's nest, and the reports of Oswald at the firing range. It's a problem. You don't need it. And you're better off avoiding it.

I suspect there's more to it. He was stating that that was why he was brought in, sure, but implicit in this is that that is why the evidence led to him. A patsy is someone who's been made to be a fall guy, by design. This suggests there is evidence against this person. So I read Oswald's statement as an acknowledgement there is evidence against him, and that he has been framed. He was not asserting he was just an innocent walking down the street. And that all the evidence against him was being made up afterwards. He was stating he was framed as part of a plot--because of his background.

Holy smokes, Lance. Catch up. I debunked that almost ten years ago. An examination of the bag in the archives and Latona's testimony proves the supposed palm print was halfway up the bag and the supposed fingerprint was on the bottom. Someone on the WC's staff (Ball/Belin?) then switched this around to support that the prints indicated someone had been carrying the bag as described by Frazier. It was yet another one of their scams. Now, I would think your experience in legal-land would make you wary of any prosecutor's brief, and would help you make your way through the mine-field of spin in the WR. But instead you seem to embrace it. Why not choose the middle route? That you think Oswald was guilty but that the WR was political spin? That sounds like the rational approach.

I haven't watched these videos or followed this thread, for fear of hearing or reading some nonsense about Ukraine being turned against Russia by National Socialists and the big bad CIA. That stuff makes me sick. My best friend growing up, with whom I stayed friends till his untimely passing while training troops in Ukraine, was a Ukrainian-American, and I spent hundreds of hours in his house with his parents and grandparents. And to them Russia was an invader, who had overseen a genocide before WWII, and had imprisoned the Ukrainian people after the war. My best friend's dad, for that matter, had been captured by the German Army during the war, and had come to America after being freed from a camp. As I recall, he'd been forced to work for the Germans because of his language skills, and had been brought to Germany from Ukrainian Poland. He was then allowed to immigrate to the states along with other captives from what was formerly Poland, which had been swallowed up by the Russians. He told me he'd faked documents as well so that some of his fellow Ukrainians could avoid being sent to Russia, which was anxious for their return, so they could be used for slave labor. If you've spent time with a holocaust victim, or spent time with Armenian or Ukrainian refugees, as I have, you know that the hatred of Germany, Turkey and Russia is real and justified, and not some CIA fabrication. Claiming it is otherwise is Russian propaganda. Sorry.

I agree that would be a heckuva coincidence, unless someone knew his fake name and made that happen. But even that stretches things a bit, IMO. It makes sense to me that that rifle was used because it was Oswald's rifle. IOW, I agree with you and Lance et al that it's likely the weapon was the weapon he'd ordered.

Nice dodge, Lance. You highlight stuff and delete stuff to make it seem like Griggs, a retired policeman, believed Oswald re-assembled the rifle as proposed. Well, the fact is that he made it his mission to debunk this nonsense. Your first point is irrelevant. No one disputed that someone could--potentially--use a dime as a screwdriver. Your second point is also problematic. The FBI Firearms Laboratory, namely, Cunningham, said he reassembled the rifle using a dime in six minutes. But he failed to test fire the rifle after doing so, when he KNEW that was the whole point of the exercise, and KNEW such a test would have been problematic to the single-assassin solution. He also fudged his testimony re the paraffin tests of Oswald's cheek, and said he personally would not expect gsr to appear on the cheek of someone who'd fired a rifle, when he KNEW damn well--because his partner Frazier had been the test firer--that the FBI had secretly performed tests that had proved the reverse was true--that there was plentiful gsr on the cheeks of someone firing that rifle. As to your third point, it appears I was incorrect in that Griggs, someone I knew and exchanged emails with, said it wasn't necessary to remove the scope when disassembling a weapon. But who cares? The point is that Oswald would have needed to assemble those pieces as well, and that the video you presented failed to show this. Griggs made a big deal of this, btw, in his book and presentations--that the WC photo showing the intact scope on the barrel and the barrel beside the stock was a hoax, in that it suggested one could just put the barrel onto the stock without much work. Now, point four. Here, you admit that Griggs admitted defeat using a dime. He said he made numerous tries and received blisters on his fingers for his efforts, and gave up. So this undermines the whole dime proposal, and raises questions about Cunningham's testimony. So...please rustle up a video in which someone assembles the rifle--with a scope--while using a dime. Let's see how long that would take.