David Josephs

Innocence related to what exactly Stephen? He is most definitely innocent of being a Lone Nut without connections to US intelligence. In the law we prove guilt after insisting upon the presumption of innocence... so yes, I believe it is our duty to begin with the presumption of his innocence until there is proof he was not. I also begin with the assumption that nothing offered as evidence is worth anything until it can be authenticated and/or corroborated and to what level. If the evidence which attempts to put C2766 into his hands cannot be authenticated - or in fact shows the opposite to be true - what's the point of discussing how good a rifle it is or how good a shot he'd be with it when it was simply a prop in the conspiracy? I think the fact that Oswald is handing out FPCC flyers while in the company of anti-Castro US intel assets (and flipflopping his outward support as need be) suggests to me that Oswald was doing what many, many men of his age were asked to do for their country, spy and let the FBI/CIA/Military Intel know what you find. Be part of campaignes to discredit leftist orgs... go to Russia and tell us what you see.... What presumptions do you make at the start of your investigations? I look forward to your reply as the summer of 63 dovetails into Mexico City and the work I'm doing on that trip... I am of the opinion our Ozzie was in Dallas at Odio and remained in Dallas until the call to Marina on the 4th.

1) There are enough people who claim a Banister-Oswald relationship that it is possible that there was one. On the other hand, some of the claimants are not impressive: I'm not sure the Campbell brothers really knew Banister. I don't know why Delphine Roberts changed her story so dramatically in 1978. I have so many reservations about the tales told by Prof. Michael Kurtz, that I can't accept his claims without corroboration. You see my point?? 2) Yes, I do think Oswald probably arranged to rent an office at 544 Camp, and when Newman and Arthus found out the purpose, they begged out of the deal. And that they "misremembered" to the authorities after the assassination. 3) Yes, like I said above, Russo printed an Oswald FPCC flyer with the stamp in his "Live By The Sword." Inquiries indicated that the flyer originated with Frank Martello's widow. 4) I don't know. I think he really expected to have an office there, at one time. 5) Getting close! I've been spurred on by several factors: A friend who simply has been gently pushing, another researcher who has traded some great Ferrie stuff with me, and the unauthorized use of a lot of my material by a crazy person. I've adopted the Rick Nelson philosophy about the Ferrie project: "You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself." Hi Stephen et al... 1) I notice you do not mention Gaudet related to 544 Camp, Bannister and Oswald... Is he not a reliable witness to Bannister-Oswald? 2) Was it necessary for Oswald to actually rent the space if Bannister is already there and he was working with/thru him and his associates? 3) Other than Russo there does not seem to be any "544 Camp" flyers, only the Corliss pamphlet and his stamp kit (below is a report of th3e SS trying to distance Oswald from 544 Camp) 4) Seems to me that he was playing with the stamp kit for a variety of reasons over that summer... He had stamped his PO BOX and MAGAZINE addresses and evidently 544 CAMP as well. That his stamp kit was used to stamp the Corliss book with Camp Street should give the SS a little evidence that he was associated with that address. I have not looked into CAMP as deeply as you and look forward to reading the work you've done... Does the fact that most everyone involved with these flyers was US intelligence and that the flyers were in direct opposition of Oswald's stated intentions to the same people who he tells "Hit me" - as an anti-Castro supporter - not give us enough reason to associate Oswald with Bannister's little operation? Facinating stuff... thanks Stephen DJ 1) I only mentioned three selected examples of people who could have been good witnesses but weren't. Gaudet seems like a good witness. My only reservation is that he said nothing until 1978. 2) I'm not talking hypotheticals. Oswald said he rented an office, and Newman and Arthus were just cagey enough to make me think that he really had tried to do so. But hypothetically, if Oswald was an agent, yes, he'd likely rent an office and conceal any Banister connection. 3) I first saw an LHO flyer with the 544 stamp in one of Groden's books, but people told me it was just a prop from the Stone film. When I noticed the one in Russo's book, whom I consider more responsible, I asked him the source and he said it was Martello's widow. 4) Yeah, the SS and the FBI were concerned and mystified by the 544 stamp, at different times. (I asked an SA in the NO FBI office about the quick investigation of the 544 stamp in the days immediately after the assassination; He said it "never occurred to them" that it might be associated with Banister). When you say "most everyone involved with these flyers was US intelligence," who do you mean? 1) Sibert and O'Neill didn't say anything until 1997 or so, nor were even questioned until the HSCA in 1978 (MD85, 46, 155) does that mean what they had to say was any less valuable or revealing? Many, many witnesses to Dallas and New Orleans did not speak out right away... thankfully some finally did. Gaudet not only puts these men together but holds the tourist visa number just prior to Oswald's for what amounted to a single day's visit... 2) Well you definitely know these details better than I so I'll go with your telling of it. Adding statements like "he'd likely..." is good speculation based on what you know... Curious - when and where does Ozzie say he rented an office, or is this only Newman and Arthus telling of the story to the HSCA? (I see multiple mentions of Mr. Gay's HSCA testimony yet not the testimony itself) As I read the HSCA related to Newman and Gay and 544 Camp it just reeks with FBI mumbo jumbo and denials that make little sense. No one sees him at "544 Camp" while no one is ever asked about Lafayette. The committee learned that the Newman Building occupied the corner lot facing Lafayette Square. On one side its address was 544 Camp Street.(22) Its other entrance was addressed 531 Lafayette Street.(23) It was a three-story granite structure owned and operated by Sam Newman as a rental income property for commercial offices.(24). (23 is Newman's HSCA testimony that I also cannot find...) Newman told the committee he had great difficulty renting space in the building.(25) Consequently, there were few tenants there in the summer of 1963. The Camp STreet address was the main entrance to offices for two workers' associations: the Hotel, Motel, and Restaurant Workers' Union and the Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America.(26) It was also the entrance that led to the quarters of the building's janitor, James Arthus.(27) There was only one office at the Lafayette Street address, that of Guy Banister Associates, a private investigative firm.(28) The offices once rented by the Cuban Revolutionary Council at 544 Camp Street still lay empty.(29) "Mancuso's," a small coffeeshop, was located on the ground floor with its own entrance onto the corner of Camp and Lafayette Streets.(30) (again #28 refers to Newman's testimony) I know you said you were writing a book (on this?) so maybe you could share why you feel that way about Newman (Did you speak with Gay?) 3) Creating the 544 Stamp after the fact would not be too hard. What I find interesting is the "4907 Magazine" was what stamp set was left as.... We know it was set to HIDELL and PO BOX 30016, The stamp kit was also not initialed by the DPD so where it was and what was created by it is anybody's guess. 4) Bannister was associated with 531 Lafayette instead of Camp... at least according to the HSCA telling of it. "Intel" in New Orleans: Ordered and picked up flyers: Thornley/Osborne Paid to distribute flyers: Charles Steele Jr (Dallas T-14) Those who interact with Ozzie related to the FPCC flyers: Bringuier, Quiroga, Aracha Smith, Richard Davis II, Bannister Delphine and Ferrie and Banister's brother Ross all say that Ozzie was there that summer and worked with Guy and others. The SS does its best to say he wasn't there - to me alarm bells go off anytime the government is so certain about facts we come to know to be false... there is also no reason to believe that only Oswald used that stamp kit. DJ

Hello David, I'm confused. The passing of CE399 was in this order: Darrel Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, SA Richard Johnson, Chief James Rowley, SA Elmer Todd. Darrel Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, SA Richard Johnson and Chief James Rowley stated that CE399 was NOT the bullet they received. So, presumably, each of these fellows was given the actual bullet found on the stretcher. SA Todd states that CE399 *IS* the bullet he received from Chief Rowley because this bullet has his (Todd's) initials on it. With this information it is clear that only Rowley could have substituted an MC 6.5mm bullet for the actual bullet found on the stretcher. Is this correct? You say that Rowley passed the substitute bullet on to Johnson. Did you mean to say Rowley passed it to Todd? Or am I missing something here? No surprise if I am... Thanks, Tom Johnson hands Rowley a bullet that ROWLEY does not associate with CE399 Rowley hands Todd a bullet that TODD says is CE399, the bullet in evidence. No one prior to Johnson can authenticate the bullet as the one taken from Parkland. The bullet has all the signs of being fired into cotton or water Let's try to remember that this was a frame-up. The MC was not fired in Dallas that day and none of the SS/FBI/CIA evidence is worth a pound of Sh!t... related to the assassination. and the WC lawyers knew it and expressed so in Redlich to Rankin's letter of April 27, 1964 "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."

1) There are enough people who claim a Banister-Oswald relationship that it is possible that there was one. On the other hand, some of the claimants are not impressive: I'm not sure the Campbell brothers really knew Banister. I don't know why Delphine Roberts changed her story so dramatically in 1978. I have so many reservations about the tales told by Prof. Michael Kurtz, that I can't accept his claims without corroboration. You see my point?? 2) Yes, I do think Oswald probably arranged to rent an office at 544 Camp, and when Newman and Arthus found out the purpose, they begged out of the deal. And that they "misremembered" to the authorities after the assassination. 3) Yes, like I said above, Russo printed an Oswald FPCC flyer with the stamp in his "Live By The Sword." Inquiries indicated that the flyer originated with Frank Martello's widow. 4) I don't know. I think he really expected to have an office there, at one time. 5) Getting close! I've been spurred on by several factors: A friend who simply has been gently pushing, another researcher who has traded some great Ferrie stuff with me, and the unauthorized use of a lot of my material by a crazy person. I've adopted the Rick Nelson philosophy about the Ferrie project: "You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself." Hi Stephen et al... 1) I notice you do not mention Gaudet related to 544 Camp, Bannister and Oswald... Is he not a reliable witness to Bannister-Oswald? 2) Was it necessary for Oswald to actually rent the space if Bannister is already there and he was working with/thru him and his associates? 3) Other than Russo there does not seem to be any "544 Camp" flyers, only the Corliss pamphlet and his stamp kit (below is a report of th3e SS trying to distance Oswald from 544 Camp) 4) Seems to me that he was playing with the stamp kit for a variety of reasons over that summer... He had stamped his PO BOX and MAGAZINE addresses and evidently 544 CAMP as well. That his stamp kit was used to stamp the Corliss book with Camp Street should give the SS a little evidence that he was associated with that address. I have not looked into CAMP as deeply as you and look forward to reading the work you've done... Does the fact that most everyone involved with these flyers was US intelligence and that the flyers were in direct opposition of Oswald's stated intentions to the same people who he tells "Hit me" - as an anti-Castro supporter - not give us enough reason to associate Oswald with Bannister's little operation? Facinating stuff... thanks Stephen DJ

Tommy - The HIDEEL vaccination card was needed by someone to get back into the US from Mexico. If a traveler did not present a vaccination card, they were taken aside and vaccinated. Del Rio was indeed vaccinated at Km 26 and only recalls one American who did not look like the photos shown him. And still, by Feb 29, 1964 "Mexican" records still do not have anything on the entry or exit of Oswald... only everyone else who MAY have seen him on buses he was never on...

delete

Thanks Gary. IMO CE399 was sitting in Rowley's desk and handed to Johnson in place of the bullet shown/given to him by Elmer Todd. It only comes into existence at this point in time and there is no proof it was ever in Dallas. I also agree that the ammo had come from that CIA order and not locally... yet that completely discounts other shooters and sabots... that completely silent .45 caliber rifle from WWII is frighteningly quiet and very accurate to 200 yards....

Bob... Thought you might find this interesting and maybe help us less informed about guns and ammo people if this means anything ... Seems the only two places in the Dallas-Irving area to get 6.5mm MC ammo was one of 2 places including Masens Gun shop. The report below states that the ammo provided by Masen matched the cartridges found on the 6th floor... yet they were loaded with soft point ammo, not FMJ ammo. Any significance to this? https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11176&relPageId=4

Hope you dont mind my weighing in... I was under the impression it was Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1-Phase 2 which first identified this duality in the cover-up. Mexico City was only 7 weeks before the assassination. (Granted, if Tampa or Chicago were successful I wonder how important the Oswald calls in Mexico would have been. And is one of the reasons I believe "Oswald in Mexico with co-conspirators" was the inital plan all along. The records and testimony points towards an Oswald entering and leaving Mexico in a car with others. The earliest reports of this activity are channeled thru INS and the State department to the CIA on 11/23 (I will be covering this in the final part © of my Mexico series - Part B is in process for posting shortly) yet the FBI report we get to see is dated January 13 and claims that CASH, a consulate staffer is actually at the Nuevo Laredo INS office with Tijerina as the FM-11 info is typed onto cards... Fromthe 23rd of Nov on the FBI/CIA/STATE trifecta does its best to refute, disprove and replace with other evidence the conclusion that their Oswald was in a car, with others in favor of a LONE bus ride which I believe I have proven never happened. Alvarado, a CIA asset with a story to tell, was completely a Phase 1 incrimination. The taps and tapes and photos attributed to Oswald are looking more and more like a completely separate situation than to incriminate Oswald for the upcoming assassination. It is very likely that this trip would give extra credibility to Oswald in order to infultrate FPCC more effectively. (again, if the assassination occurs in Chicago, is there a vault of incriminating evidence on Vallee just waiting to be discovered?) In any case, I believe it is important to separate the only evidence of Ozzie in Mexico - the hotel and embassy/consulate evidence - from the trip details which, as hard as it may seem to accept, were created after the fact to give Oswald a LONER persona. Whether an Oswald or Oswald impersonator (other than his name on a phone call) was actually in Mexico continues to be my focus. There remains ZERO EVIDENCE that an Oswald was ever there, only photos of someone else, a coerced statement from Duran and transcripts claiming the man speaking on Oct 1 is the same as Sept 27 & 28. Even after it becomes obvious there is no evidence, the ASSUMPTION that we are talking about Oswald never goes away. As I showed earlier, the 15 day FM-8 was actually applied for and approved on a FM-5 180 day application #24085. The authenticity of this visa has to be questioned since we learned from another Kline to Lester Johnson memo that CASH is already at Nuevo Laredo with Tijerina when Kline calls. CASH has with him "some immigration cards" https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10850&relPageId=4 of which #24085 must have been included. Trouble for CASH is that the FM-11 as reflected in these typed cards shows a mode of transportation on Oct 3rd for HARVEY OSWALD LEE (Mr. O.H. LEE) and yet he denies it. The report of 11/23 recounts verbatim the details from these cards and is the only mention of this information until the above January 13th memo. Memo's in the interim (thru the publishing of the WCR) are consistantly trying to determine Oswald's mode and means of travel to and from Mexico and explain away the simple mistake of putting the wrong info on the FM-11 while forgetting to put the correct info on the FM-8 tourist visa... Once again - the lack of info on the visa conflicts with what the FM-11 has - which was taken from this visa. The info taken from this visa includes a mode of transportation yet the visa in evidence does not specify "Viaja en Auto". So did the info come from a different FM-8 visa - or was the visa created for the purpose of changing the after-the-fact conspiracy incrimination to a Lone Nut incrimination - remove the Auto and find him another way in and out of Mexico. I hope the last two parts of my series helps to explain these hypotheses. -------------------- Finally - regarding the conclusion the "far-right" and that the JFK killers are not in power today. Those who pulled the trigger are indeed not in powere and never were. Those who ordered it, who ordered the Bethesda autopsy cover-up, who ordered the FBI to harass and invent and destroy and create towards a single purpose Does Bundy get included in the "far-right" group you refer to Paul? Those on the ground doing the killing worked under the ultimate control of the military. Those running the military were in bed with the industrial and congressional parts of the equation. The invasion of Cuba was ideology, not necessity. While everyone is looking over HERE at Cuba, not much attention was being placed on Vietnam and what the Military CIA was already doing there. Cuba was a pawn in order to get the bigger guns into position for SE Asia where the money, drugs, and arms was to be had. There are those who planned and accomplished the deed and those who benefitted and continue to benefit. Thinking that these are one and the same seems to me as dismissing the reality and repitition of history. DJ

Still Duncan? February 05, 2015, 06:30:08 PM Because its a word that describes the anyone but Oswald crowd perfectly. You are already venturing into kook world just by thinking that anyone is killing a President infront of 100s of witnesses and cameras and then trying to blame it on a patsy who didn't do it. But when the empty the jails defense lawyer tactics start you are a kook. The majority of conspiracy believers on this site are kooks. You could argue that they are not kooks but just morons, but then they would complain about that.

Davey - (yawn) what you did there is called a straw man substitution. We talk JFK, you talk tippit. "almost certainly". Whatever. Duncan... I spent years there with the likes a of Lamson, May and his many names, and a host of others who would invade threads, derail conversation and all for the fun if It. I have not found that to be the case here or at DPF. We've had discussions related to the lack of moderation... Maybe that's changed now. I hope so as yours was always the greatest for the images and film work. OK.. first thread... this is one of 53 items posted to prove Oswald did it... as offered by the Bug.... 42. When Oswald left the Book Depository Building within minutes after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, he left his blue jacket behind, the jacket being found on December 6, 1963, in a depressed area beneath the windowsill in the domino room on the first floor.84 Marina Oswald identified the jacket as one of two he owned, the other being a light-colored gray jacket.85 Several brown head hairs found inside the blue jacket had the same microscopic characteristics as a sample of hair taken from Oswald.86 Leaving one’s jacket behind, particularly where Oswald did, can only go in the direction—though certainly not conclusively—of a consciousness of guilt, not innocence. Vincent Bugliosi Reclaiming History The most comprehensive analysis of JFK's Assassination, ever! And then followed up by blind faith that everything against Oswald doing any of this is OUR RESTRICTIONS as opposed to the impossibility created by the WCR conslusions. Btw I've shown that Oswald could easily jump through all your timing restrictions but all this is immaterial because Oswald was on the 6th floor from 12 till 12:30. So xxxx you didn't know about the other Elevator and are covering yourself, hilarious. But we have now established that Oswald was never in the same place at the same time and easily could have travelled within the building to each of your alleged "sighting positions" and still got to the 6th floor to kill the President Comnment: Thank you for the entertainment. Reply: No, thank you, for your honest capitulation. xxx- I agree. Oswald's actions following the assassination are consistent with that of the lone shooter (which I believe he was), but for those who believe there was a conspiracy they demonstrate that Oswald must have had knowledge of the conspiracy. He's gone within three minutes of the shooting without even asking what has happened. All the pedantic discussion of witness statements and elevators can't explain away his actions following the assassination as anything other than a person in flight These are not dicussions or debates... This is a person concluding guilt based on activites unrelated to the event. Never Oswald's rifle - no problem, he was escaping Not at the window at the time - no problem, the WCR says he wasn't anywhere else Dented casings and double firing pin hits - no worries, he said "It's all over, now" in the theater, he must be guilty 34" rifle part in a 26 inch bag - all good, the photo fo the bag in the corner - ooops, uh, they SAID it was in the corner and he made it so it must be, right? You can go back 10 years, 15 years and the questions are the same, the arguments are the same the denials are the same... At what point do they finally realize the world is not flat and the sun does not revolve around us... the opposite is true... Faith cannot be countered or debated away... It just is. They aint gonna learn what they dont wanna know Duncan. Don't you suppose if a WCR apologist made a concrete and reasonable argument supported by evidence you and I would want to know about it? Specter couldn't defend his own actions... The shirt worn by the President also contained a hole in the back about 5¾ inches below the top of the collar and 1-1/8 inches to the right of the middle. It, too, had the characteristics of a bullet entrance hole. Both these holes are in locations that seem obviously inconsistent with the wound described in the Commission’s autopsy report—placed below the back of the right ear—and illustrated in exhibit 385, which Dr. Humes had prepared. “Well,” said Specter, when asked about this in his City Hall office last month, “that difference is accounted for because the President was waving his arm.” He got up from his desk and attempted to have his explanation demonstrated. “Wave your arm a few times, he said, “wave at the crowd. Well, see if the bullet goes in here, the jacket gets hunched up. If you take this point right here and then you strip the coat down, it comes out at a lower point. Well, not too much lower on your example, but the jacket rides up.” If the jacket were “hunched up,” wouldn’t there have been two holes as a result of the doubling over of the cloth? “No, not necessarily. It…it wouldn’t be doubled over. When you sit in the car it could be doubled over at most any point, but the probabilities are that…aaah…that it gets…that…aaah…this…this is about the way a jacket rides up. You sit back…sit back now…all right now…if…usually, as your jacket lies there, the doubling up is right here, but if…but if you have a bullet hit you right about here, which is where I had it, where your jacket sits…it’s not…it’s not…it ordinarily doesn’t crease that far back.” What about the shirt? “Same thing.” So there is no real inconsistency between the Commission’s location of the wound and the holes in the clothing? “No, not at all. That gave us a lot of concern. First time we lined up the shirt…after all, we lined up the shirt…and the hole in the shirt is right about, right about the knot of the tie, came right about here in a slit in the front…” But where did it go in the back? “Well, the back hole, when the shirt is laid down, comes…aaah…well, I forget exactly where it came, but it certainly wasn’t higher, enough higher to…aaah…understand the…aah…the angle of decline which…” Was it lower? Was it lower than the slit in the front? “Well, I think that…that if you took the shirt without allowing for it’s being pulled up, that it would either have been in line or somewhat lower.” Somewhat lower? “Perhaps. I…I don’t want to say because I don’t really remember. I got to take a look at that shirt.” It is difficult to believe that Arlen Specter didn’t take a very close look at that shirt—and that jacket—at the time of the investigation and that these factors didn’t indelibly stick in his mind: Kennedy was one of the best-tailored presidents ever to occupy the White House, and if it is possible—but not probable—that he was wearing a suit jacket baggy enough to ride up five or six inches in the back when he waved his arm, it is inconceivable that a tightly-buttoned shirt could have done the same thing.

Jon, no harm no foul. I've been debating this for almost 15 years with WCR Apologists. You appear new to the scene. You will never convince Mr P using logic and intellect to destroy a point or argument. There is no ambiguity to the coat, the shirt, and the wound. None. Yet in the ffd of this truth, the SBT is the argument. The SBT is the plausible and possibly alternative. That's no longer debate, or discussion. That's preaching Faith. A faith which requires no proof or argument. He has a very good blog in defense of his convictions... And one of the finest collections of evidence. He simply believes more than he examines. Faith cannot be cross-examined. If you can find the positive in the exchange I applaud you. Enjoy. DJ

No one can be sure the sun will rise tomorrow - but we're pretty confident in the knowledge it will. Allowing DVP to spoon feed his version of what the evidence says clouds the issue. He does not evaluate and analyze, he spouts an a priori determiination, an axiom which only requires acceptance without discussion or testing. The following summarizes the position of the WC lawyers about what it is they, the WCR and by default DVP is doing: Obviously you've been taken in by the prospect of learning that Oswald did it and the WCR is correct.... Can't have one without the other. April 27, 1964 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 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 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.

CE1792 is a report about an interview with Marina at the end of November 1963 She is asked about Mexico.. negative. She is asked about his cameras: The BYPs are found only a few days before while she is at the Paines. This was one of the first interviews and reports on what Marina had to say before she was extensively coached. A grain of sand must be included here since this is a summary recap of the interview and not a transcript... Between the 22nd and this report the tide of Marina's POV turns. From 11/22 until Oswald's death, no protection. From the moment of his death the SS/FBI/etc make sure to sequester Marina and little by little over time her story becomes increasingly incriminating against her husband. Q. What did he tell you to do with the camera as far as taking the pictures? A. He just told me which button to push and I did. Q. Did you hold it up to your eye and look through the viewer to take the picture? A. Yes. Except this box Camera is held by the chest and you look down into it and see the image upside down... for someone who NEVER worked a camera, one would think that would be remembered since it is very hard to focus and remain still when the image is inverted... Marina's testimony is almost as bad as the stand-in mother... (and the in and out of Mexico evidence)

There's always other Forums where those like DVP run amok and decent people wanting to discuss the case are shut down left and right by tautological arguments. All the DVPs of the world have to work with is the Evidence, just like everyone else... they can see something white and write 100 pages explaining how it's really black and others are simply too stupid to know any better. Jon - no one needs DVP to explain the WCR - just read it and check the sources yourself. DVP doesn't post evidence but only his opinion of what it says and means... You're more than qualified to do that for yourself. When you find over and over and over that the sources do not corroborate the conclusions and in fact usually contradict them instead, maybe you can get a clearer picture of what DVP and those of his ilk are doing. Open to any page, any section of that travesty and follow the footnotes... HSCA same thing. All that matters in the end is whether Oswald did it or not - and completely alone at that. If we can prove this was not possible, which we have repeatedly - who did it doesn't really matter as much as who orchestrated the conspiracy. Davey and WCR apologists will never address that question since it contradicts his conclusion, so what exactly is that "useful purpose" you speak of ??? WCR interpreter?

Nice find Ray... Pretty sure that's the way it happened

Although the report is not until Dec 23rd it discusses what the FBI knew on Nov 23rd... Which in turn is a rehash of a Dec 11th memo... as you can see... even though it was determin3ed before 11/22 that the photos and voice were not our Ozzie, the investigation and evidence continues as it it was... DJ

Hey there Jon... Win Scott and the State Dept seemed much more interested in equating the call intercepts with Oswald regardless of the photos and voice comparisons showing it was not Oswald. Most of the communication uses the terms "PROBABLY" "Possible presence", etc yet proceed with discussion and investigation as if it being Oswald is a foregone conclusion prior to Nov 22 and even moreso after 11/22, even in the face of the FBI and CIA and STATE agreeing it was not Oswald's voice or photo. Regardless of the fact that the CIA nor FBI nor State was ever able to find any authentic evidence that Oswald was in Mexico, by the morning of Nov 23rd they were all scrambling to find the proof he was. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=9024&relPageId=2 is a letter from Helms to Hoover saying conclusion from their analysis is Oswald visited Russian Emb in Mexico City - he was there. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=5552&relPageId=2 also on 11/22 Clark Anderson tells the FBI in Dallas that CIA has photos of Oswald leaving embassy I hope this answers your question.... just like Ozzie had the rifle while the evidence does not support the conclusion, same with Mexico... and most every other aspect of the case... I have yet to find an item of authentic evidence which incriminates Oswald. DJ On October 10th the CIA Mexico sends a memo to the Navy, FBI and State dept... (on the 8th and 9th only internal CIA memos refer to this intercept) "Lee Oswald who called SOVEMB 1 Oct PROBABLY IDENTICAL Lee HENRY Oswald (201-289248)...." (Hang on I posted the wrong memo... the one on top is to NAVY/STATE/FBI while the following one is back to MX from CIA HQ - notice the MX cable has a higher number than the Navy/STATE/FBI meaning the HQ to MX cable comes after the first one - notice the differences in the two) https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=3339&relPageId=2 On Oct 16th Win Scott tells Amb Mann about this information and CC's quite a few people and organizations including Navy and INS "This office determined that OSWALD had been at the Soviet Embassy on 28 Sept...." Win decides from bad info that he met with Kostikov. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=6673&relPageId=2 Finally - we have a recap of the Mexico City Oswald activities prepared in May 1975 recounting each of the cables and the activities related to them. The jist of the matter is that they erroneously paired the Mystery Man photos with Oswald based on the timing of the phone calls supposedly intercepted. Since the CIA continues to claim that all tapes of his voice were destroyed we come to learn this was not so and that State and FBI personnel listened to such a tape and determined the voice was not Oswald's. The CIA/State/FBI dismissed this determination and proceeded under the conclusion that OSWALD was in Mexico, even though there was no evidence to place him there other than the words on the tapes and transcript. I chose the tack of examining the travel to and from Mexico and find it is just as fraudulent as the determination he was ever ther at all... The evidence does not support the conclusion yet the conclusion proceeded to make the WCR and permeate the questions realted to this time period. Since the man Ruby killed was in Dallas at Odio's... and the travel evidence suggests an Oswald traveling with others in a car in and out of Mexico... come Nov 22 and the switch from Commie Conspiracy to Lone Nut we witness the back-peddling of these three agencies to cover their A$$es and rewrite the evidence to tell the desired story. https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=6513&relPageId=2

ARRB MD87 After the assassination, Lipsey said that he and Wehle met the body at Andrews Air Force Base and placed it in a hearst-to be transported to Bethesda Naval Hospital. Lipsey mentioned that he and Wehle then flew by helicopter to Bethesda and took JFK into the back of Bethesda. A decoy hearst had been driven to the front. After bringing the body into Bethesda, Lipsey said that Jackie Kennedy and the family entered the front of Bethesda and travelled to the "Presidential suite." My understanding was that a decoy was supposed to allow the easy delivery of JFK's body to the morgue while everyone was crowded around the decoy in front... what he never mentions is how the body was moved from one coffin to another and when. I think this little statement gives away more of the Bethesda charade then he cared to... Dennis David and O'Connor corroborate the entrance in the back, a helicopter and a black hearse... which dovetails into the AF-1 tape section referring to a black hearse... Yet in the end I agree with you Ray... the only purpose of a decoy is to get JFK to the morgue before anything "official" is recognized so that Humes or whoever, does their thing. This is the same old tired line as, "Saving the family anguish" as an excuse for doing whatever they wanted to do.... The disembark to the right front of the plane and helicoptered off to Bethesda is really the only way the body can get to Bethesda so much earlier than the motorcade... DJ

My strong opinions are on the process and result of authentication. I never suggested anything about smart or dumb people that I can see... My only point is that a debate or discussion must include evidence and authentication unless we are having a speculation party. In a debate or discussion the "other side" presents their evidence and authentication to make an argument. I've been convinced by many. many presentations of this Evidence with authentication... and none of it so far supports the WCR conclusions. I contend Mr. P does neither. that a discussion with him is about his incredulousness over others not seeing how Oswald did it and then offering inauthentic evidence, speculation and insults. He can't believe we don't see it and yet offers air over and over as proof.... If you feel he delivers on the goods... enjoy his work, please. All I;ve ever seen is the repeating of the same tired disproven "facts" that Ozzie had a rifle and he was a sharpshooter so he MUST have done it... There is simply nothing of DVP, Posner or Bugliosi to respect. When they finally make a coherent and authentic argument, we'll all know.

Appreciated Jon.... In the end we all got screwed. In my other life I am working on a book showing the extent of this screwing being institutionalized from the first moment the Tragedy of the Commons was realized. Plato wrote about the excesses and control of the rich over the rest of us. JFK remains but a blip in the timeline of this control. IMO we enjoy discussion of the topic since there is so much to actually see and touch... JFK's murder remains one of the most public rearing of the "faceless, nameless, controlling cabal" in history which is why imo we have the mountains of documents... The truth of the conspiracy lies within evidence... just pick any area and take a close look. Peace DJ

Surely not. Disagreement does not equate to defense of the Unspeakable. Within any subject there is evidence. present and authenticate the evidence and you've made an argument. Disagreeing on the details of the conspiracy is not the same as denying the conspiracy. The man Ruby killed has been shown not to have been involved in the death of JFK... that ALL of the evidence which attemtps to do so can be mitigated away with authenticated evidence. Should he or anyone else be allowed to deny the holocaust? Does the possiblilty of there never having been a holocaust demean the memory and lives who know for a fact it was real and be allowed simply because of free speech... ? People are not supposed to yell FIRE in a crowded theater for fear of the response, regardless of free speech, a line is drawn related to acceptable behavior. Isn't one of the expectations of debate that an outside entity judge a winner? I'd suggest that step one be that all debators play by the same rules... 1. Authenticate the evidence you present 2. Attack the Evidence not the messenger If we are to have a speculative discussion, fine... opinions are all correct until the evidence on which the opinion is based needs authentication... then we return to rule #1. I don't have to agree with Cliff, or Greg or you - yet it is a bit difficult to argue against the evidence or the manner in which it has been authenticated.... or conversely... how badly it is misrepresented and defended.

Excellent points Jon... in our discussion though we ought to at least try to authenticate the evidence which was offered or else why bother having the discussion (which is where the DVPs of the world fall all over themselves).... The WC did indeed take evidence, physical evidence, and did provide its authentication by means of testimony which was, as you pointed out, never crossed and therefore never really authenticated... all by means of avoiding having to establish a chain of possession... Real evidence may be authenticated in three ways--by identification of a unique object, by identification of an object that has been made unique, and by establishing a chain of custody. You only have to be able to use one of these ways, though it is prudent to prepare to use an alternate method in case the court is not satisfied with the one you have chosen. The easiest and usually the least troublesome way to authenticate real evidence is by the testimony of a witness who can identify a unique object in court. For example, the curator of a museum may be able to testify that he is familiar with, say, Picasso's "Dames de Avignon" and that what has been marked as exhibit so-and-so is in fact that unfortunate painting. It is important to remember, however, that many more mundane objects may be amenable to this kind of identification. A unique contract, or one that has been signed, may be authenticated by a person who is familiar with the document or its signatures. A ring may have an inscription by which it can be identified. Even a manufactured object, like a wallet, may be identifiable by its owner after years of use have given it a unique personality. The second method--identification in court of an object that has been made unique, is extremely useful since it sometimes allows a lawyer or client to avoid the pitfalls of proving a chain of custody by exercising some forethought. If a witness who can establish an object's relevance to the case marks it with his signature, initials, or another mark that will allow him to testify that he can tell it from all other objects of its kind, that witness will be allowed to identify the object in court and thus to authenticate it. Often, if a member of the lawyer's staff or another person early in the chain of custody marks the evidence, big problems can be avoided if a later link in the chain turns out to be missing. The third and least desirable way to authenticate real evidence is by establishing a chain of custody. Establishing a chain of custody requires that the whereabouts of the evidence at all times since the evidence was involved in the events at issue be established by competent testimony. Stephen - I get the abstract aspect of your argument completely. Should I be insisting upon the right to debate, or present a POV, for something that has been proven demonstratively wrong just becasue I have yet to accept its wrongness? In certain cases I can see where that stifles intellect and progress... when there are actually 2 sides to a topic. I have to say though that in this case, where not even the basic rules of debate or discussion (or common decency) are adhered to by the offending party, where logic and reason can be dismissed based on faith and speculation, and where evidence authentication and corroboration takes second seat to unsupported hypothesis - there comes a time when enough is enough. I asked you before if you had ever been convinced by a presentation from DVP that we/you were wrong about a lie the WCR told and supported - and you say he's made some good points... Reiterating the evidence and then subverting it from some agenda does not qualify to me as debate or discussion... How many times does the entire Rifle sequence need to be presented before those of DVP's POV understand that our Ozzie did not have a rifle, never had a rifle and all the evidence that can be found does not support his ever having a rifle in the US... Let's realte a story close to my current home - Sept 23 1963. When Ruth and Marina leave New Orleans with the children, the WCR claims Oswald takes a bus from NOLA to Houston. There is no record of this and those who were asked say he left with two small suitcases about 18" across. Ruth and Micheal relate that no rifle was removed from the car when unpacking in Irving. Oswald did not take a rifle to Mexico. Yet magically a rifle appears on the 6th floor on the right day... this entire discussion and debate revolves aroung the authenticity of the evidence. If you can point to a single statement posted by DVP where he authenticates any single piece of evidence he offers as FACT, please let us know.... to me he sounds like Arlen Specter... Mr. SPECTER - Permit me to supply some additional facts, Dr. Perry, which I shall ask you to assume as being true for purposes of having you express an opinion I'd imagine you'd Give Arlen the time of day as well to present such nonsense and call it debate/discussion as opposed to the wholesale rejection of moral and physical law. The problem here is that the dabate is not two sides of the same coin but instead a denial that the coin even exists. How does one debate or discuss that ...?. "We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time micro-analyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down." edit: I should add that the analysis of the evidence can be fruitful when looking to uncover the conspiracy... but not to discover the details of the assassination... The Evidence IS the Conspiracy... so by default, defending the evidence is basically defending the conspiracy.

I hope you come to find that I don't like to post anything unless there are sources involved... No worries when others check the source and find my analysis or paraphrasing incorrect... I'm here to learn like the rest... Whether or not Kellerman/Burkley were criminally liable in the taking of the body was never a question... like Ruby shooting Oswald, the WHY remains the important part... Not so much WHY specifically, but what acceptable, innocent reason can be offered for their taking the body ? The "sparing of the agony" line is what Ruby used related to killing Oswald... that Kellerman and Ruby use the same excuse does not bode well for credibility in my eyes. Jon - I don't know how much you know about Kellerman and the autopsy at 6:45... When the empty casket arrives with the Navy Ambulance at 6:55 at the front of Bethesda Kellerman jumps out and runs to the Morgue while the ambulance and Greer just sits there... Galloway speaks with McHugh and there is quite a delay. I'd suggest reading Best Evidence or Horne's synopsis of it in Volume 4... in fact, imho reading Best Evidence is required if anyone is ever to have an understanding of the Bethesda charade although I tend to agree with Horne that most of the surgery to the top of the head occurs at Bethesda yet more and more evidence seems to be surfacing about surgery in the belly of AF-1. At 7:17 per the FBI SA's Sibert and O'Neil, the casket is brought into the morgue, and then again at 8pm.... So we come to find that the body has a broken chain of possession. That even Lipsey says there was a decoy planned and that the ambulance at the front was a decoy for the body being loaded in back... he just never explains when the body was moved from decoy casket to real casket... and it gets weirder still... yet you can find that out on your own. For our purposes, the stealing of the body was much more significant than the breaking of a law... the differences in the injuries between Parkland and Bethesda are monumental... if ROSE does the autopsy the conspiracy falls apart. Mr. GREER. We stayed there until everything was settled up. I believe there was a judge came in there and I think, someone came in and made the decisions on removing the body and the casket was brought in, and the body was put in the casket. I had this, his clothing, I kept it in my hand at all times, all the time. Then I went, when they removed the casket from the emergency room, I was in front of it going out to make a path to get it to the ambulance. So, he(ROSE) frantically called everybody he could think of and he hasn't got an answer; nobody is home. Shortly he leaves this little room and it seems like a few minutes he is back and he has another gentleman with him, and he said, "This is"--the name escapes me he said, "He is a judge here in Dallas," and he said, "He will tell you whether you can remove this body or not." I said, "It doesn't make any difference. We are going to move it," and I said, "Judge, do you know who I am?" And he said, "Yes," and I said, "There must be something in your thinking here that we don't have to go through this agony; the family doesn't have to go through this. We will take care of the matter when we get back to Washington." The poor man looked at me and he said, "I know who you are," and he said, "I can't help you out." I said. "All right, sir." But then I happened to look to the right and I can see the casket coming on rollers, and I just left the room and let it out through the emergency entrance and we got to the ambulance and put it in, shut the door after Mrs. Kennedy and General McHugh and Clinton Hill in the rear part of this ambulance. I am looking around for Mr. Greer and I don't spot him directly because I want to get out of here in a hurry, and I recognize Agent Berger and I said, "Berger, you get in the front seat and drive and, Mr. Stout, you get in the middle and I will get on this side," and as we are leaving--Mr. Lawson, I should say, was in a police car that led us away from Parkland Memorial Hospital. As we are leaving a gentleman taps on the driver's window and they roll it down and he says, "I will meet you at the mortuary." "Yes, sir." We went to the airport, gentlemen.

Jon, From my understanding there was no Federal law at the time which would supercede Texas law regarding the handling of a murder victim by changing jurisdictional control... A Texas murder resulted in Texas laws being followed. And these are the Texas laws which apply....http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CR/htm/CR.49.htm Mr. KELLERMAN. This I can't truly answer. However, I should say that, as for the casket being brought into the hospital, another gentleman came into this little doctor's room, his name I don't recall, but he represented himself to be from the Health Department or commission, some form. He said to me, he said, "There has been a homicide here, you won't be able to remove the body. We will have to take it down there to the mortuary and have an autopsy." I said, "No, we are not." And he said, "We have a law here whereby you have to comply with it." --- I said, "You are going to have to come up with something a little stronger than you to give me the law that this body can't be removed." Kellerman (with Burkley's help) knowingly and purposefully broke the law.... one wonders on whose orders or what situation would result in the showing of teeth and weapons so that a qualified physician following the law is stopped from doing so. As Salandria put it, an innocent government simply does not behave this way. DJ Art. 49.04. DEATHS REQUIRING AN INQUEST. (a) A justice of the peace shall conduct an inquest into the death of a person who dies in the county served by the justice if: (1) the person dies in prison under circumstances other than those described by Section 501.055("B") - (Sec. 501.055. REPORT OF INMATE DEATH.), Government Code, or in jail; (2) the person dies an unnatural death from a cause other than a legal execution; (3) the body or a body part of a person is found, the cause or circumstances of death are unknown, and: (A) the person is identified; or ("B") the person is unidentified; (4) the circumstances of the death indicate that the death may have been caused by unlawful means; Art. 49.05. TIME AND PLACE OF INQUEST; REMOVAL OF PROPERTY AND BODY FROM PLACE OF DEATH. (a) A justice of the peace shall conduct an inquest immediately or as soon as practicable after the justice receives notification of the death. Art. 49.06. HINDERING AN INQUEST. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly hinders the entrance of a justice of the peace to a premises where a death occurred or a body is found. ("B") An offense under this article is a Class B misdemeanor. Art. 49.10. AUTOPSIES AND TESTS. (a) At his discretion, a justice of the peace may obtain the opinion of a county health officer or a physician concerning the necessity of obtaining an autopsy in order to determine or confirm the nature and cause of a death Art. 49.17. EVIDENCE. A justice of the peace shall preserve all tangible evidence that the justice accumulates in the course of an inquest that tends to show the real cause of death or identify the person who caused the death. The justice shall: (1) deposit the evidence with the appropriate law enforcement agency to be stored in the agency's property room for safekeeping; or (2) deliver the evidence to the district clerk for safekeeping subject to the order of the court Federal law is amended: (Added Pub. L. 89–141, § 1,Aug. 28, 1965, 79 Stat. 580 (h)If Federal investigative or prosecutive jurisdiction is asserted for a violation of this section, such assertion shall suspend the exercise of jurisdiction by a State or local authority, under any applicable State or local law, until Federal action is terminated.