Brendan Slattery

Mr. Slattery, I've done my homework, and I've seen your posts on other forums. [Thanks, Google.] I had therefore assumed that, as long as I steered clear of mentioning the Bush family, you might keep me out of your sights; I was mistaken.

I believe there were more than ample grounds to bring Oswald in for questioning. I believe that there was sufficient grounds to charge him with the Tippit shooting, although I'd have left it up to a jury as to whether to convict. But in the case of the shooting of the President, what evidence IS irrefutable is not enough to convict. I consider the "evidence" linking Oswald to a particular rifle purchased from Klein's Sporting Goods to be what it appears, a possible fabrication...based upon the grossly out-of sequence money order produced by postal inspector Harry Hines, along with other questionable material Hines provided regarding the Dallas post office box ["we no longer have the record...but the FBI says other information that might tend to exhonerate Oswald differs from what's on the record...which we no longer have."]

The test for nitrates cannot prove a positive, but police departments in 1963 used it to DISPROVE a NEGATIVE. If traces of nitrates DON'T show up on Oswald's cheek, then he didn't fire a rifle. The test was negative for nitrates on Osawld's cheek. The test on his hands, however, was positive; therefore, it's entirely likely--especially in light of the fact that he was carring a pistol when apprehended--that Oswald fired that pistol that day. The test will NOT prove with certainty that Oswald DID fire a pistol, as other sources can also result in a positive test for nitrates. But the ABSENCE of nitrates on Oswald's cheek almost certainly indicate that he didn't fire a rifle that day.

If not Oswald, then WHO might have fired that rifle from the 6th floor of the TSBD? We may never know, because nobody was asking that question in 1963. In fact, the Mannlicher-Carcano was NOT tested to see if there was any fouling in the barrel, which would indicate that it had been fired since its last cleaning. Obviously, nobody had time to clean the rifle AFTER the assassination; yet the gun was never tested to see whether it had been fired since its last cleaning. Had the rifle been tested, and had it been determined that it had NOT been fired since its last cleaning, that would indicate that the rifle was a "plant."

The only bullet involved in the assassination that was linked to the Mannlicher-Carcano is CE399; and the chain of evidence supporting that bullet as evidence is weak. Other bullet fragments recovered were called "similar" in composition, but they could not POSITIVELY be identified as having come from CE 139, to the exclusion of ALL other rifles.

So, based upon the EVIDENCE--which is the standard used to convict--there is more chance that Oswald shot Tippit [at least once, with a nonjacketed lead bullet] than there is that he fired three times at the President. The preponderance of the evidence is that Oswald probably DID shoot Tippit, but it's simply not clear beyond a reasonable doubt, BASED STRICTLY UPON THE EVIDENCE, that Oswald fired even ONE shot at the President. The WC used a lot of "coulda-woulda-shoulda" to explain how Oswald COULD HAVE run down the stairs and have been standing in front of the vending machine when Officer Baker encountered him there, but they didn't establish that it actually DID happen that way. On the other hand, the HSCA has established that there COULDA been a 4th shot, based upon Dictabelt recordings from DPD Channel 1; but if there actually WAS a 4th shot within the specified time frame, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE for all 4 to have come from the TSBD and the M-C rifle...which then would prove a second shooter, and a possible conspiracy...but that would eliminate the "Oswald-as-a-lone-nut" scenario, which then calls Oswald's participation itself back into question.

Funny how the WC itself used a LOT of "woulda-coulda-shoulda" to make THEIR case, but any conflicting scenario that employs the same techinques is written off by WC defenders as "wild speculation." Double standards simply are what they are.

Googling my name and doing a little oppo research, huh? The paranoia in this place is positively Nixonian.

What I know about parrifin tests you could stick on the head of a pin, so I decided to enter "false negative" and "parrafin" into a search engine. Very little surfaced, save for this very informative page from Dr. McAdams:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm

False negatives impossible? Parrifin tests infallible? Bullxxxx. They're about as reliable as a lie detector test.

"But McAdams is a lone nut guy!"

So what? He consulted knowledgable, accredited experts, so I suggest you dig up some of your own. I hate it when uninformed buffs try to play Johnny Scientist.

Why would you need an alibi if you planned to leave your traceable gun behind and be prepared to shoot a copper and then go to the movies? ('that was no gun , your honor, that was my curtain rods') 0 to lunatic in 5.6 seconds

Um, you'd need an alibi for why you just threw a long paper package into your friend's back seat, and why you wanted him to take you home on Thurs evening instead of the normal Friday. Jeesh.

Mark johansen posted a video from the dutch documentary centering around James Files, in it Robert Groden was interviewed.

Groden says that he has a book coming out in which he names the location of JFKs brain.

Does anybody know anything more about the book?

John

Hi John,

JFK's brain was buried when his body was reinterment. I have a number of images

pertaining to his reinterment plus a few expsoures of the wooden box containing JFK's

brain. This is NOT new information.

As to Groden new book, I hope it is better than his last several books.

john w

John is indeed correct about the images. They were snapped by an army photographer. One shows Robert and Edward Kennedy standing in front of the freshly dug hole and the small box allegedly containing the brain placed in front of it.

James

There were actually three re-interments that evening. That box could have easily contained the remains of Kennedy's stillborn child.

So even if there were only 3 shots, and they were all fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD, and they were all fired from a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano...the evidence linking Oswald to the shooting itself is lacking. The palmprint on the underside of the barrel was protected by the wood stock of the rifle, so there is no physical evidence that Oswald handled that gun on that day, and CERTAINLY no evidence that he fired the gun ONCE, much less three times. No LHO fingerprints on the exposed portions of the rifle, no LHO fingerprints on the cartridges recovered, and no LHO fingerprints on the clip that either was or was NOT found with/in/near the rifle...and no evidence that LHO used gloves on that day.

Has that about covered it?

Dear Lord. If you worked in law enforcement, no suspicious person would ever be brought in for questioning. Even if they were, they'd be quickly released. "Sure there's a mountain of physical, forensic, ballistic, and circumstantial evidence, but since nobody saw you pull the trigger, you're off the hook!" Lovely.

Btw, where are the curtain rods? You know, his ALIBI.

To answer your question, the DP shooter was not on his game that day. After all, it took him three tries to hit his target at close range--with a scope no less. Regrettably, he succeeded.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.

Where did he find the time to write a book while peddling his crap in DP?

Just what are you Republican/CIA/Bush/Haliburton/America-hating lunatics implying? That he was delinquent in passing along pertinent security information, or that he had a role in the assassination itself? If the latter, I look forward to the defamation lawsuit you nuts so richly deserve. And to think someone recently posted a thread lauding Simkin for running an "intelligent" message board.

The book's biggest crime was BOREDOM. Page after page of Old Joe Kennedy's alleged mob ties and shady business dealings. The opening chapter is little more than stale, rehashed pillow talk from an aging Kennedy bimbo. SS agents going on the record was Hersh's biggest coup, I suppose. JFK lackey Dave Powers comes across as little more than a presidential pimp, with Ken O'Donnell not far behind. I seem to recall a particularly outrageous story about a party that occurred at Bing Crosby's estate in the California desert. The upshot is that the Prez was lax, and so was his security detail. He coopted them. Yes, some agents were disgusted, but others were all too happy to join the traveling road party.

For what it's worth, JFK never had much use for Galbraith, who didn't have the president's ear. If anyone would have been seduced by JKG's income redistribution fantasies, it's Teddy, not the Prez. Galbraith could never bring himself to accept the fact that Western style capitalism, despite the bloated welfare state and myriad safety nets, still had winners and losers. Hence his lifelong (and ultimately doomed) infatuation with leftist thugs and socialist regimes. Hell, even LHO recognized communism was a loser.

Daniel, no hard feelings. It's enough that I post my real name and location. I'm not a big fan of unnecessary Internet disclosures.

Sorry, Artie. I think John McAdams nailed it when he noted that "Galbraith, like most leftists, was an elitist who resented the fact that American society is so egalitarian. It is so egalitarian that people are allowed to make choices of which he disapproved. A self-proclaimed socialist, he lived to see his ideas crash and burn." Indeed.

Brendan,

Who is this John McAdams? Is he like unto a previously unknown god and such? Also, when you get a chance could you add more to your bio than that you're in PR in Washington, DC? Your privacy is of course paramount, but people will not think much of anyone who works both in Washington and in Public Relations (doesn't everyone in Washington?).

Dan

Why? So you can "Tim Gratz" me and do a little opposition research? No thanks. Since your intentions are clearly hostile, you'll just have to settle for a skeleton bio.

FYI, John McAdams is a highly respected, Harvard-educated professor of American History at Marquette University. He runs a lively, moderated JFK newsgroup at alt.assassination.jfk. His conservative blog can be accessed here: http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/

And yes, horror of horrors, he believes LHO acted alone--which is something close to blasphemy in these parts.

Ted Kennedy once remarked that his deceased brother "need not be idealized in death beyond what he was in life," but we're starting to get a whiff of that with JKG. Never wrong, you say? Never? That would be quite an accomplishment for a man with a public record as long as his. He sure as hell was wrong about the old Soviet Union. Hell, he all but insisted that in many respects the Soviet economy was superior to our own: "In contrast to the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower." Yikes. Perhaps he spent a little too much time with his old partner in crime, Dem propagandist Arthur Schlesinger, who returned from a trip to Moscow in 1982 and said Reagan was delusional. "I found more goods in the shops, more food in the markets, more cars on the street -- more of almost everything," he remarked, adding his contempt for "those in the U.S. who think the Soviet Union is on the verge of economic and social collapse, ready with one small push to go over the brink." Sorry, Artie. I think John McAdams nailed it when he noted that "Galbraith, like most leftists, was an elitist who resented the fact that American society is so egalitarian. It is so egalitarian that people are allowed to make choices of which he disapproved. A self-proclaimed socialist, he lived to see his ideas crash and burn." Indeed.

Not being a British subject or authority on the Thatcher years, I'll grant you your contempt, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would wax nostalgic for the pre-Thatcher days of energy blackouts, wildcat transportation strikes, three-day workweeks, and runaway inflation.

Like Arthur Miller, another leftist who let his politics/personal prejudices bleed into his work--and not to his credit.

http://www.reason.com/links/links050106.shtml

Off-topic and decidedly insane. Remove.

ooh 6 posts and giving orders.

very cool.

(laughs)

I love it when people give orders and they go completely ignored.

Six posts or 6,000, I know bullsh*t when I see it. The only connection between the two events exists in your fevered, anti-AmeriKKKan imagination. In the words of Jack Nicholson, "Go sell crazy somewhere else."

Off-topic and decidedly insane. Remove.

Regarding Clint's Scotch at the Press Club, I thought alcohol on the road was strictly verboten, whether you were on the clock or not. Am I wrong?

Bill O'Reilly of Fox News uses the expression "drinking the Kool-Aid" a lot.

I think that he and Sean Hannity drink it more than anyone else.

Sean would probably drink it right out of one of the Republican boots that he licks.

As opposed to the virulent left-wingers who rule the roost at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, BBC, NPR, NY Times, Wash Post, Google News, all of academia--not to mention this conspiratorial message board? Chill.

I've always wondered about the jacket he used to cradle JFK's head. It must have been soaked in blood. Did he wear it back to DC on AF1? Does he still have it?

Hardly the model of concentration. I find it hard to believe he was a full-fledged SS agent and not a mere chauffeur. On multiple occasions, his head just wasn't in the game. Only Princess Di's driver was worse. Maybe.

Brendan Slattery, Public Relations, Washington, DC