Thomas Graves

Tommy, Steel's admission that a file existed is ipso facto, an admission that it was destroyed. OK. Fine with me, Greg. --Tommy

Robert, Not true, I'm afraid. Truly could have seen the limo "swerve and stop" if he was standing in the Elm Street Extension in that curving line of people which curved towards the east-north-east from the tip of the island. By "entrance to the parkway," I think Belin meant the area where Elm Street Extension's pavement merged with the pavement of Elm Street. Elm Street itself was really was a long freeway entrance; a "parkway" or "expressway." "Moved out towards the street" means walked out onto the shoulder of Elm Street itself, IMHO. --Tommy

This is an interesting discovery. I think this just about confirms that Gloria Little was, indeed, Gloria Calvery. No matter how many times I compare the photos, I just can't reconcile that Gloria Little is the woman seen in the Darnell still. Robert, "Just about"? I showed the photos of Gloria Jean Little and Gloria Calvary [sic] to a waitress I know who has no interest in the assassination. She said that they could be the same girl / woman. She could have dyed her hair black and taken her glasses off or been wearing contacts. My waitress friend also pointed out that the photos of Calvary [sic] and Little are of different sides of her face and that her face could have gotten thinner during those four years... --Tommy

Nice work, Linda! Sounds like Bill Shelley and Gloria's husband were friends... --Tommy PS Randy Sorensen found the photos. PPS Now we need to start working on Ochus V. Campbell. I can't even figure out what his middle name was...

I have a feeling Truly is the man in front with the fedora on. The only thing I can base this on is that Truly mentioned, in his WC testimony, that he had trouble seeing over crowds and, of the three men together there, the man in the fedora seems to be the shortest. P.S. The person just behind Fedora Man actually appears to be a woman; see the skinny pantless legs? Edit: Yes, Robert. I'm beginning to think it might be Jeraldean Reid (Mrs. Robert A. Reid), and that Occhus V. Campbell might be standing way, way back behind her. --Tommy

Yes, Randy, but you've blown it up a little too much because it's lost some of its resolution. The resolution is important because when it's good, you can see the black raincoat of the woman to his right through the car's windshield. I don't think this guy is Roy Truly, but I reserve the right to change my mind. LOL --Tommy PS Multi-tasking here: Don Roberdeau has O.V.Campbell, Truly, Stetson Hat Man, and Jeraldean Reid (Mrs. Robert A. Reid) standing next to each other from left to right, west-south-west to east-north-east, in the street directly in front of the TSBD front door. I don't know if Roberdeau is correct or not. But FWIW, Mrs. Robert A. Reid (Jeraldine Bray Reid) testified to the WC that she was standing with Truly and Campbell during the shooting. Someone (I don't know who) has identified the woman whose head is visible between two women (one of whom is wearing a white blouse) in the far right foreground as glasses-wearing Jeraldean Reid.

I believe that could be Truly's hatted head is visible in Altgen's 6, over the upraised sun visor of the Queen Mary follow-up car. Note the dark-haired woman to his right whose black raincoat is visible through the QM's windshield. --Tommy bumped for Robert Prudhomme PS Say, isn't that Danny Acre standing near the front of the white car? And the guy in light-colored work clothes to Arce's right looks like the guy who is highly visible in Darnell / Couch and Weigman whom researchers used to mistake for Roy Truly or Occhus Campbell. .

Robert, OK, so they weren't standing on the Extension sidewalk, but they weren't standing on the Elm Street sidewalk or the "island," either. At least not according to Don Roberdeau. http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/4946/dponlygifupdated111112.gif I don't think your "Fedora Man" is Truly. His fedora looks too light colored above the band and there's a white handkerchief in his breast pocket. I think Truly and Campbell and Jeraldean Reid (Mrs. Robert A. Reid) were standing in the street off to the right of your Fedora Man, out of view of the camera. Jeraldean Reid: (Obviously, this Jeraldean Reid is different from the woman with the scarf covering her hair next to your Fedora Man.) Lots of people were standing in the Elm Street Extension close to where it branched off / merged with Elm Street, including "Stetson Man" (a good landmark), for example. I'm talking about people who were standing in a curving line on the Elm Street Extension pavement, a line of people which started at the tip of the "island." -- Tommy

I believe that man's hatted head is visible in Altgen's 6, over the upraised sun visor of the Queen Mary follow-up car. Note the dark-haired woman to his right whose black raincoat is visible through the QM's windshield. --Tommy PS Say, doesn't that look like Danny Arce standing near the front of the white car?

Thanks, Tracy. It seems that my fun-lovin' "bud" David Josephs isn't going to even try to rebut my argument that "GATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962," written next to Oswald's test results, settles it for once and for all -- somebody mistakenly wrote "4/62" on different T.E.C. documents that same day when they meant to write "6/62." "GATB" stood for General Aptitude Test Battery. I think any reasonable person would agree with me that since the month "J-u-n-e" was written out in word form when Mrs. Cunningham (or one of her coworkers) wrote down "GATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962," that that date is much more likely to be accurate than any numerical version in the form of MM/YY. "GATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" is about two-thirds of the way down on the left hand side, next to Oswald's test scores. The scores were teletyped, upon request, from the Fort Worth office to the Dallas office on 10/10/62 and they were written down on this form. (Click on it to enlarge.) --Tommy bumped for my fun-lovin' buddy, David Josephs

Robert, His estimation wasn't that he was "20 feet" away from the steps, but "15 to 20 feet" away. (I'm making your argument for you in the interest of accuracy.) Mr. TRULY. I would judge out in Elm Street, 10 to 15 or 20 feet from the front steps. We first stood on the steps, the bottom steps a few minutes, and then we walked out in the line of spectators on the side of Elm Street. He probably should have said that he and Occhus V. Campbell walked out in the line of spectators watching the motorcade "on the side of the Elm Street Extension," instead of "on the side of Elm Street." --Tommy PS Even if he and Occhus were much closer to the steps than parts of his testimony might seem to indicate, what's so suspicious or sinister about that in-and-of itself? Lots of people were near the front steps when the shots rang out.

Robert, He's not really "at" or "near" the foot of the steps. He's standing in the middle of the street. --Tommy

The following is an excerpt from my post, above, tending to indicate that what Greg said earlier was partially correct -- That a large ONI file on Oswald did admittedly exist before the assassination. I don't know of anyone's admitting that this large file was destroyed, however. Somebody please prove me wrong as that would be fascinating. My Question: Looking back at it, how sure are you that your statement in the letter that ONI had "quite a file on Oswald" was accurate -- "absolutely sure," "very sure," or "less sure now than when I wrote the letter"? Cmdr. Steel's Answer: [BK had a blank here.] My February 2013 correction to BK: "He [Lt. Cmdr. Robert D. Steel, USN Reserves, Retired] said, 'ABSOLUTELY SURE!' It's on the tape, Bill!!! (I remember being surprised by Steel's answer because I was expecting him to say, "Not as sure now as I was when I wrote the letter.") --Tommy

[2] Steel, Robert D. Oral History interview transcript w/Steel. (Attached) Steel recently reaffirmed the contents of the letter – that he personally knew both Arthur C. Sullivan, who he identified as the head of the Dallas ONI office, as well as Dallas detective Paul Bentley, and that his agency, the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), did indeed have “quite a file on Oswald.” [...] http://archive.politicalassassinations.net/2013/02/oswalds-oni-records-revisited/ I'm the guy who interviewed Lt. Cmdr. Robert D. Steel twice (the second time on tape) in La Jolla, California, a couple of years ago. The problem is I stupidly sent that tape to Bill Kelley without having made a copy of it for myself to keep. In the unrecorded conversation I had with Steel (before one of my friends gave me a tape recorder), Steel said that Paul Bentley was a friend of his, but in the taped version he kind of shied away from that. During the taped interview, Steel said that the Dallas ONI office was "across the street", "It was in the Postal building," "It was in the building that Kennedy was killed from." The last time I checked Kelley's "transcript" of the tape, that part was missing. Steel also confirmed to me that he was "absolutely sure" that what he had written to Bentley on 11/24/63 about the ONI's having "quite a file on Oswald" before the assassination was correct. Bill Kelley promised me twice, on two different occasions, to return the tape to me or to send me a good copy of it, but has refused to do so. The most recent time he promised to send it to me was in a thread on this forum. I'm believe that Bill Kelley may have slightly edited and / or embellished my interview of Cmdr. Steel and I believe that may be the reason he refuses to return the tape, or a good unedited copy of it, to me. --Tommy [ The following is from the PM I sent to Greg Burnham back in February, 2013. Bill Kelley had sent me his "transcript" of my tape. Some parts of the tape were hard to understand, so there were a few "omissions" and "mistakes" in Bill's tanscript. He also seemed to have decided to leave out an important part. I made corrections to the transcript from memory and sent the following "corrected transcript" back to him, but as far as I know he hasn't updated his transcript.] Oral History Interview with Robert D. Steel, La Jolla, California. February 1, 2013. (With my corrections and comments in green.) [bill, This didn't even make it onto the tape because I started talking too soon after starting the tape recorder -- "My name is Thomas Graves and this morning..."] ...I'm interviewing Commander Robert D. Steel, US Navy Reserves, Retired, in La Jolla, California, as an oral history project for the Baylor University Library, JFK Section. Steel’s wife Judy is sitting in as an observer during this interview. Good morning Commander Steel. [Close but not exact, Bill. I think I said “...for the Baylor University Oral History Institute”. Maybe you could listen to it again? Thanks.] Robert D. Steel: Good morning. Question: What is your full name sir? RDS: Robert David Steel. Q: When and where were you born? RDS: May, M-A-Y Texas, that’s in the central part of the state…. Q: And when were you born? RDS: May 26, 1919 Q: When did you join the Navy? RDS: I graduated from the University of ….. State [sam Houston State] in ….[Huntsville?] Texas, then I went to Northwestern University midshipman school in Chicago in January 1942 and graduated in May, 1942. I came out to the West Coast, I was in charge of training of Midshipman who were on two weeks of training duty at San Piedro, Naval section from the University of Southern California, followed by … Midshipman from UCLA. Q: Did you serve on any ships during World War II? RDS: I would consider the Sea Scout a ship. Q: So you served on the Sea Scout? RDS: I was the commanding officer. Q: I've read about the Sea Scout, that was a sonar training ship, wasn’t it? RDS: Yes it was. Q: Okay. Did you serve on any other ships during World War II? RDS: Yes I did, for the last two years of the war I was on board the USS [OSTERHAUS], a destroyer escort. Q: Were you an officer on that ship? RDS: Yes, I was number three officer, a first lieutenant in charge of everything above the waterline. Q: What did you do after the war? RDS: I first worked for the Internal Revenue Service as a tax collector. Q: In San Diego? RDS: Collecting from business men in San Diego, and following that Naval Intelligence, I came to work for them as a special agent. Q: What year did you leave active duty and join the Naval Reserves. RDS: I suppose that would be 1945. Q: And what year did you join ONI? RDS: 1948. Q: How many years did you work for ONI? RDS: As a special agent 22 years. Q: Did you work for ONI in any other capacity other than special agent? RDS: Yes, I was a commanding officer of the Reserve officers throughout the area. Q: What years would that have been? RDS: That was for a two year period and I had to work my way up to that position, and I retired from that around 1962. Q: When you were working as a special agent were you technically a civilian agent? RDS: Yes sir, but I wore two hats, being a Reserve officer I was also doing Reserve duty from time to time with various other agencies – CIA, FBI and other military services in Washington DC mainly. Q: Did you serve as liaison with CIA and FBI so to speak? RDS: I wouldn’t call it liaison, I was indoctrinated into their activities. Q: Did you work for the same branch or department of ONI while you were a special agent all those years? RDS: Would you repeat the question? Q: I am a little bit unfamiliar with the structure of ONI. I believe there was a special branch – the Naval Investigative Service, did you work for that branch for 22 years as a special agent? RDS: Yes. Q: Did your work at ONI involve liaison with any other government agencies? RDS: (Laughs) Yes. Q: With CIA and FBI for example? RDS: Yes. Q: In which naval district were you stationed in late 1959 and early 1960? RDS: Would you repeat that? Q: In which naval district were you stationed in late 1959-60? RDS: My headquarters were always in this naval district. Q: That would include San Diego? RDS: San Diego and all the area that included Arizona and New Mexico. Q: Who was your boss 1959-1963? RDS: Who was my boss? I had many. Q: Did you know Fred Reeves? RDS: (Laugh) A very good close friend. Q: Was he the head of the San Diego ONI office? RDS: For a brief period. Q: Do you remember roughly when? RDS: No I’m sorry I can’t recall. Q: Was he ever your boss. RDS: Very briefly. We were mainly co-workers. Q: When did you start living in San Diego? RDS: Ten, [IN] 1942. Q: Where was your office in San Diego? RDS: Headquarters building was at Broadway Pier. Q: Who were your closest colleagues in San Diego? RDS: ONI or other law enforcement agencies? Q: I was thinking ONI. RDS: I had dozens, I mean, its best to be good to everybody. Q: Do you know what a “119 Report” was? RDS: Yes sir. Q: Did you ever write any 119 Reports on anyone while you were with ONI? RDS: Hundreds of them. Q: Did you have anyone working under you in 1959. RDS: Yes. Q: Is it fair to say that you did as well in 1963? RDS: Repeat? Q: Did you have anyone working under you in 1963? RDS: Its hard to say working under me, we worked as a team. There were people in certain positions who were less qualified as myself, so we worked as a team because somebody had to fill certain billets, somebody had to sit by at a desk because they were incapable of doing certain things. Q: Let me put it this way, were you anybody’s boss in 1963? RDS: We worked as team, they were co-workers. Q: Okay. Fred Reeves told the Assassinations Records Review Board that a week or so after Lee Harvey Oswald defected to the USSR, Reeves had been called by two ONI officers in Washington DC and was asked to do a background investigation on Oswald at El Toro, Marine Air Station, Oswald’s last duty station before leaving the Marine Corps. Is it possible you did this investigation for Reeves and Reeves took credit for it? RDS: Yes. Q: Would you say it is possible or would you say it is probable? RDS: Probable. Q: Is it fair to say you were you probably were sent in to do this investigation of Oswald because you were a more highly skilled experienced investigator than the ONI people stationed at El Toro who were used to doing more mundane investigation? RDS: Yes. Q: Do you remember doing this investigation for Reeves at El Toro? RDS: [Yes,] but not very well. Q: Given that Oswald was stationed at El Toro and had just defected, I’d like to ask you some hypothetical questions. Would have done it by yourself or with other special agents? RDS: (BK wrote "unintelligible" here) [He said, "BY MYSELF" or "ALONE" or words to that effect] Q: Okay. Would you have questioned Oswald’s former colleagues at El Toro? RDS: Yes. Q: Would you have had a stenographer with you? RDS: No. Q: Would you have introduced yourself to these marines you were questioning? RDS: Yes. Q: Do you remember the name Nelson Delgado at El Toro? RDS: Not the name, could you tell me his position? Q: He was a marine like Oswald and a friend of Oswald, not an officer, an enlisted man. RDS: No I don’t remember. Q: Okay. Going back to Reeves and the ARRB Final Report, Reeves said he went to El Toro Marine Air Station, copied Oswald’s enlisted personnel files, talked to Oswald’s associates and mailed this to ONI in Washington D.C. Reeves said that ONI in Washington DC ran the post defection investigation of Oswald and the Washington officers then directed various agents in the field. Reeves said he did not interview anyone himself but that later, late 1959 or early 1960, there were approximately twelve to fifteen ONI "119" Reports that crossed his desk. Reeves said he was aware of some of the "119" Reports from Japan and Texas and that the primary concern of the reports he read on Oswald was to ascertain what damage to national security Oswald’s defection to the USSR had caused. Is it possible that you wrote any of the "119" Reports on Oswald that crossed Reeves’ desk? RDS: Yes. Q: Do you remember writing any of them? RDS: No. Q: Okay, shifting gears a little bit here, was Detective Paul Bentley of the Dallas Police Department a friend of yours? RDS: An acquaintance. [Note: this is a little different from his answer a week earlier when I didn't have a tape recorder with me. At that time he said that PB was a “friend.” Hmmm. Interesting.] Q: How did you know him? RDS: I’m not sure, but I think he was a polygraph examiner. Q: Did you ever work with him? RDS: [i think we were in the Navy together.] [bK wrote "Unintelligible"] Q: Now, you wrote a letter to Paul Bentley on November 24, 1963, two days after Oswald was arrested in Dallas, and in the letter you say that quote “ONI had quite a file on Oswald,” and in the letter you also said that A. C. Sullivan of the ONI office could provide Bentley with this file. Did you send this letter before or after Jack Ruby shot Oswald that day? RDS: Did I send the letter before….? Q: It’s an historical fact that Jack Ruby shot Oswald on the 24th of November, 1963 and the letter you sent Bentley was dated the same day, so I am wondering if you sent it before or after Ruby shot Oswald? RDS: I’m sure it was after. Q: How did you know that ONI had quote “quite a file on Oswald” at that time? RDS: (Long pause) I don’t know. Q: Did you see it? RDS: Did I see it? Q: Did you see the ONI file on Oswald? RDS: I may have written the God damn thing!! Q: (Pause) Okay. Was A.C. Sullivan of Dallas a friend of yours. RDS: A very close friend. Q: How did you come to know him? RDS: He was in the same business I was in. He had been a guest at my home. I had been a guest at his home. Q: Now, was he the head of the Dallas ONI office? RDS: Yes he was. Q: Did Sullivan know about the ONI file on Oswald? RDS: Of course. Q: Did A.C. Sullivan already have the file on Nov. 24, 1963? RDS: Undoubtedly. Q: Did you ever speak with Sullivan about Oswald’s ONI file? RDS: Yes. Q: Looking back at it, how sure are you that your statement in the letter that ONI had "quite a file on Oswald" was accurate -- "absolutely sure," "very sure," or "less sure now than when I wrote the letter"? A: [BK has a blank here.] [steel said, "ABSOLUTELY SURE"] (I remember being surprised by his answer because I was expecting him to say, "Not as sure now as I was when I wrote the letter.") Q: Does the letter today bring back any [OTHER?] memories? (I read to him, "Dear Paul, Perhaps you are aware ONI has quite a file on Oswald…..") RDS: No. Q: Did you ever write to or discuss with anyone else Oswald’s ONI file? RDS: I don’t think so, other than A.C. Sullivan. Q: Did you ever have occasion to visit the Dallas ONI office? RDS: Yes, a number of times. Q: Where was it located? RDS: It was in the Post Office building, it was across the street, it was the building from which Kennedy was killed. Q: The assassination happened in Dealey Plaza, and there was a Post Office building on the other side. [You may want to listen to that part again, Bill...] RDS: Yes. Q: Did the Dallas ONI do general ONI work or did it specialize in certain things? RDS: General. Q: Did you know other law enforcement or intelligence people in the Dallas area? RDS: Yes. Q: Did you know J. Mason Langford, of Ft. Worth, he was head of security for General Dynamics or Convair and later became fire martial of the county. RDS: I don’t recall him. Q: Did you know I.P. Hale or Max Clark? RDS: Both names sound familiar but I don’t recall right now. Q: Did you know Pat Gannaway, of the Dallas Police Special Services Bureau? RDS: I just don’t remember. Q: Did you know Jack Revell, the head of the Dallas Criminal Section of the SSB? RDS: These names are all familiar but I don’t recall them. Q: Did you know Colonel Robert E. Jones of 112 Army Intel Group at Fort Sam Houston? RDS: I don’t recall. Q: James Powell, an Army Intelligence agent of the 112th? RDS: The name is familiar but I don’t recall. Q: Had you heard of Lee Harvey Oswald or Harvey Lee Oswald before the assassination? RDS: Yes, it's possible that I knew him very, very well. Q: On some documents the name is transposed – Harvey Lee Oswald. RDS: That is a common occurrence and I never paid much attention to it. Q: You said there’s a good chance you know [KNEW] Oswald quite well before the assassination? RDS: Quite possibly. Q: How would you have possibly known about Oswald quite well before the assassination? RDS: Because I may have investigated the guy. Q: Do you remember investigating him? RDS: Vaguely. Q: What is your personal opinion of ONI and Oswald? RDS: ONI was a wonderful organization. As for Oswald, he was a sick man. Q: What is your personal opinion of the causes of the assassination? RDS: Oswald was just sick out of his mind. Q: Do you think he killed Kennedy by himself? RDS: Yes. Q: Where were you when you heard Kennedy was shot? RDS: I don’t know. [During the previous week's unrecorded interview, he said after a pause, “I don't remember.” But it's fascinating that he DID remember during that unrecorded interview how long the USS Sea Scout was (plus-or-minus one foot according, to the Internet -- he even got the "half foot" right) and where he was when he heard that Pearl Harbor had been attacked!] Q: When you heard that Oswald had been arrested, did his name sound familiar to you? RDS: Yes. Q: Is there anything else you want to say about Oswald, ONI and the assassination? RDS: No. Q: Thank you for letting me interview you today, Commander Steel. (Corrected from recent memory at-that-time by Thomas Graves on 2/21/13)

Thanks, Tracy. It seems that my fun-lovin' "bud" David Josephs isn't going to even try to rebut my argument that "GATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962," written next to Oswald's test results, settles it for once and for all -- somebody mistakenly wrote "4/62" on different T.E.C. documents that same day when they meant to write "6/62." "GATB" stood for General Aptitude Test Battery. I think any reasonable person would agree with me that since the month "J-u-n-e" was written out in word form when Mrs. Cunningham (or one of her coworkers) wrote down "GATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962," that that date is much more likely to be accurate than any numerical version in the form of MM/YY. "GATB in Fort Worth -- June 1962" is about two-thirds of the way down on the left hand side, next to Oswald's test scores. The scores were teletyped, upon request, from the Fort Worth office to the Dallas office on 10/10/62 and they were written down on this form. (Click on it to enlarge.) --Tommy

David, Where on this newspaper page does it say anything about a "second floor encounter?" Thank you, --Tommy

I am trying to figure out if Jim is claiming we are an organized group or what. Tracy, You realize of course that only a paranoid person would even think that we're organized, don't you? LOL --Tommy

My personal opinion is that these are clearly the same man, taken at different points in his life. Lighting, head tilt, pursing of the lips in the marine photo (edit: I mean photo on the right, I mistook that for a photo of Oswald in the marines) can easily account for many of the subtle differences between photos. I think there is some interesting evidence suggesting there were sightings of "Oswald" in more than one place at once, but this set of photos doesn't convince me we are looking at two different men. When did his ears drop? Puberty? Ray, In the photo on the left his head is tilted back a little, making his ears to be lower than they actually were. Please note also that too much light in the left photo makes Oswald's face look "flatter" and therefore wider than it really was. --Tommy

Yeah, sure, Ken. All you have to do, Ken, is totally IGNORE all of these little nitpicky items in order to avoid a "Guilty" vote against Lee Oswald.... ...The C2766 rifle. ...The documents establishing that OSWALD owned the C2766 rifle. ...All of the bullets. ...All of the bullet shells. ...Oswald's prints on various items (boxes, rifle, paper bag). ...The Tippit murder evidence (and eyewitnesses). ...Howard Brennan's WC testimony. ...Oswald's OWN ACTIONS and out-of-the-ordinary behavior on both Nov. 21 and 22. Good luck, Ken, in finding 12 jurors who are willing to pretend that ALL OF THE ABOVE is "fake" stuff (including OSWALD'S OWN ACTIONS AND LIES). (Are all of the O.J. jurors still alive? You might give them a call. They're about your only hope.) I'll take this one: ...Oswald's prints on various items (boxes, rifle, paper bag). (I'm gonna speak on this at Lancer this November.) It seems clear to me that you, as many others, just take all these at face value. Oswald was a pathetic loser and the DPD and WC were honorable men so therefore the prints must be genuine. But imagine this. You know nothing of Oswald. He is a blank person. All you know is that he said he was innocent. And then take another look at the fingerprint evidence. And what do you find? A palm print on a box top...that was not photographed in place on the 22nd. That was then placed back on a box on the 25th, that was in the sniper's nest. Well, who's to say this box wasn't a box Oswald touched while pulling orders elsewhere in the building...that was later moved to the sniper's nest? I mean, there's something fishy about all this. The photos from the 25th prove that Lt. Day was yet to sign this box top, and yet he testified that he signed the box top on the 22nd. He was lying. So what else was he lying about? Two prints on a paper bag that supposedly held the rifle...that the only people to see Oswald with a bag said was not the bag they saw in Oswald's possession. And not only that...this bag was not photographed in the sniper's nest, or recalled by any of those initially viewing the sniper's nest. And not only that there are no photos showing these prints on the bag now in the archives. There are photos of prints, and there are photos of a bag, but there is nothing in these photos to show these prints are on the same bag, or even a bag of any kind. And then there's Lt. Day, who once again claimed he'd signed the bag when discovered, but who later admitted he wasn't in the building when the bag was discovered. Hmmm...if he was lying about this, then what else was he lying about? And then there's the rifle print...which was supposedly found and lifted on the 22nd, but was never entered into evidence in any manner. Yes, amazingly, there is no paper trail of its existence, none whatsoever...until 4 days later...two days AFTER the FBI told the Dallas Police they'd found no legible prints on the rifle. And, yes, here, once again is Lt. Day, who claimed he'd failed to compare this lift to Oswald's prints beyond making a cursory glance, even though his department had known for TWO WHOLE DAYS that the FBI had made no mention of this print in their report, and who also refused to sign a sworn statement regarding the prints when asked to do so by the FBI. Now, right there, on these three points, any lawyer worth his salt would be able to raise a reasonable doubt. But when one looks at the other prints it just gets worse. Three additional boxes from the sniper's nest were removed from the building on the 25th. Problem number 1: There is no concrete proof these were the boxes in the sniper's nest on the 22nd. Problem number 2: Oswald's prints were found on but one of these boxes...in locations other than where they were presented in the WC's exhibits. Problem number 3: one print on one of these boxes has never been identified. Problem number 4: another print on one of these boxes that was previously identified as belonging to a member of the Dallas PD was later identified as belonging to a crony of President Lyndon Johnson's. Problem number 5: while the identification of this print as belonging to this crony has fallen into disfavor, none of those second-guessing this identification have subsequently re-affirmed the original identification of this print as belonging to the Dallas officer who'd moved the boxes from the depository, which means both that this print is currently unidentified, and that there is reason to suspect some of the other original identifications could be in error. And, oh yeah, there's this. A piece of wood was removed from the sniper's nest window. There is no report in the DPD's archives on this piece of wood, and the results of any tests performed on this wood. Why? And what other pieces of the building which could have contained prints were removed, and then made to disappear? And then there's the Dr. Pepper bottle. A Dr. Pepper bottle was found on the sixth floor, near a bag holding some fried chicken bones. This was supposedly the lunch of Bonnie Ray Williams. And yet there is no report showing that this bottle was dusted for fingerprints. While it was subsequently reported, moreover, that no prints were found on this bottle, this seems highly unlikely, seeing as greasy chicken is a fingerprint analyst's best friend, along with glass bottles. Well, it follows then that this report was made to disappear for one reason or another. Did the DPD throw the bottle out when they realized the prints didn't belong to Oswald, even though they didn't know whose prints were on the bottle? Or did the DPD "find" Oswald's prints on the bottle? Before realizing the bottle belonged to Williams? Who knows? But, in light of all the other problems with the prints, you can bet some hotshot Johnnie Cochrane type could have soaked all this up, and used most every piece of supposedly slamdunk evidence against Oswald against those accusing him. Ken, I've always been suspicious of the fingerprint evidence, myself. The fact that the guy at the morgue said that some FBI types came in late one night while Oswald's corpse was still there and evidently got Oswald's prints (which may have been transferred to the rifle), the fact that one of "Mac" Wallace's fingerprints may have been found on one of the "sniper's lair" boxes, etc. What do you mean when you say A palm print on a box top...that was not photographed in place on the 22nd. That was then placed back on a box on the 25th, that was in the sniper's nest. What was placed "back on a box on the 25th? A print? Another box? Finally, a Devil's Advocate observation. The bottle of Dr. Pepper was probably cold when it was bought, and may have developed some moisture / condensation on its outside surface which prevented the adhering to it of anyone's fingerprints. --Tommy

Suffice it to say that on 10/10/62, Helen Cunningham in Dallas (or one of her coworkers there) wrote on Lee Oswald's test results card "GATB IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE, 1962." GATB stood for General Aptitude Test Battery, It took me a long time to figure out that Cunningham (or one of her coworkers) had written the "G" as a strangely-shaped longhand letter, whereas the "A", "T", and "B" were printed as easy-to-read block letters. It seems that the date "4/62," written twice on accompanying documents, were "typos" caused by someone's mental / numerical lapses, because the spelled-out word "June" in the "JUNE, 1962" part was much less likely a mistake. If you want to see it with your own eyes, "GATB IN FORT WORTH -- JUNE, 1962" is about 2/3 down the page on the left hand side, next to Oswald's test scores (which were teletyped to Mrs. Cunningham on 10/10/62 from the Fort Worth T.E.C. office). Note that that part of the document does not appear to have been detached from the upper part which has the name "Oswald, Lee" in the upper left hand corner. Click on document to enlarge. --Tommy

[consolidated with next post]

the spotty wi-fi in this coffee house prevented the successful transfer and editing of the post LOL Oh well --Tommy

"Do you and DVP communicate regularly?" Only on these threads, Bruce. Why? Do you think DVP and I are conspiring with each other? Haven't you been reading our exchanges on a couple of the other current threads? If you are insinuating that DVP and I are in private communication with each other and conspiring against "you," then you're not only paranoid but you're also casting aspersions against other two EF members, me and DVP (whom, just between you me, I'm coming to loathe), which happens to be against EF rules. So if that's the case, then why don't you just go uhhh... obfuscate yourself, Sir. Are you a H&L groupie and have I hurt your feelings by pointing out some of the H&L inaccuracies? Tough beans, Bruce. The point I was trying to make above, Sir, is that I don't recognize the young man in either of those photos as "Marina's husband" / the man Jack Ruby killed on 11/24/63. Probably mostly because of the person's youth in the photos. The different lighting conditions, the possibility that different focal-length lenses were used, and the different head tilts would also explain why they look different from each other. In the photo on the left, his head is tilted up a little compared to the photo on the right, and the lighting is obviously different, too. The different head tilts create different perspectives of the bottom of his nose, and the different lighting conditions make his lower lip look thicker in the left photo because said photo doesn't have as much shadow hiding the bottom of his lower lip as the right photo does. The upward tilting head in the left photo also makes his head look shorter and rounder than it really was. Is that substantive enough for you, Bruce? --Tommy

So he's not which it was. And when he learned the lunchroom was really on the SECOND floor, he adjusted his story to FIT THE TRUTH. But I'm sure you're willing to admit that Baker is the ONLY witness to change his story to 'fit the truth', right? "So he's not which it was" ? Well, neither am I most of the time! LOL --Tommy

Assuming Oswald was about 5' 10" tall, looking at the photograph I'd have to say he weighed the 131 pounds. What do other members think? --Tommy PS Why is this important? Basically because police officer Marion Baker said the suspect he encountered either on the 2nd floor (Oswald?) or the 4th floor (Tan Jacket Man / Brown Coat Man?) was about 30 years old and weighed about 165 pounds. Key witness Howard Brennan said the assassin was about 5' 10" tall and weighed between "160 and 170 pounds." And last but not least, there's the mysterious "witness" who told police inspector J. Herbert Sawyer a few minutes after the assassination that he'd seen a man weighing "about 165 pounds" running away from the rear of the TSBD a few seconds after the assassination. About fifteen minutes after the assassination, Sawyer broadcast the first description of the suspected assassin over the police radio: "About 30 years old, 5'10" tall, 165 lbs." at the same age, I was 5' 11 and weighed 140. I'd say he looks about 130 Thanks, Kenneth. That makes it 6 (Me, et al) to 1 (DVP). --Tommy