James DiEugenio

Davey now has to make like he does not understand that Stombaugh's failure to do anything at all to connect the rifle to the blanket was a big problem for the WC. Because, to any normal thinking person--automatically excluding Davey-- it indicated the rifle was not in the blanket. That is why they had Marina do what she did. Davey also ignores the fact that Speer also showed how they were so desperate to connect that rifle to LHO that it looks like the DPD stuffed some shirt fibers in the butt plate. But it is actually even worse than that. Why? Because it probably was the wrong shirt. This brings in the utterly risible testimony of none other than Mary Bledsoe, who may be worse than Marina.

Davey just doesn't know when to quit. He is having a very bad day today. I don't know if DVP has ever heard of a guy named Stombaugh. But he was the FBI agent who was called as an expert for hair and fiber evidence. His testimony is in volume 4, and it is the epitome of just how bad the WC really was. The WC desperately wanted him to link the blanket to the rifle in any possible way that he could. He could not. He had to resort to the shirt and that got rather sticky. I can do no better than link to Pat Speer's analysis of Stombaugh and what his testimony really meant: "I noted it had been dusted for latent prints. So I proceeded to pick off what fibers were left from the small crevices and small grease deposits which were left on the gun. At the point of the butt plate, the end of the stock…I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed.” This duster would be Lt. J.C. Day, the same Dallas Crime Lab Detective who “found” Oswald's palm print on the rifle after giving it to the FBI and having them find no identifiable prints on the rifle. Day explained later that he'd lifted this palm print off the rifle on the night of the assassination before sending it to the FBI crime lab in Washington. He said he was surprised they'd found no trace of this print upon inspection. He admitted further that he had not protected this print, or marked its location, in any way. Nor had he sent a note along with with the rifle explaining the work he had performed, and that he'd lifted a palm print from the underside of the barrel on a part of the barrel only accessible when the rifle is disassembled. He'd also failed to photograph the print while it was on the rifle (which is pretty much standard procedure). From such mistakes reasonable doubts arise. Stombaugh, continued: “These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide…because this little group of fibers—little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh. The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old…the other fibers I cleaned up, removed the grease and examined them but they were of no value. They were pretty well fragmented…They all appeared old…in excess of a month or two months.” Returning to the “tuft,” Stombaugh explained: “this was just a small tuft. They were adhering to the gun on a small jagged edge. In other words the gun had caught on a piece of fabric and pulled the fibers loose. They were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up. They were folded very neatly down in the crevice…they were adhering to the edge rather tightly…it had the jagged edge sticking up and the fibers were folded around it and resting in the crevice…I believe when the fingerprint man dusted it he probably ran his brush along the metal portion here…Of the butt plate, and at the time the brush folded these down into the crevice...Because of the presence of fingerprint powder being down in and through the crevice here. It looked as if it had been dusted with a brush. You could make out the bristlemarks of the brush itself.” Stombaugh had thereby testified that the fibers found in the butt plate crevice did not end up there on their own, and were apparently folded down in there only AFTER Day had dusted the butt plate. When asked what it would take for someone to loosen the threads from the jagged edge, he responded “Well, I would imagine if one took a brush and started brushing pretty hard these would have worked loose and come out…They were adhering to the jagged edge...they were adhering pretty tightly to the gun. I believe through ordinary handling of the gun eventually they would have worked loose and fallen off...I had to take a pair of tweezers and work them out…And after I had the fibers lifted up which could have been the original position they were in, then I had to pull them off. They were wrapped around rather snugly to the sharp edge.” Later, when asked if the rifle should have had fibers from the blanket, he replied “No, because the gun was dusted for fingerprints and any fibers that were loosely adhering to it could have been dusted off. The only reason, I feel, that these fibers remained on the butt plate is because they were pulled from the fabric by the jagged edge and adhered to the gun and then the fingerprint examiner with his brush, I feel, when brushing and dusting this plate, stroked them down into that crevice where they couldn’t be knocked off. In time these fibers would undoubtedly have become dislodged and fallen off the gun” (4H56-88). If Oswald had been allowed an attorney, he (or she) would have just loved Stombaugh. Stombaugh pretty much admitted it's possible the fiber evidence was planted. He also gave an indication who did it, or at least knew about it. When asked if he was "unhappy" about being handed a rifle that had already been dusted for fingerprints, and asked to inspect it for trace evidence, Stombaugh replied: "I was; however, it is not uncommon for fingerprint processing to be given priority consideration. They wanted to know whether or not the gun contained any fibers to show that it had been stored in this blanket."He then explained who this "they" was: "Well, this is our Dallas office. They sent the gun in wanting to know this fact." In light of the above, we know why Marina said what she said. And we know why people like Ball did not want to use her at all. The woman is to be pitied, not used in any forensic way.

Oh puhlease. As attorney Larry Schnapf said, Marina Oswald would be utterly shredded upon any real cross examination. Even the junior lawyers on the WC did not want to use her as a witness, and in a real trial it is highly unlikely she would have been allowed to testify. But I would have preferred she would have since she would have been reduced to rubble.

On this week's Black Op Radio, I comment on this issue briefly since Len was at the private Gary Aguilar seminar in San Fran and he previously played the David Josephs presentation. I think I have said this before, but in a nutshell what I think David is ultimately going to do is redefine the whole Mexico City scenario. He is going to do it based upon the latest documents that the CIA did not want to declassify. I believe that in the end, these will be the new tenets of MC: 1. Oswald was not in Mexico City. 2. The short blonde guy did the charade. 3. Ochoa and Echeverria set up the phony transportation materials up and back. 4. Phillips worked on the tapes and transcripts at the embassies, with Goodpasture covering up for him. 5. Once Hoover finally did some work in this area, he understood that is was all a pile of paper mache. He admitted this in private but not in public.

There was never any rifle at the Paine household. Which would not mean they could not have framed Oswald through the Paines anyway. They could have just said that he picked it up previously and gone through with that whole blanket act.

Now, if these were all burned how do we know what was in them? Especially in relation to a part of McKnight's book, p. 162. Let me quote from my review: But with this established, Specter and Humes moved on to a second deception. Namely that Commission Exhibit 397 was the documentary record upon which the official autopsy report was based. This exhibit consisted of a set of notes, and the handwritten revision of the incinerated draft of the autopsy report. One of the note pages was the autopsy "face sheet" (body diagram with wounds marked), and the others were notes of Humes' talk with Dr. Malcolm Perry of Parkland Hospital about the tracheotomy he had performed on President Kennedy in Dallas. But this cannot be the entire record since the final, single-spaced, 6-page autopsy report contains many facts that are not contained in these documents. After a thorough analysis, McKnight concludes: There are, give or take, about eighty-eight autopsy "facts" in the official prosectors' report. About sixty-four of these "facts" or pieces of medicolegal information (almost 75%) cannot be found in either the published notes or CE 397. Some fifteen of these pieces of information involve measurements and numbers that are not found in the published record. (p. 162) So where did these other "facts" come from?

Please note this exchange: Q: Let me quote from two paragraphs of the affidavit and then I will ask you if that helps refresh your recollection to any events. Paragraph X states: "I clearly heard Dr. Finck, who was speaking sufficiently loudly for his words easily to be overheard, complain that he had been unable to locate the handwritten notes that he had taken during the autopsy on President Kennedy. Dr.Finck elaborated to his companions with considerable irritation that immediately after washing up following the autopsy, he looked for his notes and could not find them anywhere. He further recounted that others who were present at the autopsy also had helped him search for his notes to no avail.............Dr. Finck concluded his story by angrily stating that he had to reconstruct his notes from memory shortly after the autopsy." The question, Dr. Finck, is do these two paragraphs help refresh your recollection first on the question of whether you took notes during the autopsy? A: I don't know." "Q: Dr. Finck, would it have been your regular practice during the course of an autopsy in which you participated to take notes and measurements? A: Yes. Q: Would that be a standard practice and procedure that most prosectors would engage in during the course of an autopsy? A: Yes. Q: Dr. Finck, did you keep any kind of diary or written record of events that you were involved in? A: I don't know. Q: Dr. Finck, you have no idea at all whether you kept something like a diary in ? A: I don't remember. He does not remember if he kept a diary?

Doyle said that Stanton was wearing a wig that day? Why?

Because he had an argument with Marina and wanted to straighten it out with her. That is in the WCR.

Yes it does Ron. It was a vacuum operation. FInck did not admit that anywhere that I know of, not even on the stand at the Shaw trial. And he would not have admitted it here except that Gunn had him cornered. These guys did not want to testify at all before the ARRB. They all had to be subpoenaed. Note how non committal he is in all of his replies. In a real murder inquiry, he should have been indicted for perjury.

As everyone understands who reads my book, the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, Pierre Finck did much to blow open the JFK case at the trial of Clay Shaw in 1969 in New Orleans. (pp. 300-303) Under some adroit questioning by Al Oser, he admitted things that the American public was never supposed to know. For instance, that there were dozens of military higher ups in the room, Admirals and Generals, (one of them turned out to be LeMay.) He also said that Humes shouted out, "Who is in charge here?" And a general replied, "I am". When asked why the back wound was not dissected, after eight different restatements of the question, FInck finally said, because Humes was ordered not to. This should have been front page news but we know how the MSM operates on the JFK case. Well, at Paul Seaton's site he extracts some of Finck's last testimony on the subject. (Piere passed on, I think last year.) This was before the ARRB and Jeremy Gunn. Man did Pierre learn his lesson. He just lied his head off this time around. He learned that in the JFK case, you don't tell the truth. It gets you in trouble. Read it and weep. http://www.paulseaton.com/jfk/humes-notes/finck-notes.htm

Have you ever admitted on your site that Humes told the ARRB and Jeremy Gunn that he not only incinerated his notes but his original autopsy report also? Have you ever indicated on you rite that his original BS story about not having the blood of the president on report as a souvenir was a pile of BS since he wrote the report in the confines of his home? If you have not then who is pot and who is kettle?

We don't know who wrote the report we have today. Because as Humes admitted to the ARRB, he not only deep sixed his notes, but also his original report. (McKnight, p. 165) McKnight goes on to add that this likely happened right after the murder of Oswald in Galloway's office. (ibid, p. 163) Its your secret since you do not divulge this information when you make your silly assertions.

DVP: Totally untrue. Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission could have very easily determined the location of the back wound from the autopsy report ("14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process"). And that's no doubt what they did. Even if they did look at the autopsy photo, they wouldn't have relied ONLY on that photo. They would have utilized the best measurement for the back wound---which was in the autopsy report. Does this guy ever get tired of putting his foot in his mouth? Let me quote from Pierre Finck through the auspices of the ARRB, a body which DVP has never quoted from to my knowledge, and for good reason. In relation to the 14 cm BS: "These are not fixed landmarks, and unless the length of the neck and the position of the body on the autopsy table are known, the measurement is forensically useless. The forensically prescribed fixed body landmark used as the point of reference for locating a trauma suspected of being a through and through wound should have been Kennedy's vertebrae. The correct medicolegal procedure would have been to locate the wound by measuring from the top of the head down the midline or the spine of the body. In his ARRB interview FInck conceded to Jeremy Gunn that JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound." (McKnight, Breach of Trust, pp. 178-79, emphasis added) The reason the 14 cm nuttiness was used was to disguise the true location of the back wound. Because by using that terminology, the location, as McKnight notes above, is allowed to drift. (FYI, the mastoid process is part of the ear! Why anyone would use that to locate a back wound is DVP's secret. Because its baloney.)

Oh no. That is really too bad. John Hunt, as Pat notes above, was one of the real work horses as opposed to a show horse in this case. Like Malcolm Blunt, John really did research. And he gave it out to anyone who was interested. He was quite meticulous and he dug up stuff on the medical and ballistics angle that no one else did. He will be missed.

BTW, this also makes it harder to understand how DVP can say that if you lower the inshoot from the neck to the back, that makes the Single Bullet Fantasy more tenable. From the look on Specter's face, i think he disagrees. But there is also this point: this picture also demonstrates the lie that the WC did not have the autopsy photos. They had to have them to get that dotted location.

LOL, ROTF, LMAO That look on Specter's face is priceless. "Hmm, we have a problem here."

False. You did not post it here. What person with any brains would go to your site to see your phony discussions which you rig? Or maybe some of the newbies like Adam do not know that? See, what DVP does is he steals some stuff from this forum. As you can see, about 99 per cent of the time, he gets thumped here. (The other 1 per cent no one pays any attention to him.) So he then picks that stuff up from here and brings it over to his site. There he arranges it in such a way that it looks like he does much better than he actually did. In other words its all a dog and pony show with him as the MC of DVP Follies. One of the reasons he will not show the reverse angle here is because on that angle its actually shown that they placed the back wound too far down for the shot of Specter to be matched up with it. As you can see from just the photo above, Lying Arlen has the rod on top of the guy' shoulder. The top of one's shoulder is at the base of the neck.

This is so silly. But that is Davey. Any fool, or zealot, can handle a pointer. (But note Davey never shows the reverse angle.) But what about the ramifications of that picture? From Jim Gordon on May 27, 2014 to DVP: As I see it you have three major problems. First. The body has no natural path from entrance to exit without the body suffering incredible damage. Second. The bullet enters at a point lower than it exit point. How was this bullet able on a downward trajectory move upwards in the body? Third. If the bullet did take the direct route from entrance to exit, once it had passed T1 there was no means to correct its direction. It will exit going in the wrong direction. His last point is devastating to DVP, Bugliosi and Dale "Mr. Single Bullet Fact" Myers. John Orr's simulation will demonstrate that not only did Myers pull a hoax--as has been proven by Harris, Speer, and Cranor--but it will show why he did so.

I agree Derek. I have been saying this for a long time. From about 1997. At that time Lisa Pease and myself wrote a two part essay in Probe Magazine about JFK and the Congo and the murders of Hammarskjold and Lumumba. Ever since that I have tried to stress how important Congo was in both the history of Africa, as a Third World struggle and what huge stakes were on the table. Three central actors had to be murdered for the imperial powers to win out: Lumumba, Hammarskjold and Kennedy. And that is what happened.

Hopefully, this will give some exposure to the whole Congo crisis and the murder of Lumumba. IMO, the best part of Newman's Countdown to Darkness is his research and analysis on that affair. Ike and Dulles ordered the assassination of Lumumba and then tried to cover it up. https://jfkjmn.com/new-page-1/

The Williams book you linked to actually had a strong role in igniting all of this. But who would have thought that it would have gotten to this point, with documentary films coming up at Sundance. Kennedy called Hammarskjold the greatest statesman of the 20th century. And he was. To put it all on the line for Congo?

If you click through to an earlier story you well see something that I had no idea about. Kennedy's ambassador to Congo, the visionary Edmund Gullion, suspected that Hammarskjold was shot down the night it happened! And he suspected it was this guy. We had to wait fifty years to learn that. Its enough to give me a headache. This makes my cover article for the first issue of Deep Truth Journal look pretty prophetic. It was titled, "JFK and the Congo Crisis".

FC: The guy they talked to was not Oswald. Oswald was not short and blonde OK. And why do you keep on bringing David Mantik to this? What has Mantik ever written about Mexico City? Josephs' article is profusely footnoted with primary documents. If you do not want to read it, fine. But do not comment on it unless you have. Denny: That is a good question. I am beginning to lean toward the idea that the short, blonde guy was the person masquerading as LHO, but afterwards the CIA set up some phony evidence (transcripts) , and then Ochoa and Echeverria put together the false trail on the buses.

This is neat. The late Bob Parry's site, Consortium News, ran a year end poll of the best articles they published for 2018. My negative review of Chris Matthews biography finished in the Top Ten. After you read it, I think you understand why they killed RFK. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/06/04/distorting-the-life-of-bobby-kennedy/