Lawrence Schnapf

Justice for Kennedy Act of 2023 sponsored by an Arizona representative David Schweikert calls for release of all assassination records within 30 days of its enactment AND overrides the Deed of Gift and tax records exemptions. The bill has been referred to the House Oversight, Ways and Means, Judicial and Intelligence Committees. Please write the chairs of those committees and ask them to hold a hearing on HR 637 during Sunshine Week (March 12-18th). https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/637/text

yep- this test by Roger McCarthy using frangible bullet and a gallon jug of water proved that even if she was in the line of fire, a frangible bullet would have exhausted its energy upon impact. this also accounts for the tiny metal fragments at the front of the skull. Small particles do not have the energy to travel far from the impact site.

Failure Analysis served as the expert for both sides of the 1992 ABA Mock trial. Different teams were established. I know the former CEO of the firm who worked for the defense. I also have some CDs from the trial. I know that Failure Analysis did a test showing that a frangible bullet would not have transited the other side of the skull- thus rebutting the claim that a shot from the GK would have hit Jackie. I believe that Posner only used the portions of the Failure Analysis work that was developed for the prosecution.

Tom Gram- can you email info about the Banister materials at Larry@schnapflaw.com? we are currently assembling a list of documents for further searches or that remain classified. please also explain the RIF issue in your email. The current shoddy condition of the collection is another count in our complaint.

Guys, I'm bust fine-tuning our opposition memo so between that and my law practice, I wont have too much time the rest of this week to weigh in but I'll continue to monitor your posts. Thanks for your interest. More importantly- if your Congressional representative or senators sit on either the House Oversight or Intelligence Committees, or the Senate Homeland Security or Intelligence Committees, please contact their offices and urge them to ask their committees to hold oversignt hearings on the JFK act during Sunshine Week (mid-March). The JFK Act fits nicely into the problem of over-classification and could be a timely topic for Sunshine Week.

and now we also know that the Mexican government had a copy of this recording. whether they still have it and if it is still playable is another issue. Lance- would you agree that If someone was impersonating Oswald, that is an explosive factoid? Tunheim told me in December that State Department did not help ARRB with its outreach to the Mexican government. Jim Johnston (former Church Committee staff attorney) is trying to get records from the Mexican government . I will follow-up with him on this issue,

Lance- there were important factoids that were released in December particularly about Mexico City. very useful for historians who can weave together facts and put them in appropriate context. we have learned that the mexican government received dupes of the wire tap recordings. the CIA destroyed its own recordings so we only have the Hoover phone call with LBJ where Hoover says the voice did not match Oswald and that may have been impersonated. BTW- the recording of this LBJ-Hoover call at the LBJ library is missing this part of the discussion (there is just hissing). Fortunately, someone transcribed the complete conversation and it managed to survive. we now know the Mexican government may be able to resolve this issue if it still has the recordings. we also now know the CIA had the JMWAVE station investigate the possibility that Cuban exiles had been involved in the assassination. the CIA previously denied they had done this. The situation reports prepared for this investigation were last seen in 1973 by the author of a 1977 memo to the HSCA. Those reports apparently have been destroyed or are "missing". The CIA released the name of the memo author this past December. Unfortunately, he died two years ago and therefore cannot be interviewed so it has effectively buried this history.

I cant publicly opine on the DOJ motion to dismiss until we file our opposition but i think Lance has decent job explaining the DOJ's position legal argument- as flawed as it is.

Just to assuage those in this thread, the motion to dismiss was what we expected. no real surprises. we had anticipated the government would file a motion to dismiss before filing an answer to our complaint since this is rather routine for these types of cases. we are working on our opposition to the motion to dismiss. cant say much more.

Hi Jim- I'm just saying that i found his responses underwhelming. After listening to his presentation on Jeff Morley's podcast, i had alot of questions for him. Of course, i was pressing him on specific issues and perhaps he felt uncomfortable because he did not know me. I was trying to learn from him if he suspected Oswald had been formally trained in Russian (i.e., by the US Government) considering he learned to speak a very difficult language in such a short time and especially given his Dyslexia. I was particularly disappointed when Ernst declined to address the Mexico City issue. He seemed incapable of acknowledging the possibility that his friend was impersonated or that he could be unwillingly manipulated as this would undermine his own account of oswald. I just reporting my reaction to our exchange. It caused me to doubt parts of his story. and I agree with you about Gregory. He is just trying to sell a book. It should be placed in the fiction section.

I believe the account was from All American Mafioso but I read it awhile ago so could be another source. My recollection is that Armas got into trouble because he authorized some raids on a casino owned by military and mob types. The assassin was supposedly found dead by suicide and said to be a communist. My recollection is that this account was dismissed by locals . This was supposedly a model to use for Oswald. Roselli was reportedly the one who arranged for the hit.

Lance- and here is Italian journalist Stefano Vaccara YouTube presentation about his book: "Carlos Marcello: The Man Behind the JFK Assassination"

Lance- here is 2013 piece discussing what Waldron came up with about the alleged Marcello confession as part of the CAMTEX sting operation. we are trying to get these recordings unsealed so we can hear his words instead of relying on disinterested DOJ attorneys who are too busy to pursue yet another investigation. https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/11/17/The-Issue-The-Kennedy-assassination-did-the-mob-do-it/41021384680600/ We are also considering filing a petition with the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility seeking sanctions for the attorneys who failed to follow-up on these potentially exculpatory leads since this could have been violation of their "Brady" obligations.

Lance- interesting 1993 piece by former DOJ attorney who worked for RFK's organized crime unit. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1993/03/14/what-the-mob-knew-about-jfks-murder/9803e911-f52f-4944-88f1-c26863e35867/

Greg- Marcello was behind the assassination of Guatamalen president Armas around 1956. He also was behind the murder of the incoming Mississippi attorney general Patterson.

Ben- I followed-up with Ernst Titovets with specific questions about Oswald, particularly on his Russian language abilities and if he had any formal training. I also asked him to account how the CIA translator in Mexico City would have said that the person saying he was Oswald spoke terrible Russian. I did not get back satisfactory answers on the language question and he declined to comment about Mexico City. I was hopeful that Ernst might have a genuine new insights into Oswald. As a lawyer, I often have to evaluate the truthfulness of witness accounts. My brief encounter with Ernst was disappointing and I now doubt the veracity of much of what he has written. And nothing he has said contradicts that the theory that someone could have been manipulating the spy wanabe Lee Oswald into appearing to be a pro-Castro sympathizer as opposed to being an actual Castro supporter.

First- the Marcello tapes have been sealed. Instead of relying on DOJ employees assertions of what Marcello did or did not say, we have asked in our lawsuit to have NARA ask DOJ to arrange to have the tapes unsealed so we can hear what he actually said and how he said it which can be as important. With respect to your comment, obviously the mob did not have to get oswald into USSR or otherwise control his movements. Marcello and Costello had Hoover by the short-hairs since he used he was given tips on fixed horse races that he bet on. Hoover actually called off the New Orleans FBI office when it started sniffing around Marcello's associated in December 1963. Blakely was wrong when he told Tony that the mob did not go after politicians. Marcello assassinated the president of a latin american country and used a patsy who I believe was killed in the palace. He also had the incoming attorney general of Mississippi -both in the 1950s. Earlier, a Chicago mayor was killed by the mob. And The mob also didnt have to worry about any documents. Marcello and others did not put things in writing. Have you read John Davis' books "Mafia Kingfish" and the "Kennedy Contract"? They are probably the best books on this topic.

Lance, You have not seen the other mock trials and dont know how they were conducted or held so you. I studied them in preparation for the 2017 mock trial. Each mock trial had teams of lawyers who vigorously engaged. After all, no trial lawyers who represented the prosecution did not want to be embarrassed by not obtaining a conviction of the person the Warren Commission claims to have acted alone. The Bugliosi-Spence trial was more a television spectacle than a trial. The jurors were flown in from Dallas but were not screened for their views on the assassination and there was no voir dire. It was the only mock trial that resulted in conviction which was largely because Spence was playing to the TV audience by doing his old country lawyer routine. He was not prepared for the event and did not understand the evidence. As a lawyer, it was very frustrating to watch him not ask the right questions and not introduce relevant evidence. Vince definitely out-lawyered him. There was a two-day mock trial in San Francisco conducted by the American Bar Association in 1992 before two federal district judges with real jurors. Unlike the other mock trials, the jurors were screened about their views of the assassination. most of the potential jurors indicated there questionnaires that they were neutral or believed Oswald acted alone. Also unlike other mock trials, the attorneys were allowed to use voir dire to exclude up to five jurors. This trial also used expert testimony that went beyond the clown show of the Bugliosi-Spence show trial. After several ballots, the jury was unable to reach a verdict. The five jurors that were removed during voir dire constituted a surrogate or shadow jury. They sat through the trial and saw the same evidence as the jury. This group of dismissed jurors voted 3 to 2 for acquittal. Earlier that year, the jury in a mock trial by the Arts & Entertainment network, found Oswald innocent Three one-day mock trials were held in Texas in 2013. One was by the State Bar of Texas, one by the Dallas Bar Association and one by the Bench Bar Conference for the Eastern District of Texas. Because of time constraints, the defense counsel were limited to cross-examining prosecution witnesses and were not able to put on their own witnesses or experts. Nevertheless, all three of these mock trials resulted in hung juries. Interestingly, three-fourths of the 150 who watched the Dallas trial in Old Criminal Courts Building indicated by a show of hands that they did not believe the gunman acted alone. Our two- day 2017 mock trial involved a real Texas state judge, real jurors selected by a jury consultant and we used expert witnesses. we did not use voir dire but had the jury consultant select neutral jurors. The jurors deliberated for 2 hours and were unable to reach a verdict. Vince's book that was a prosecution "brief". He made numerous fatal errors in his book. One example was relying on NAA which had been discredited by the time Vince wrote the book. If you want to know why Vince believed to his dying day that Oswald was the lone assassin, take a look at pages 986-88. Vince was a patriot who felt he was defending America's honor. He wrote on those pages that it the conspiracy theorists were right, it would mean that our country was different that the Europeans and that our institutions were no better that those of a third world country. His belief was well-intentioned but his bias colored his analysis.

Lance, Actually, the admissibility issue would be the initial burden of the government in its case-in-chief and defense would have had a good chance at either having some of the government's evidence excluded or allow the evidence but then give the jury an instruction that the challenges or questions to the evidence be considered when deciding how much weight to give particular evidence. Before the 2017 mock trial, Bill Simpich and I had prepared lots of motions to object to admissibility of evidence. However, because of the time constraints, the mock trial team ultimately decided to allow all of the government's evidence to be introduced with instructions to the jury. The autopsy photos could be relevant as to the question if there were any frontal shots, particularly for the fatal head shot. The chain of custody on CE399 is a mess and of the the sixth floor evidence would also be exposed to admissibility issues for many reasons that I don't have time to discuss here. The testimony of the FBI experts on the ballistics evidence (e.g. toolmarks, shirt and paperbag fibers was very problematic. And then there is the shaky testimony of the key witnesses (e.g., Brennan, Markham, etc) who would have crumbled under cross-examination. This is why 6 of 7 mock trials conducted by law schools and bar associations since 1967 have resulted in acquittals or hung juries. Oswald was unconvictable which was why he had to be murdered.

Lance- do you realize that "plausible" is a very low standard of proof. It is lower than possible or probable. Of course, the government's failure to timely conduct a proper investigation and the inability of private researchers to compel testimony makes your challenge a bit unfair. That being said, Carlos Marcello confessed to planning the assassination during the CAMTEX sting operation. his confession was recorded by his cellmate who was an FBI informant. Likewise, Trafficante told his attorney Ragano shortly before he died that Carlos had made a mistake and should have gone after RFK instead of "geovanni". then there are the statements reported by Aleman, Becker and Partin to the FBI about threats made to JFK. John Davis also developed other evidence as well. These accounts more than satisfy your "plausible" standard and likely approach the probable standard as well. And we also know that Marcello had a history of assassinating public figures, using a patsy and getting away with the murder. He had the means and motive to kill the president and the mafia knew Hoover would not pursue them since they had him by the shorthairs with his horse racing problem (Costello was giving him tips on fixed races). and you also require posters to accept the caricature that was painted of Lee Oswald. Lee Oswald's hiring at the TSBD made a Dallas assassination possible. Motorcades historically went down Main Street. Once they learned LHO was hired to work on a building along the parade route, Dallas became the preferred location. And there was indeed reasonable doubt as demonstrated by the 7 mock trials conducted since 1967 by law schools and bar associations. Six of the 7 mock trials have resulted in acquittals or hung juries (full disclosure- Bill Simpich and I served as defense counsel in the last mock trial in 2017 at the South Texas College of Law that resulted in a hung jury). And these mock trials allowed all the evidence to be admitted. There are severe issues with much of the evidence used to link Oswald to the assassination. Some of it might have been excluded and other key evidence would have had an instruction for the jury to consider the challenges to the veracity of the evidence when determining how much weight to give it.

For those interested, the debate on the resolution for creation of the subcommittee is now live on CSPAN

@Roger Odisio What Joe Backes doesnt understand is that certain documents held by the RFK Trust were not identified as assassination records because of a deal the ARRB cut some deals including with the RFK family Trust in the waning days of the ARRB. Instead of identifying certain documents as assassination records, the ARRB obtained a commitment from the Trust to have certain documents turned over to NARA. I believe this set of documents may have been released in 2012. There were other documents that ARRB was still in negotiations with the Trust about when it went out of business. those remain outside of the JFK Collection. Joe Backes assessment about what records can be obtained, the need to get the government to sue for them and other "pipe dreams" just reflects his ignorance or lack of sophistication about the legal process and negotiating. Of course, he has not been negotiating business transactions or working on FOIA matters for nearly 40 years like I have so he does not understand the art of making the impossible happen. There are a number of ways we can get around the deed of gift issue and other materials but since we have ongoing lawsuit with POTUS and NARA, I am not liberty to share certain things. Joe really should limit his comments to what he does best which is to search and index assassination records. To borrow the line from J Gordy Liddy, when it comes to legal issues and strategy, Joe is unarmed and is simply engaging in mental masturbation. I suspect most here dont want to join him in that endeavor. And to confirm to others, Bill and I are aware of Roger's emails with NARA and are grateful that he shariedthem with us. If anyone else has had communications with NARA recently about the JFK Collection that you think may be pertinent, please share them with me at Larry@schnapflaw.com so we can assess their usefulness. You dont have to be part of the legal team to help this effort.

@Matt Allison I understand your concerns about the 2020 election but to answer your question, you are going to have to find some way to compartmentalize your concerns about the JFK assassination from the 2020 election. If you cant, please dont work out your angst here. I'm really getting tired of responding to your sour posts . It is beginning to resemble mental masturbation. The committee members have not been selected. I am currently planting seeds with influential people on the GOP side and then hopefully watering them. If we can get a Hart/Schweiker style investigation out of this subcommittee, I wont care what the rest of the committee does. The JFK assassination is more important to me. Besides, we just had a January 6th committee report that DOJ still needs to digest. For everybody else, I am going to continue my efforts on trying to get a Hart/Schweiker investigation. I'm hoping to be able to get another TV appearance to promote this idea. stay tuned.

@Matt Allison Open your mind. Yes- the committee is not currently contemplating investigating the JFK Act. We are going to try to use this opportunity to try to get the committee to commit resources to doing a Hart/Schweiker project. If they agree to do that, then i dont care what the rest of the committee does.

he said his treatment wont impact his duties but I'll be checking with the staff periodically.