Lawrence Schnapf

the Urban Dictionary traces this term back to the 1970s: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Larping

Merriam Dictionary traces the first known use of "Larping" to 1990 so not sure that was a phrase used in 1963. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/LARPing

@Joseph McBride - do you think Wade may have been conflating Oswald meeting with the FBI with the incident when he left the note for Hosty? I would not be surprised if LHO heard there was going to be a "demonstration" during the motorcade by exiles to protest Cuban policy and that he could have been involved with the "protest" but then it turned out to be an assassination to his surprise.- FWIW

@Jean Paul Ceulemans Ben Cole is correct about the very strong isolationist movement in the US. There was a very interesting CSPAN boardcast last December about the run up to Pearl Harbor and there was consensus that had the Japanese attacked our fleet at Philippines instead of Pearl Harbor, it would have been very hard for FDR to get a declaration of war out of Congress. Indeed, had Hitler not declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor, the historians said it would have been equally as hard to divert focus away from the Japanese after Pearl Harbor. You cannot underestimate the strength of the isolationist movement in the US in 1941.

not the last time I communicated with him about three months ago in connection with the letter to the House Oversight Committee requesting an oversight hearing on the JFK Records Act.

He allegedly confessed in jail to his cellmate, FBI informant Jack Van Laningham while they were imprisoned in the mid-1980s in Texas. This was an FBI sting operation and the conversations were taped using a recording device in a radio. The tapes have been sealed. we are trying to get them unsealed to evaluate the veracity of these statements.

Can u send me a note explaining the technical and financial challenges for this forum. Larry@schnapflaw.com.

this stupid theory needs to be buried. the publisher settled a defamation suit. And this was after the plaintiff blew the statute of limitations. If a publisher really believed it had discovered the truth of the crime of the century there is no way it would have settled. this case could have been dismissed with minimal legal fees so dont bring that up as well.

John Davis developed some compelling evidence that Marcello was behind the assassination with has been supplemented by Lamar Waldron.

you should read up on the latest science on ballistics. Since the 2009 National Academy Sciences study, the accuracy of toolmarks evidence has been called into question. Indeed, recent black box studies have shown that toolmark examiners accuracy is no better than flipping a coin. the so-called science behind toolmarks is now viewed as "junk science". The kind of testimony used to link the shells to the revolver would no longer be admissible in court. Examiners are now required to state the likelihood that there is a match and the error rate. There were also ballistics problems with the shells. Tippit bullets, the FBI, and the panel test-fired bullets all showed variations in their individual identifying characteristics because the revolver had been altered; changes included the shortening of the barrel and the modification of the chamber to accommodate .38 special caliber cartridge. The variations were due from firing under-sized bullets in a barrel. So we had three different expert examinations of the firearms evidence that led to three different, but contradictory, conclusions. The foregoing does not mean that LHO did not shoot Tippit. it just means that one needs other evidence than ballistics.

BTW- Ruth Paine was either "misremembering" or dissembling when she denied that she had spoken to Oliver Stone in Max Goode's movie. In 2013, I asked Oliver at the Wecht 50th anniversary program why he had changed the names of the Paines to Williams but did not change the names of any other important characters. He said it was because the Paines threatened to sue him and his production company. Too bad Max did not know this when he interviewed her. She made it sound like Oliver was either afraid to contact her or ignored her because she would contradict his thesis. Even if it was the Paines' lawyer who contacted Stone, her statement was inaccurate. And she did that laugh when she said that which is her "tell" when she is being evasive. I wish Max had also grilled her on the phone message from the employment office. She was evasive with Liebler who was not interested in getting a straight answer.

steve occasionally comes up with some good stuff. he seemed to be right about the rifle strap. However, he applies different evidentiary standards to evidence. he too easily ignores problems with evidence that supports the lone gunman theory but then using exceedingly exacting standards for dismissing evidence of a conspiracy. In other words, his analysis tends to be distorted by bias.

Tracy, Any motorcade through Dallas was going to go down Main Street. that was the traditional motorcade route in dallas. The motorcade would go through through Dealey Plaza. Jerry Bruno wanted the luncheon to be at the Women’s Building. If that had been the location, the motorcade would have continued down Main Street through Dealey Plaza. It was only when Connolly prevailed on the Trade Mart being the luncheon location that the route was altered. The Trade Mart was best accessed from the freeway. Since the freeway entrance was on Elm, it was the change of the luncheon location that caused a change in the motorcade route. So, the coffee klatch timing is really irrelevant. JFK could have been hit anywhere in Dealey Plaza-albeit the motorcade might be moving slightly more slowly on Elm rather than Main Street. The most important factor was to have LHO in the TSBD to serve as a patsy. He could not serve that role if he had accepted a high paying job elsewhere. I'd appreciate it if you might not dismissively refer to all of us as CTs. That term captures a full range of people many of whom I would never associate with. There are many serious researchers who geniunely question the evidence supporting the lone gunman theory and- who like me- are not prone to otherwise endorse most conspiracy theories. We can have thoughtful conversations if we treat each other with respect.

Greg, I finally watched the documentary. I will tell you that there is at least one prevarication i am aware of. She asked Max Goode why Oliver Stone never referred to Michael or her in JFK (he used the "williams" for the paines). she claims Stone never contacted her. I had Stone in 1963 at the 50th anniversary conference held by the Wecht Institute why he used real names for all of the participants except for the Paines. He told me the reason was that the Paines threatened to sue him and the production company if they used their names. Clearly there was communication between the Paines and the movie production team. To say that she was never contacted or spoke to Stone (directly or indirectly) would not seem to be accurate. I also think she has some "tells" when she is not being frank with interviewers. I'll be interested if others. Just to be clear, I agree with Bill Simpich that the Paines' were not witting accomplices in any conspiracy. But given her patriotism (which was evident in the documentary), I would not be surprised that if she was asked to befriend Marina by a government contact, she would have done so without question. -IMHO

Hey Greg, Curious on your take of the infamous phone call between the Paines on the day of the assassination. At 1:00 pm on November 22. 1963, Michael Paine placed a collect call to his wife to discuss Oswald's involvement in the assassination. While the telephone operator remained on the line, Michael Paine told his wife that he “Felt sure Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President but was not responsible.” He added, “We both know who is responsible.” (FBI report of Robert C. Lish, November 26, 1963, JFK Document No. 105-82555-1437) This call took place one hour before Oswald's arrest. Note that when Paine was interviewed by Wesley Liebeler, the attorney changed the date of the call to the following day even though he had phone records and the FBI report indicating when the call occurred: LIEBELER: Did you talk to your wife on the telephone at any time during Saturday, November 23? PAINE: I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there. LIEBELER: Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible? PAINE: And I don't know who the assassin is or was; no. So I did not. (2H428) Just another curious loose end with the Paines and Liebeler. Finally, i wonder what you think of the following: Buried in volume 19 of the Warren Commission hearings and exhibits is report written by Dallas Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers on the day of the assassination stating that upon searching the Paine's garage, officers found “a set of metal file cabinets that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban Sympathizers.” (19H520). Of course, these metal file cabinets did not make it onto the Dallas Police inventory sheets and were never entered into evidence along with Lee Harvey Oswald's belongings. If they did not belong to Oswald, then they must have belonged to the Paines. Do you know why Ruth and Michael Paine might have had a “set of metal file cabinets” containing “the names and activities of Cuban sympathizers”?

Tracy-i agree with you that like with so many of the interviews conducted by the WC in this case, the testimony is less that clear so people can read into the historical record what they are inclined to believe. These were smart lawyers who knew what they were doing. They were engaging in damage control with each of the interviews. Without the benefit of opposing counsel, the record was not clarified. so the best we can really say is that Adams called Paine residence to leave a message about a job opportunity and for some reason, LHO was never told about it. Jeff Meek did interview her in 2020 and asked her if she had informed Lee of this job offer Her response was " “I don’t recall an offer like that being made. I have heard this rumor, but it’s certainly unknown to me.” Does this mean she denies a message saying he had a job opportunity or that she was unaware of the terms of the opportunity? this is another example of inexact questioning and inadequate follow-up. "https://www.swtimes.com/story/lifestyle/around-town/2020/07/29/paine-answers-allegations-of-cia-connections-in-jfk-assassination-part-2/42605369/

You are making an assumption that Mr. Adams did not tell Ruth that he was calling about a job. you say it was none of her business. but if that was the number that Lee gave, then he certainly would have left a message as to why he was calling even if he did not disclose the name of the potential employer. he wanted Lee to call back so he would have left a message as to why. You are succumbing to the Steve Roe cognitive bias problem. You are so determined to exonerate Ruth Paine that you are stretching to find innocent explanations and using different standard of proof to excuse her from responsibility. Yes- she may have been confused in her testimony or she could have been prevaricating. If she was confused, it could also mean she did not pass on the phone message from Lee. Her confusion is not proof of anything. And the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. and didnt Ruth indeed call the boarding house where Lee was staying and then supposedly called the FBI to tell them that Lee was using an assumed name?

I think it is fair to say that the 3D scans have revealed detail that was not previously obvious. But the bigger issue is what i posted earlier. This does not explain the timeline problem and Steve uses different standard of scrutiny when evaluating evidence depending on if it supports the official conclusion or questions it. This cognitive bias undermines his otherwise hard work.

Steve Roe occasionally comes up with good fines and I acknowledge them when he does. this article is a mixed bag. It does put to bed the issue of Todd's initials but is flawed when it comes to the timeline. Congratulations to Steve for this find. But then Steve presumes an explanation without any evidence or corroborating testimony as to why Frazier said he received the bullet 80 minutes later. How does he know Frazier used the time on the letter to determine when he received the specimen? This appears to be nothing more than an assumption by Steve. If I'm wrong, perhaps he can provide the evidence of Frazier's thinking. Unfortunately, this is yet another example of how Steve uses different levels of scrutiny when assessing evidence supporting the official theory as opposed to evidence supporting a conspiracy. He is eager to dismiss any inconsistencies with the official record as a harmless error but employs an exacting level of scrutiny for evidence supporting a conspiracy. This suggests a bias in his analysis and not a true pursuit of the truth. Steve spends alot of time and effort on disproving Oliver Stone's thesis . His work would be more significant if he could just view evidence through a lens that is not colored towards a particular view, or at least adopt a consistent approach towards the evidence.

First, there is nothing suspicious about the NIST doing the scans of the cartridges. It is part of an effort to make the evidence more accessible. Cliff Spiegelman knew the people who ran this project and vouched for them. I have not yet read Steve's piece but prior experience has been that Roe and his other WC supporters tend use a different evidentiary standard when evaluating evidence of a conspiracy vs evidence that supports the official conclusion. Despite this, Roe does occasionally come up with a good find. I'll have to read the article before further opining. Of course, the initials are just one part of the chain of custody problem.

not to mention the effect of the supersonic wave that cause damage without a bullet actually impacting a bone.

Gil- we address the issue of the HSCA experts not being able to match test fires from the rifle with the prior FBI tests. I asked our expert witness Cliff Spiegelman if repeated firings could account for the difference. He said no and provided examples of machine guns being fired over thousand times without changes in toolmarks. LIkewise, corrosion could not account the for the changes. Of course, we have learned from the Innocence Project and the 2009 NAS study that toolmarks science is nothing more than junk science. It is no longer appropriate for a foresenic expert to testify that a particular bullet can be matched to a particular rifle to the execlusion of all other weapons. Now they have to testify on the likelihood of match along with an error rate. The Journal of Toolmark Examiners have tried to resurrect their careers by publishing poorly designed tests. A recent analysis by the Center for Statistics and Applications in Forensic Evidence recently determined that toolmark testimony is no more accurate than flipping coins.

why should it be surprising that civilians might not recognize a gunshot from a firecracker.

you should discuss with Dr. Robertson

Greg- what is your basis for believing Lee removed the scope? Moreover, would someone have the gunshop both remove and add a scope? Isnt this nothing but speculation to fit your theory? The imposter theory is far more believable....