Lawrence Schnapf

there are alot of other problems with the evidence involving the Walker shooting beyond the bullet that would have created more than reasonable doubt about LHO's role. working on an analysis that will share soon.

and the fact that they settled AFTER the SOL was blown is further proof that the publisher did not believe in the truth of his book. This book was published to take advantage of the renewed interest in the assassination. it was a blatant exploitation at the expense of an honorable secret service agent. I know the attorney who represented the Hickey family, the claim that the publisher settled out of convenience is baloney.

I will repeat again until you Hickey-did it advocates get it right. The publisher settled the defamation suit. when defending a defamation suit, the publisher does not have to prove the accuracy of its book but simply that it was not published with malice. a fairly easy standard. No publisher would settle if it claimed to have discovered the truth to the crime of the century much less to remove the book from circulation. Donaghue's mistake was to stop with Hickey/ take his trajectory back and it leads to the Dal-Tex building floor where many believe a second rear gunman was located. Using modern 3D animation technology shows this was a very viable- if not the best- angle for a gunman. anyone who advocates the Hickey theory should be ashamed of themselves.

A close examination of the Walker shooting evidence does not support linking oswald to that shooting. The evidence was manufactured at the last minute. LHO was a spy-wanna be and so he was prone to manipulation. I believe he was used in New Orleans to flush out the Castro spys embedded in the exile community. There is reasonable doubt that LHO was involved in the assassination. 6 out of 7 mock trials since 1967 held by law schools and bar associations have resulted in acquittal or hung jury. He may have heard rumors about an attempt in his associations with the exile community in Dallas that fall. He was likely told to stay near the groundfloor phone during lunch break so the evidence could be planted and then when learned the president was shot, suspected he might be in trouble and went to meet his contact at the theatre. He was probably supposed to be shot at the TSBD which would have cut short any investigation. when he escaped, ruby became necessary. The exiles are likely the ones who killed JFK. His backchannel wit Castro through Attwood and Jean Daniel was likely strike 3 (the first two being BOP and Missile Crisis). One of the teams trained to kill Castro with scoped rifles were likely used to kill JFK. CIA had to coverup to prevent exposure of our assassination attempts on castro and mafia relationship.

As you probably know, I organized a group of lawyers earlier this year to pressure for full release of the records and that I just sued the Archives in response to the Biden memo (also will be filing lawsuit against the CIA and Biden later this month). that being said, there may be SOME records that could reveal sensitive operations that the CIA had with the Mexican government or with individuals who were promised confidentiality. Hence, there may be legitimate reasons to withhold some of the records. However, the law requires that the agencies identify the particular harm and explain why this outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Neither Trump nor Biden did this. they simply issued blanket postponements. Hence my lawsuit. Even if all the records were released, I do not believe there will be any smoking guns. Harvey and Fitzgerald made it clear to their subordinates working on the Castro assassination plots to put as little in writing as possible. this was presumably a practice elsewhere in the agency as well. the best we can expect to glean from a full release is greater understandings of the associations LHO may have had, what the CIA was doing in New Orleans, materials on Cuba and the exiles, and of course more info about Mexico City,

There is one good thing in the Biden memo- the commitment to digitalize the JFK Collection. According to our backchannel discussions, NARA thinks this is a big win. That being said, the Biden Memo along with the prior two Trump memos did not comply with the JFK Act. It is clear that the Executive Branch is incapable of complying with the JFK Act. We will not take this sitting down. Mark Zaid is filing a lawsuit on my behalf on Monday. It is clear that Congress needs to act and re-constitute an ARRB to finish compliance with the JFK Act. The House Oversight Committee and the Senate Homeland Committee have continuing jurisdiction over the JFK Act. I urge all readers to contact the chairs of these committees and demand they hold oversight hearings. Flood their emails and leave emails with their offices. I intend to prove Earl Warren wrong and have these records released during my lifetime...

@jonpickering- unlike 2017 or 2018, we have a team of lawyers prepared to file a lawsuit if Biden does not comply with the law. If he withholds any records, he has to identify the specific national security concern and explain how it outweighs the public interest. if he fails to do this, we will file a lawsuit.

Here is the link to the press advisory on the UVA website. -- https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/wednesday-the-hidden-jfk-files-what-secrets-remain-and-did-biden-comply-with-the-law/

we've had lots of communications with Congress over the past six months so pleased that Rep Eshoo sent this to the President. we're still working on leadership to make a public stand... though they are a bit distracted right now with the reconciliation bill.

and check out this press advisory for the upcoming news conference i organized with UVA: -- https://centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/wednesday-the-hidden-jfk-files-what-secrets-remain-and-did-biden-comply-with-the-law/

Pursuant to President Trump's April 26, 2018 order that postponed release of JFK assassination records required by the JFK Assassination Records Act, President Biden is supposed to issue a decision on October 26th whether to release the postponed records. I organized a group of lawyers earlier this year to press the President to fully comply with the law. As part of this effort, I have arranged with the University of Virginia's Center for Politics to hold a press conference on October 27th that will discuss President Biden's action on the JFK Records. Here is the livestream link for the press conference next week. https://livestream.com/tavco/thesecretjfkfiles

A good contribution to the body of work how Oswald was unconvictable which why he had to be killed. This also demonstrates why 6 of 7 mock trials held by law schools and bar associations since 1967 with different sets of lawyers and mock juries have resulted in either hung jury or acquittals. I discussed these mock trials in a piece on Kennedy & Kings.

Two updates: I also sent the letter to Biden to the House Oversight Committee asking to have them request the Archivist to testify about how the agencies are requesting further postponements The Public Interest Declassification Board will be sending a letter to the President asking that he release the balance of the records.

he has been asked about the temple wound. Jones said that Dr. Porto told him that he (Dr. Porto) had seen a temple wound and put a finger in it. But Jones said he did not see the wound. Jones also said that after his deposition, Spector told him that they had witnesses who said they thought there was a gunman on the grassy knoll but that the WC did not believe them. Spector then asked Jones not to mention it.

you can see something slithering across the trunk of the car. moreover, look closely at her left hand (white glove). it is pressing on JFK's head where the explosive wound was observed as if she is trying to keep his head together.

He was a classic curmudgeon but his persistence helped change the Freedom of Information Act.

I did an electronic search for Mexico. nothing about April 1963.

Thanks for posting Jim! The 9/11 statement seemed to mirror some of the language from our letter. Perhaps they actually read it. Everyone who follows the Education Forum should call the White House. Unlike voting, you can call often. Share this letter on other JFK forums. Ask your friends to call. Let the President know this is important to you. This is how we got the JFK Act enacted back in 1991. Congress and the President were deluged with thousands of calls. Let's do it again!! What better way for him to get Afghanistan off the front pages of the news than by releasing the rest of the JFK Records.

who is the reporter for the Vox piece?

it is all about enforcement...

no need to do this. he has agreed to sign the letter that a group of lawyers I have organized is submitting to the President.

well, this is an "educational forum". One could argue any discussion of copyrighted material falls under the "fair use" doctrine. as far as i know, no one is profiting by the use of copyrighted materials. While I dont practice copyright or intellectual law, my recollection is that the education exemption requires: The purpose of the use is non-commercial2) Where practical, there should be sufficient acknowledgement of authorship of the work3) The use of the material is fair

Gil- what is different from your prior piece? wasnt it much longer than this one?

An interesting factoid in the Firearms Panel report is that the toolmarks on test firings performed in 1977 did not match the toolmarks on the 1964 hulls. The explanation was: "The panel was unable to identify its test-fired bullets with the CE 399 bullet. The panel attributed this to changes in the bore caused by repeated of the rifle by the FBI and the Infantry Weapons Evaluation Branch of the U.S. Army, as well as to deterioration of the surfaces because the rife had bot been properly cleaned, lubricated and maintained. For the same reasons, the panel's test-fired bullets also could not be identified with those of the FBI. [Vol. VII, page 369] . The rifle was fired approximately 100 times by the FBI and others in 1964. Cliff Spiegelman testified at the 2017 Mock Trial that such few firings would not result in changing the characteristics of the bore. He testified that machine guns that fired thousands of bullets did not exhibit any significant changes. Note that a sulphur cast of the rifle was taken by Frazier. The picture of the case shows the rifle was dirty. [see WC CE 540]

As I mentioned in my comment to Part III, the postal mark on the envelope and the absence of endorsements by federal Reserve member banks are not dispositive. It is possible that the postal mark does not represent where the envelope was mailed but actually may represent the postal machine that was used to process the envelope. 1. At a trial, the Government would have introduced the image of the envelope and postal order as evidence that LHO ordered the rifle. Defense would first object to the evidence as being unreliable because it cant be authenticated (we don’t have originals) as well as chain of custody issues. Presumably, your info would be used to show either that the evidence is inadmissible as unreliable would seek an instruction from the judge to the jury that the questions raised go to the weight they should give to the evidence of purchase. As part of this attack on the credibility of the evidence is Armstrong’s theory that because the postal mark represented the place where the envelope was deposited, Oswald could not have possibly been the one who mailed it. I have been told my some postmark collectors and historians that the number ‘12’ which appears on the franking/cancellation mark does not indicate where the envelope was deposited but simply that the letter was franked through the number 12 machine at the processing plant, which was, in 1963, within the terminal annex building where Oswald actually bought the money order. The government would use this to rebut the defense argument. There are some collectors who have said the mark could be a postal zone because the "12" is facing the same direction as the letters in "Dallas, Tex." (as if the "12" could be a continuation of the "Dallas, Tex." location). Other Dallas postmarks that have a number/letter combination stamped on them (like "3B" and "2B"), those markings are facing the other way, opposite the way that "Dallas, Tex." is engraved on the postmark. There was a FB post several years ago that said that Jimmy Orr (a supervisor for the United States Postal Service) said Main Post Office in Dallas would have typically had a large workroom area with multiple cancellation machines in 1963. He said the number 12 designates either a "Model G Flyer" machine mechanized flyer" or perhaps even the more advanced mechanical canceller called the "Mark II". He said it is also quite probable that they had as many as twelve mechanized Mark II cancellation machines. The dies would be nearly identical and would merely indicate the machine number at the Main Office. He went on to say that in 1963, it was probable that Dallas was shipping everything to the Sectional Center Facility (SCF). It would not have been practical to run a cancellation unit in every corner of the city. He concluded that one cannot tell if the envelope was dropped into a mail slot downtown or in Oak Cliff. Thus, it is possible that Oswald dropped the letter into a mail slot right there at the Main Post Office in Dallas on 3/12/63 (where he bought the money order right) and that the post office stamped the letter SOMEWHERE ELSE, in some OTHER postal zone (#12). He also said that the time of the postmark does NOT indicate what time the letter arrived at the postal facility but simply signifies that it was at least 10:30 am when the envelope went through the cancelling machine. Orr said the time of 10:30 [which is also stamped on Commission Exhibit 773] would indicate the 'clearance' time for delivery. Anything before 10:30 would constitute next day service. I believe that no conclusion can be drawn about the origin of the letter based simply on the postmark. Would be great if someone in the collective here could develop further information on this issue. 2. At a trial, the government would have had Holmes testify to authenticate the order and explain how he found it. Defense would attack its admissibility and Holmes testimony partly because of the lack of endorsement marks on the back. However, there is a question if postal orders would be handled like checks because they are considered cash. Someone would have had to have banking experts testify. If not, the defense would be stuck with the other arguments that you and others have posited. Likely would have been admitted with possibly an instruction to the jury to consider the defense’s arguments