Lawrence Schnapf

@Greg Doudna @Tom Gram Do we know if the handwriting analysis was done via a blind test where the handwriting analyst did not know which note was allegedly written by Oswald? They would be asked to compare several anonymous notes and identify which ones are written by the same person. I dont know the answer as I have focused on the questions about the provenance of the note and not how the handwriting analysis was conducted. There are legions of examples and numerous peer-published articles about either conscious or subconcious bias of examiners. The innocent explanation is the sub-conscious desire to help law enforcement prove the case against the suspect. The more egregious case is where crime labs are paid based on the convictions which clearly sets up a conflct of interest, @Greg Doudna i dont have time right now to answer the other good questions you have asked and will do so later. there have been reports of sexual relations between Marina and some of the agents. I have never focused on this so I dont remember the sources of these accounts. maybe others remember. and just to be clear since my writing style is very direct, i truly appreciate your persistence in questioning the statements and conclusions that I have made along with those of @Benjamin Cole and @Tom Gram. it helps to strengthen our research/analysis and helps me separate the wheat from the chaff. For the same reasons,I value the input from @Steve Roe.

@Greg Doudna do you really expect the agents holding her in custody and conducting 46 interviews without the benefit the benefit of counsel are going to document how they intimidated her? have you ever been involved in an adversial FBI or police investigation? are you aware of the tactics that were used in the 1960s and sadly continue in some cases today? The agents were under orders by Sullivan “bear down on her”.

@Joe Bauer I hope you did not take my comment as disparaging K&K. it is a fabulous source of information. I was trying to say that alot of people do not read the website so we need other platforms to reach them.

@Joseph Backesas the saying goes, even a paranoid person can have a person following them. @James DiEugenio sharing her article is not an endorsement of her views. This woman might be a wack job (i dont know anything about her) but on this particular issue, she has served a good purpose by sharing news about a good book (based on what @Bill Simpich has said). If Ms. Robinson's crazy views have an audience of people who would not ordinarily be exposed to a good JFK assassination book, then I think that is a good thing- IMHO

i suppose to the extent people on the right who would normally be inclined to believe the official conclusion, her piece is useful to expose those readers to the idea that Oswald was not the lone nut. Not everyone reads Kennedys and Kings-as shocking as that might be

@Mark Ulrik yes- she did not say her husband took a shot at walker in her prior 46 interviews. I view that as her telling the truth and when she was confronted with the late discovered note allegedly written by her husband, then she said he did fire the shot. I suspect you and I have a different view of when she was lying.

@Mark Ulrik I think you are looking at this the wrong way or at least differently than me. I am not attacking her for lying. I I dont believe this is a case of her failing to tell the government that she knew her husband took a pot shot at Waker but that he did not and she was pressured to say that he did. It was strongly suggested to her that If she did not tell the government want it wanted to hear, she could be deported. Indeed, she makes a point at the beginning of her first deposition before the Warren Commission of saying she will now tellt he truth. And that truth is the "political truth" the government wanted IMHO.

@W. Niederhut good. then you can listen to RFK's extended discussion and let us know if you disagree with him. this program presents an excellant opportunity for those who are open to learn RFK's real positions unfiltered by the DNC hit teams.

@Steve Roe you may quote me on anything i post on EF. it is a public forum but thanks for asking. Obviously, I am not saying the entire DPD was crooked but we know some of the officers were compromised by the local mafia and others were willing to engage in unethical behavior to nail a "cop killer", Ad even the honest ones were under incredible pressure from FBI to go along with the offical story. BTW- I'm still working on a Walker panel for Novermber. you are in Dallas area?

@Michael Griffith RFK Jr' has a good campaign manager in Dennis Kucinich.

If anyone has questions about RFK Jr's real views on vaccines, i urge you to listen to his 3-hour Rogan interview. This interview should make it clear that the anti-vaxxer label is a hit job from the liberal press as part of the policitization of this topic. His issue is with Big Pharma.

The motion we filed last week in the MFF lawsuit seeks an injunction preventing the implementation of the Transparency Plans because we beleive they do not comply with the JFK Act. The hearing is scheduled for July 13th.

@Greg Doudna Marina cannot recant her sworn testimony or she could be subject to perjury charges. while it is unlikely that she would be prosecuted, her Soveit origins no doubt makes her scared of the government. I dont understand why you find it difficult that Marina would agree to lie about her dead husband. She was a young mother with two girls. She had a choice to protect her dead husband's reputation in the face of aggressive government pressure or protect her two babies. The note was not discovered during the initial search of the Paine house. it mysteriously shows up 5 days before the FBI is to send its report to the President and after 46 interviews with Marina where she does not disclose her alleged conversations with her dead husband about the walker shooting. suddenly, it shows up and when confronted with it, she fesses up. So yes, i think it is as equally possible that the note was fabriacted as it being genuine. Moreover, remember that Bert Griffin told me that the WC used Ruth Paine to put guardrails on Marina's testimony. Finally, I dont know if there is actual evidence of the police finding the photo in Oswald's possessions at the rooming house. Is there a photo of the photo of his possessions? The photo could easily have come from the DPD April investigation and then the DPD placed it into the Oswald inventory. that could explain the missing license plate number. DPD was not only inept but also crooked.

I am very clearly saying that FBI was in the process of finalizing its December 5th report on the assassination in the hopes of influcening the WC investigation and Hoover needed to have his 11/22 conclusion that LHO was the lone gunman firmly established. The Walker shooting was a key underpinning of that conclusion because it supposedly demonstrated his tendency towards violence and planning for the murder attempt. so absolutely yes-in a circumstantial evidence case, Marina was the key witness and she was pressured by all possible means to produce testimony to support the desired conclusion. end of story. Regarding documentation, the FBI 302s in this case were replete with "perjury traps" where FBI investigators altered the accounts of the witnesses and then when they read their statements and complained, they were told it was a federal crime to lie to a federal official. so the inaccurate 302s remained intact. Moreover, Warren allowed the use of unrecorded preliminary interviews of witnesses. This was where many witnesses were told that their accounts were wrong or did not happen. If you dont believe that this happed, then you need to read the comments of witnesses . I dont have time today to share the names. perhaps others here can do so. The historic record cannot be taken on its face --which can be frustrating to a historian like you. but this was not an objective investigation. The US had to show its allies that we were not a bannana republic. this was actually more important than convincing citizens that Oswald was the only assassin. All you need to do is see the acounts coming in from Europe in the winter of 64 to see the real concerns of our leadership.

@Greg Doudna The rifle id is very different situation. only Day and Fritz handled the rifle. the other officers said they heard Fritz or someone say it was a Mauser. this is apples to oranges. Ithink you need to review the chronology of Marina's statements before you find her credible about the Walker shooting. This is what happened (excerpted from my evidentiary analysis for the mock trial): Marina had been under the protective custody of the Secret Service at the Six Flags motel in Fort Worth. She was interviewed 46 times without the benefit of counsel. During this period she had not linked Oswald to the Walker shooting. On November 28th,  the FBI team began interrogating Marina to clear up some of the loose angles in the case. William C Sullivan, chief of the bureau's domestic intelligence division and the official in charge of handling oswald's widow, told the team to “bear down on her”.[4] FBI headquarters dispatched an Immigration and Naturalization service agent to Fort Worth to join the FBI team. The INS agents assignment was to impress upon Marina that now that her husband was dead, she was an alien without a permanent visa and could face deportation if she did not cooperate with the government (Marina had made it clear to the Dallas police through Ruth Paine that she wanted to remain in the United States with her two children and did not want to be sent back to the Soviet Union. [5]) Discovery of the Note On November 30th Ruth Paine sent to Marina via the Irving County police the Russian housekeeping book amongst other things. Materials that the DPD had previously searched the weekend of the assassination. Magically, the Secret Service agents examines these materials and discovers the note written in poor Russian. The note was not dated and was not signed. It was only after she was confronted with this note at this time that Marina confirmed that her husband had written it and had confessed to her that he was the one who had made the attempt on Walker’slife.[6] Initial FBI Report   On December 6th, Katzenback back told Pierre Salinger to go ahead with a press a White House press release confirming that Oswald had been the sniper who took a shot at the general. That same day FBI section chief James L Hanley informed the head of the FBI Dallas office Gordon Shanklin that he could expect a memorandum. The memorandum contained the copy of the Walker note with Marina’s account and instructions to Ed Bachner that the FBI report would conclude that Oswald was a sniper in the Walker case and that the Bureau expected the Dallas police to fully support the official version. It was imperative that FBI headquarters move quickly to tie up all loose ends because the Dallas police were not privy to the conclusions in the FBI report and there were still uncertainty about whether Carr and the Texas court of inquiry could be trusted to stay with the official line.[11] Belmont told Katzenbach DPD had not considered LHO a suspect.[12] All DPD witnesses pointed to 2 or 3 conspirators with car. Warren Commission Issues with FBI Initial Report In February 1964, chief Curry told a Reporter from the Dallas times Herald that the police were ready to name Oswald as the assailant in the Walker case based not on the ballistic evidence but solely on Marina oswald's testimony. In  May 1964, , Rankin wrote Hoover a 6-page letter complaining that marina's testimony on the Walker shooting to the FBI and Secret Service was given the Commission lawyers fits because it was riddled with contradictions. He requested that the Bureau undertake an extensive investigation concerning the Walker allegations. Rankin’s letters spelled out in detail six areas that needed clarification and asked to direct that Marina questioned again. Shanklin who thought the Walker case was closed now  had to assign two agents to interview Marina all over again because “her statements “just don't jibe”. [13] [4] Shanklin to file (11/20/ 1963) , 89 - 43 - 1297; HEITMAN to file (11 /30/ 1963) file number 89 - 43 - 1421. [5] Forrest V. Sorrels  to Jesse Curry (12/26/63); ser no. 2-34-34,000. DPD Files V12. [6] WCR 183-14; Leon I. Geopadze 12/3/63 serial #2-34.303. Secret Service document 322 [11] 89-43 -2613a (12/06/1963 (Shanklin to fil)e [12] 62-109060-1623  (12/6/63) [13] Shanklin to file 2/191964 100 - 10461 - 3537 ; Ranking to Hoover (5/20/1964) Oswald file 105 - 82555 - 3 ? 92; Shangqing to file 6/10/19 64 100 - 104 61 - 6620. ******* You are a decent guy who seems to look for the goodness in witnesses which is admirably. But this was the murder of a president with enormous pressures applied to investigators and witnesses to build a case that supported Hoover's conclusion on the afternoon of the 22nd that Oswald was the lone gunman. I think you continue to be overcredulous or uncritical about how Marina's testimony was extracted from her. the WC called her back 4 times because of how frustrated they were with her testimony. Phil Shenon's book has some quotes about how the WC felt she was not being truthful. And Bert Grifin told me how they used Ruth Paine to cabin Marina's testimony. In this case, one cannot take the evidence at face value but see how it was developed. Again, all the "mistakes" go in one direction. that is not normal or likely from a statisical standpoint.

@Michael Griffith It is beyond absurd that david von pein would quote Lattimer- a urologist- for support. Shaw was an experienced surgeon at a hospital with an extraordinary number of gunshot wounds. He knew what entry wounds looked like and particularly the kind of wound that a tumbling bullet makes. There is an interesting backstory on Lattimer and he was one of the misguided "false patriots" who felt they were defending America's honor by goose-stepping for the Warren Commission.

@W. Niederhut what we can say is that Biden has approved the use of "Transparency Plans" that do not comply with the JFK Act and effectively illegally terminates the JFK Act. Section 7 of his order would cause JFJ Assassination records to be treated like any other classified record and become subject to the ineffective NDC process. Even Trump did not do that. So Jeff and Ben are correct on this issue. Why are you so sensitive to criticism of Biden when it comes to the JFK Act? Bill Simpich and I have had to literally put our lives on hold to try to force Biden to comply with the law. And in case you have not noticed, instead of being the transparency president, his Department of Justice is trying to dismiss our complaint.

@Gerry Down As an experienced surgeon and a surgeon at Parkland that had an enormous amount of gunshot wounds, he was certainly qualified to speak on bullet wounds and what their appearance meant. He did not think the wound was typical of a tumbling bullet. it does not matter why a bullet might be tumbling (passing through another body, deflecting off an object, etc). His testimony is persuaive that the back wound was not likely created by a tumbling bullet.

MFF link to the lawsuit filings is at: https://maryferrell.org/pages/JFK_Records_Lawsuit.html @Roger Odisio is correct that we are arguing that NARA not only entered into a number of memoranda of understandings with agencies to pursue assassination record searches of the ARRB that were outstanding when the ARRB went out of business but it also told the American people in the June 27, 2000 federal register that it was the "successor in function" to the ARRB and that it was moving the ARRB regulations to NARA's own section of the federal code of regulations because it was continuing to "supplement" the JFK Collection. NARA used broad and unequivocal language and has failed to carry out the ARRB duties that it told the American people it had assumed in 2000. We are simply asking the court to declare that NARA is the successor to ARRB that it said it was and that means it has to exercise the powers of the ARRB. Tell your Congressional representatives to co-sponsor the Schweikert bill and to ask the chair of the House Oversight Committee to hold hearings on the failure of the executive branch to comply with the JFK Act.

@Greg Doudna I have worked with government types for 40 years in my law career and I know that there is a range of diligence among government employees. But you are assuming that that all of the officers co-signed without carefully reviewing the paperwork. Maybe 1 out 10 would be so careless but 4 out of 4 is simply not consistent my extensive government experience and may I suggest violates your simplest answer doctrine. And has it ever occured to you that every "mistake" by the DPD, FBI or others that WC supporters cite to explain away evidentiary discrepancies ate always one way- in support the lone gunman theory? That is not probably or even likely from a statistical standpoint. I think you are being very credulous. -IMHO

@Greg Doudna i think your theory about possibility of a careless labeling or error by one officer in a later writeup, cosigned, and then copied from that report by another report signed by two more calls for a level of incompetence that would be surprising for even the inept DPD. That requires lots of mistakes. Arent you the one who advocates for the simplest explanation? this theoy requires lots of mistakes. I think the key question is documenting if the 4 officers actually witnessed the actual bullet. also important would be the Parkland lab that did forensic study. The lab had custody of the bullet from shortly after the shooting until it was turned over to the FBI.

@Benjamin Cole I'm just trying to make sure we work from the same set of facts. Greg's prior post appeared to assume that only one officer actually saw the bullet and that the others thought it was a steel jacketed bullet because that was what they were told.

the exhibits do not support the contention that Herbert Miller had nstructed the IRS's Dallas field office Intelligence Division "not to initiate any investigation of . . . Ruby, or any of [his] associates, without prior . . . approval" at the directive of either LBJ or RFK. the exhibits do not support the contention that Earl Warren knew the IRS was closing in on Ruby as part of the intensification of the Stone investigation or "about all about Ruby's connections to the Dallas mob." His own WC staff did not believe (wrongly) that Ruby was mobbed up. Once again the author reading the mind of Warren as he did with other principals. He does not know for a fact what Warren knew or that the Stone matter was the motivation for what happened when he interviewed Ruby in jail. It is simply unsupported assertions. Throughout this book, he claims to know what people thought and claims that numerous people suffered heart attacks because of developments in the Stone case or JFK assassination which is plainly absurd. This book is a joke which is sad because his first book was a good piece of research.

@Greg Doudna on the steel vs jacketed controversy, if you understood that @Benjamin Cole is right that 4 DPD officers each saw/handled the bullet as opposed to your statement that the controversey was due to a "simple mistake on the part of one officer, repeated by three others", would that change your thinking about if CE573 was indeed the bullet recovered from the Walker house?

did you check to see if the affidavits cited in footnote 15 support the text? otherwise, the text itself is nothing more than speculation of what people thought. I didnt see any exhibits supporting the numerous statements he makes throughout the book of what people thought or why they did or did not take actions.