Lawrence Schnapf

The 3D animation project of former DOJ attorney John Orr conclusively shows that a bullet exiting JFK would not have created the same wound to JBC as he was not correctly positioned and the trajectory was wrong. And defenders of SBT, dont point to Myer's animation. His recreation is a cartoon with the body sizes wrong, the body relationships and other calculations incorrect. Myers' work was designed to prove the SBT, not a true scientific investigation. Of course, there is more money and fame in defending the official position.....

@Mark Ulrik are you referrfing to Steve Roe? Didnt he write a piece last week or am i confusing this with anothe article? I think the emphasis on "steel" flows from the FBI memo that indicates steel-jacketed bullets were often soft-nosed. would it be more "humane" to kill with a FMJ to the head than to fire soft-nosed bullets that create so much damage but might not kill the animal. As you probably suspect, I think killing animals for fun is immoral so I dont understand why its ok to use a bullet that is designed to maime as to opposed a FMJ that can create a "clean" kill. A bit off topic but would like to understand better this view.

The Haags engage in junk science experiments to prop up their business. CSAFE has repudiated many of the studies by Haag's AFTE.

Oh please. not the Haag's from AFTE that publishes poorly-designed studies that do not conform to statistical standards ( I have attended several CSAFE seminats where the AFTE studies have been eviscerated). They use junk science to support their occupation. Do you guys only look to researchers who support your lone gunman theory? According to Gary Aguilar's article: the Governor’s back wound measured 1.5 cm in its largest diameter when Dr. Shaw first examined him, 21 exactly the size of the “entrance wound” in his jacket. In testimony to the Warren Commission and to the House Select Committee, Dr. Shaw repeatedly explained that 3-cm was the size of the wound after he had surgically debrided it. [emphsis added] The House Select Committee offered a clear explanation. Dr. Shaw, it reported, and had said: “The rear entrance wound was not 3 centimeters [in diameter] (sic) as indicated in one of the operative notes. It was a puncture-type wound, as if a bullet ad struck the body at a slight declination [i.e., not at a right angle] (sic). The wound was actually approximately 1.5 centimeters in diameter. The ragged edges of the wound were surgically cut away, effectively enlarging it to approximately 3 centimeters.” [emphsis added] The wound’s true size was further corroborated by the HSCA’s finding that the entrance defect in the back of the Governor’s shirt, much like that in his jacket, measured .8-cm by 1.3-cm.24 Thus the “wounds” in the Governor’s shirt, jacket and back mutually corroborate a fairly small “puncture-type wound,” one that resulted, as Dr. Shaw put it, as “if a bullet had struck the (Governor’s) body at a slight declination.” It is to be expected that bullets not striking perfectly perpendicular to their targets will leave an ovoid wound, just as the wound in JFK’s scalp did. [emphasis added] The autopsy report discloses that, like Connally’s back wound, Kennedy’s scalp wound measured 1.5 by .6 cm,25 and it has never been suggested that the penetrating bullet that caused JFK’s ovoid scalp wound had hit something else first "

@Mark Ulrik NAA? I didnt mention NAA? Curry has nothing to do with NAA.

I must correct myself. His quote about no one being able to place Oswald on the sixth floor with a gun in his head was from a November 6. 1969 interview in the Dallas Morning News. His quote is: " We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." The quote from his book (page 61 of my copy) is: "The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts do not clearly indicate what took place on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time John F. Kennedy was assassinated." He ends that paragraph by saying: "The testimony of the people who watched the motorcade was much more confusing than either the press or the Warren Commission seemed to indicate." These statements were made after he had retired from the DPD and was free to share his views.

@Tom Gram ye- your link is what led me to research this further. Interestingly, the two places that Oswald allegedly ordered his firearms from were being investigated by Senator Tom Dodd's committee that was exploring the problems of mail order weapons. Senator Dodd was interested in this topic b/c his state was the home of the largest domestic gun manufacturers and the mail order business was largely involving cheap, foreign-made weapons that were negatively impacting sales of domestic manufacturers. Some have speculated that LHO ordered the firearms as part of this investigation. I have no idea if this is true.

@Michael Griffith you are correct. most of the supporters of the official position have not kept up with the developments and remain frozen in time circa 1964.

My research-albeit not as comprehensive as you and Ben- is that stell-jacketed bullets were often "soft nosed" which would suggest they are not FMJ bullets. It also appears that these were manufactured in a limited number of countries (italy and somewhere else). My guess- which is all it is- is that steel-jacketed" referred to the construction of the cartridge and did not mean it was FMJ but I except for the reference to soft-nosed, i have no other basis to believe that was the case. During the war, I also suspect that copper became much more expensive and less available than steel so it's possible that manufacturers FMJs might have turned to steel. Note as an environmenta lawyer, I have worked on lots of abandoned lead and copper mining sites. These operations were very profitable during the world wars but often ceased operating after the wars (leaving behind tailings and exposed mines that result in acid discharges into streams) because lead and copper prices plummetted. Those of you who live int he Tri-State Mining area of Kansas-Missouri-Oklahoma probably are probably- and unfortunately- familar with this problem. BTW- this is the region where Mickey Mantle came from. end of history lesson.

He says in his book that no one can put a rifle in Oswald's hand on the sixth floor at 12:30.

@Mark Ulrik- the DPD under Fritz was not known for its evidence-based approach to solving crimes. He had a reputation and bragged about using his interrogations for getting confessions. so again, dont assume the reference to a steel-jacketed bullet is wrong because an arrest was made. Your energy has been focused on refuting the statements of four DPD, and other law enforcement as outlined by @Benjamin Cole and @Tom Gram How about evaluating the case with the bullet in evidence now in question. do you think the rest of the case supports that LHO was the person who took a potshot at Walker or is the bullet the critical piece of evidence in your opinion? This would be a more productive discssion. Does this change the dynamics in the case in your opinion. Afterall, the bullet in evidence could not be linked to the assassination rifle in record to the exclusion of any other rifle.

i find it informative how some twist themselves into pretzels to insist that the reference to steel-jacked bullet must be an error rather than consider the implications of this being factual and placing this into the context of the rest of the evidence for the walker shooting. In a trial, the defense would have made a motion to exclude the bullet in evidence. A prosecution-friendly judge would have rejected the motion but instructed the jury to consider the questions about the provenance of the bullet in how much weight to apply to this piece of evidence. So for a more interesting and productive discussion, I ask those who have been pushing back that the "steel-jacketed bullet" reference is wrong, pretend you are now in a jury and now have to deliberate the case with the understanding that there are serious questions about the bullet. How does this impact the rest of the government's case that Oswald was the person who took a shot at Walker? is there now reasonable doubt or do you feel the rest of the evidence supports a conviction of attempted murder?

I am one of those who believe Carlos Marcello was behind the assassination. that being said, this book is awful in terms of lack of sourcing, claims that people like LBJ, Dulles, Hoover among others died from hear attacks because of developments in the case. really absurd assumptions.

I read this book over the memorial day weekend. it is not very good. he makes alot of unsubstantiated statements and assumptions as to what people thought. And dying all the heart attacks to external events is really absurd. His first book was much better.

i will discuss logistics with conference organizers. My idea was a panel but that would require an hour. @Benjamin Cole what is your time difference?

Nov 16th and 17th. it will be in person and virtual. the panel has not yet been approved so dont book your airfare yet

@Steve Roe Hi Steve- I forwarded your piece to Brian some time ago but havent had chance to follow-up b/c of the time pressures with the Biden lawsuit. will follow-up @Tom Gram @Benjamin Cole @Steve Roe I've proposed a walker panel for the Wecht 60th anniversary conference in Pittsburgh. Would any of you want to participate. I figured we could discuss the issues in a back and forth. Ben, I think you're in Thailand so you are probably not available. Steve- if you're not available, would there be someone you would recommend to present your view of the evidence?

@Benjamin Cole hysterical!! i meant the only evidence supporting the official position is the CE573.

@Steve Roe I will give you my opinion. Once Oswald was murdered and there would be no trial. the guardrails were removed on the need to maintain chain of custody. Evidence could now be manipulated because there would be no evidentiary challenges, no cross-examination and no judicial instructions to jurors on how much weigh to apply to evidence with reliability or authenticacy questions. And government expert witnesses were only subject to soft ball questions and leading questions without any objections from defense counsel. The WC was concerned about the Walker shooting. Rainkin asked Hoover to perform a supplemental investigation after Hoover had already concluded that oswald was the lone gunman. There was no way that his FBI was going to develop any evidence that indicate that Hoover was wrong. The Walker bullet was in the custody of the Parkland lab for several months. There was ample opportunity for someone to substitute a copper-jacked bullet for a silve-jacketed bullet. And perhaps you have seen Rainkin's memo instructing that chain of custody did not have to go back to the first person who handled the bullet for purposes of establishing its provenance. There is overwhelming evidence that the bullet recovered from the Walker residence was a 30.06 silver-jacketed bullet. The onlt evidence to the contrary is a photograph. A switch cannot be discounted given the high stakes and unsecure manner in which this piece of evidence was maintained. I hope your article will approach the caliber of your rifle strap analysis and not your other work where all of your inferences favor or are viewed through the lens of one gunman advocate.

@Mark Ulrik well at least you have some fraction of your mind open to consider a factoid that does not comport with your narrative. Multiple DPD officers wrote that they observed the bullet so this cannot be written off as the failure of a lone inexperienced officer. You are right that the FBI could have figured this out but Hoover had determined LHO was their man and it would have been a fatal career choice for any FBI agent to conclude anything to the contrary, Hoover was relunctantly forced to re-examine the Walker shooting at the request of Raikin. and regarding Sullivan, you are once again reviewing what you consider ambiguous evidence through the light of your biased lens to reach a decison that supports your pre-ordanied narrative. The WC asked the FBI to conduct another investigation into the Walker incident. The Sullivan expressed urgency about the bullet. What concerns were there about the bullet? -its caliber, the inability to match it to the rifle, and the "steel-jacketed" issue. You cannot dismiss these concerns as ridiculous. indeed, it is ridicuous and absurd to dismiss these concerns.

@Greg Doudna I dont have a block about oswald being involved in a shooting setup of Walker. we all know that LHO could be manipulated to do alot of things in his desire to be a spy wannabe. I just think that given LHO's poor shooting performance in the Marines and generally lack of coordination, I cant see anyone giving him a gun to take a potshot at Walker hoping that he would miss. There was too much danger that he could accidentally actuall kill the man. On an unrelated point, while posting is interesting there is no substitute for having an actual discussion. I co-host Jeff Morley's Thursday night podcast. would you like to participate one thursday where perhaps some of us on this thread could talk through these issues? who knows, we might reach agreement or some clarity on some of the issues

@Greg Doudna Marina had 46 interviews without the benefit of counsel. 46!!! i believe her required script was prepared during these 46 sessions though Q/A and suggested answers.

@Greg Doudna Are you aware that Marina had 46 interviews by government agents without the benefit of counsel while she was held under house arrest at the motel before she testified before the WC. on the 3rd page of the transcript she has the following exchange with Rankin: Mr. RANKIN. Since your husband's death and even back to the time of the assassination of President Kennedy, you have had a number of interviews with people from the Secret Service and the FBI, have you not? Mrs. OswALD. Yes, I did. Mr. RANKIN. We hav·e a record of more than 46 such interviews, and I assume you cannot remember the exact number or all that was said in those interviews, is that true? Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know how many there were. Mr. RANKIN. As far as you can recall now, do you know of anything that is not true in those interviews that you would like to correct or add to? Mrs. OswALD. Yes, I would like to correct some things because not everything was true. later on page 14 Mr RANIKIN: Did you ever see him clean the rifle? Mrs OSWALD Yes I said before I had never seen it before But I think you understand I want to help you and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything I will not be charged with anything Mr GOPADZE She says she was not sworn in before But now inasmuch as she is sworn in she is goingto tell the truth later on page 18 Mr RANKIN Did you tell the authorities anything about this Walker incident when you learned about it Mrs OSWALD No Mr RANKIN You have told the Secret Service or the FBI peoplereasons why you didn't Will you tell us Mrs OSWALD Why I did not tell about it? First because it was my husband As far as I know according to the local laws here a wife cannot be a witness against her husband But of course if I had known that Lee intended to repeat something like that I would have told another example of admitting to lying is on page 28 and hardly comes across as some innocent babe in the woods but quite capable of manipulaition Mr RANKIN When you were asked before about the trip to Mexico you did not say that you knew anything about it Do you want to explain to the Commissionhow that happened Mrs OSWALD Most of these questions were put to me by the FBI I do not like them too much I didn't want to be too sincere with them Though I was quite sincere and answered most of their questions They questionedme a great deal and I was very tired of them and I thought that well whether I knew about it or didn't know about it didn't change matters at all it didn't help anything because the fact that Lee had been there was already known and whether or not I knew about it didn't make any difference Mr RANKINWas that the only reason that you did not tell about what you knew of the MexicoCity trip before Mrs OswALD Yes becausethe first time that they asked me I said no I didn't know anything about it And in all succeedingdiscussions I couldn't very well have said I did There is nothing special in that It wasn't because this was connectedwith somesort of secret on page 34, she asks out of the blue: "AmI giving sufficient answers to your questions?" on page 80 Mr RANKIN Is there anything else about your treatment by law enforcement officials during this period that you would like to tell the Commission about Mrs OSWALD I think that the FBI agents knew that I was afraid that after everything that had happened I could not remain to live in this country and they somewhat exploited that for their own purposes in a very polite form so that you could not say anything after that They cannot be accused of any thing They approached it in a very clever contrivedway she was brought before the WC three more times b/c of their frustration with her testimony.

@Greg Doudna It is well documented that Marina was afraid of being deported. she was told that if she cooperated, she would not be deported. The Russian translator worked for the CIA. She was pushed to tell the story the government wanted. Former WC staff attorney Burt Griffin told me that they did trust Marina and so they took the testimony of Ruth Paine and used that to keep Marina within the guardrails. If she said anything that contradicted what Paine said, she would be reminded of her need to tell the "truth". and Marina denied Lee's involvement with the Walker shooting until the so-called Oswald note mysteriously showed up just days before the FBI had to prepare its final report on the assassination. I remain surprised at how creduolus you as a historian can be at how government investigations are conducted, at the ways that witnesses can be intimidated and that there would be a paper trail supporting these accusations. As a lawyer, i know how this can be done in civil matters. The signs and hints of the tactics that smart lawyers can use to shape the desired testimony are all there. One simple example. Have you ever read the deposition of McCone and Helms by the Warren Commission? The deposition was conducted by Gerry Ford and Alan Dulles. The principle topic of the deposition was what the CIA knew about Oswald in the Soviet Union. In case the absurdity of this does not jump out to you, Dulles was asking questions of his successor, McCone, and Helms about events that occurred on his (Dulles') watch. In other words, Dulles was asking questions about events he knew the answers. And he asked leading questions so that McCone and Helms would protect the CIA and blame the State Department. You really need to take a more critical look at the evidence and be more realistic about how high-stake investigations are managed and how witnesses can be manipulated.

@Jonathan Cohen because the body of evidence actually does not point to LHO being the shooter from every aspect of the shooting and investigation. My quesiton is why the knee jerk reaction of those like you when faced with new information is to discount it? The original case was a house of cards built on manufactured evidence and reports that papered over holes in the case. Yet you insist on rejecting evidence that does not accord to your view. That is not the action of a person interested in the truth but instead that of a person with reinforced convictions and unexamined assumptions. There was a conspiracy to pin the assassination on LHO and the Walker shooting was critical in that narrative to show that he had the capability of attempting to commit murder.