Glenn Nall

I did a little reading on this yesterday after Larry mentioned AFIS, which I think is a good point. I was curious about procedures and accuracy. Briefly, it seems that many state and local AFIS systems (apparently they're not all directly FBI AFIS) require a dual AFIS/Human verification, which tells me that they're at least acknowledging the possibility of false results. I was also left with the impression that AFIS results are incredibly accurate. And it was kind of looking like there seems to be a difference in AFIS' programming to match one fingerprint to one of millions versus comparing one against another, but at this point in my reading The Atlanta Braves last game at Turner and the Dallas Cowboys usurped precedence, so that's as far as I got.

thank you, too, Steve. I wonder what the general consensus is on Ms Meagher and these two books of hers, if anyone has anything to offer on this. I'd heard that he Index was pretty comprehensive even for then.

That's it, Chris. thanks. do yourself a favor. don't get old.

No Wallace was just a guy who got very lucky. Killed in cold blood in broad daylight, was tried and convicted, defended by LBJ's personal atty, and got a suspended sentence. Happens all the time in Tx. and immediately hooked up with Byrd, and Associates.

And Wallace is known to have "dated" LBJ's wacky-named sister... don't you find all of these "coincidences" a bit smelly? After a time, all the tedious explanations of tedious coincidences start to ring hollow, no matter how factual they may be...

According to Mellen? And Cofer still represented Wallace, right...?

I can't think of the name of the book or of the author, but there's a very early (circa 64,65?) book by a woman that is one of the first to rebut the WC findings. It's incredibly hard to google if i can't remember the author or the title, much less necessary if I could, and it's just as difficult coming up with search terms that will find it for me. I'm sure many of you in here know the book I'm talking about. Appreciate anyone's help...

Jim, Well, to tell the truth, it's not just Billy Sol Estes' assertions that suggest this connection; taken with other, known facts (and reputable proponents), I happen to be convinced of an LBJ/Wallace "less-than-honorable" relationship. That he was convicted of the murder of John Kinser, and was defended by Johnson's attorney, got a 5 year suspended sentence for murder and promptly got enough of a security clearance to get a job with none other than DH Byrd's Defense Contracting Company Temco, is more than enough to tell me that, with the proper motivation, even liars tell some of the truth. But that's really not what I'm getting at. I'm seeing it more along these lines: in this "phenomenon" of JFK Assassination Research, it seems to me that there are two fundamental trails of "investigation." Some areas seem geared toward the discovery of guilty conspirators, and some areas only to prove that a conspiracy occurred. While the study of the ballistics and acoustics and witness testimony of evidence contrary to the Warren Report in Dealey Plaza is admittedly fascinating, and certainly justified, I'm not sure how "proof" of a fourth bullet or of a frontal shot or of medical malfeasance in Dallas or in Bethesda gets anyone closer to exposing any particular conspirator. Proof that that photo is of Edward Lansdale in Dealey Plaza might do so, or that Howard Hunt was there (actually, this has been proven in a court of law), or George Bush. I'm just saying that discussing the many possible bullet trajectories or finding that Mac Wallace was, in fact, on the 6th floor is all well and good, but I don't see where one would go from there.

Just a question: What exactly is the significance of "proving" that Mac Wallace either was there or was not there, aside from gaining some real satisfaction if he is shown to have been there? Where exactly does this get anyone?

"Expert systems can do no better than what a human programmer -- with input from human doctors -- programs the computer to do." much less, if you ask me. There's a human element, in medicine and in forensic sciences, that a computer will never be able to emulate, and that is many times more crucial than laboratory officiousness. And I'm programmer, too, and there's never been a time when I was able to create a program to think exactly my thought processes through a function, but only respond to triggers. The difference, to steal from Mark Twain, is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

thanks, Joe. It's good to be able to define things when talking to an LNer. It's even better when they can be given and made to understand common definitions. Obviously some of the definitions don't apply to 1963... what I think is significant are the many, varying testimonies of fairly simple facts, like you've pointed out. To me, there are certain, little details of the many testimonies the truth of which can just plainly be tossed aside as undiscoverable; at least at this point with what documentation has been read. Whether the limo came to a complete stop, or just slowed to, say, 3 MPH... the fact that it slowed at all at the moment a shot was heard by the SS Agent driving the car, says enough... etc, etc... on the other hand, and not at all having it both ways, there is testimony certain aspects of which can be accepted as probably accurate. If 3 or 4 people out of, (how many, 6 or 8?) 8 say they saw more than one person on the 6th floor immediately preceding the shooting, I'd call that basic assertion pretty reliable. Not minutiae like what they were wearing or even what window they were in, but only that there were more than one person there. Think about it. In a generic eyewitness situation, if one person says they saw ONE person, and it is a fact, then this does not contradict the possibility that there were more than one person. But if another person states that there were two people, and it is factual, then this absolutely contradicts the possibility that there was only ONE. Right? Given that both testimonies are proven true, only one contradicts the other. In fact. Who was it, Brehm, Brennan? who saw the man wearing khakis in Oswald's window, from the knees up, holding a rifle first through the window then back from the window? So much credence is placed on his testimony by both the Warren Commission and LNers today, when the fact that a number of people who do not know each other all testified that they saw two or more people is fully ignored. The fact that their testimonies correlate in such a way, that these people are all, (but for one who was in the County Jail across the street - at the same level as the 6th floor, more or less), reputable and credible, and do not know each other pretty much trumps any suggestion that there was only one person on the 6th floor. It's a guarantee a jury would see it that way. Witness testimony is a fickle thing, and in those articles I linked to some are not just describing its fundamental unreliability but are describing ways that the taking and dissemination of it can be done much better. Lineups (see how they handled Helen Markham's "show up"), the ways it's recorded and the way a witness is treated (re: Acquilla Clemmons)... And speaking of which, the way the testimonies of the JD Tippit shooting vary much more widely, and are treated just as poorly as the Dealey Plaza ones, than LNers are willing to see or admit. Of course these factors apply to that scene, too.

I get regular newsletters from the Innocence Project. The number of wrongful convictions - and particularly those sentenced to death row - cleared by DNA is astonishing and embarrassing. And I'm not even a Democrat. A few years ago it became apparent to me, of course, that these people were being convicted, (aside from the disgusting tendency of prosecuting attorneys to save face at all costs), most often singularly because of eyewitness testimony. For as long as I can remember, when a court case was being discussed, people tended to place more importance on eyewitness testimony than what's referred to as "circumstantial evidence." Which is about as backward as it can be. Something else that occurred to me when it occurred to me to say something about this (yet again, I'm sure) is that this, um, emphasis on eyewitness testimony is pretty much, aside from the infallibility of the Warren Report, all that Lone Gunman Theorists have to hang their hats on. (How many times has - I won't say his name, but his initials are David Von Pein - thrown Howard Brennan's inscrutable "evidence" in our faces?) A couple of points, of which I'm sure many of you are already well aware. But which bear repeating into the ground until even one furiously stubborn LNer just maybe wakes up and smells the gunpowder: Eyewitness misidentification is the greatest contributing factor to wrongful convictions proven by DNA testing, playing a role in more than 70% of convictions overturned through DNA testing nationwide. (Innocence Project website, linked above) A number of factors can reduce the accuracy of eyewitness identifications. Here are some of them: Extreme witness stress at the crime scene or during the identification process, and presence of weapons at the crime (because they can intensify stress and distract witnesses). Scientific American In a classic text on the subject, Convicting the Innocent, legal scholar Edwin M. Borchard presents sixty-five cases of "erroneous criminal convictions of innocent people." In twenty-nine of these cases, or approximately 45 percent, mistaken eyewitness identification was responsible for the conviction. Borchard concludes: "These cases illustrate the fact that the emotional balance of the victim or eyewitness is so disturbed by his extraordinary experience that his powers of perception become distorted and his identification is frequently most untrustworthy" (p. 367). Misidentifications are often blamed on the fact that the real criminal bears a close resemblance to the wrongly identified person. But in the twenty-nine cases in which mistaken eyewitness identification was responsible for the wrongful conviction, Borchard reports these facts:"...in eight of these cases the wrongfully accused person and the really guilty criminal bore not the slightest resemblance to each other, whereas in twelve other cases, the resemblance, while fair, was still not at all close. In only two cases can the resemblance be called striking." (p. 367). PBS.org Mistaken witness identification has been identified problem for many years. In June of 2000, an analysis by the Center on Wrongful Convictions found that of 51 exonerations by DNA testing in the United States and Canada, 76.1% had been based in whole or in part on eyewitness identification testimony. Another study of 86 exonerated capital cases by the Center on Wrongful Convictions found: - Of the 86 cases, eyewitness testimony played a role in 46 (53.5%) - In 33 cases (38.4%), eyewitness identification was the only evidence - Of the 46 cases that involved eyewitness testimony, 32 cases only had one eyewitness (69.6%), while the remaining 14 cases had multiple eyewitnesses (30.28%) - In 19 cases (41.3%), the eyewitnesses were strangers, in 9 cases (19.6%), they were non-accomplice acquaintances. Innocence Project of MN A question: If you wake up in the morning and there's snow on the ground, and you didn't actually see it snow, how do you know it snowed? An answer: Circumstantial Evidence. Here's a handy reference for when the next lawyer wannabe cries, "yeah, but that's just Circumstantial Evidence." And then, "W-a-a-a-a-h!!!" Also, just some pretty neat stuff to read: Forms of Criminal Evidence Criminal evidence is often considered direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence demonstrates proof beyond a reasonable doubt that an individual committed a crime, while circumstantial is based on theory or implies truth to an allegation but does not prove it. Circumstantial and direct evidence may come in many forms including: testimony, documentary, physical, digital, exculpatory, scientific, and genetic. Eyewitness: An eyewitness is someone who witnesses a crime or wrongdoing by seeing it firsthand. There are problems with this type of evidence. It is the leading cause of wrongful conviction in the United States. According to the Innocence Project, "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of overturned convictions... " (I know, I just said that.) Testimony: This type of evidence is obtained from a witness who makes a statement. It may be oral or written and is usually made under oath. Opinions or inferences in testimony are typically limited to expert witnesses. Opposing attorneys can object when a witness is asked a question. This legal maneuver is an attempt to disallow what the objecting side deems an improper question. When objecting, a lawyer needs to give a standard reason why, such as "argumentative," "call for speculation," "hearsay" or "irrelevant'. Physical: Physical evidence is just that, a piece of evidence presented to prove a fact based on its physical characteristics. It can include part or all of an object. This can range from DNA, to a weapon, a document or piece of furniture that has evidence attached. Contrary to what most people think, fingerprints are most often Circumstantial Evidence. DNA can still be Circumstantial Evidence... Documentary: Evidence presented at a trial in document form is called documentary evidence. This can include any form of media. Photographs, video and audio all count as documentary evidence. At times, what appears to be documentary evidence is actually physical evidence. For example, if a letter covered in blood is entered as evidence, the blood is the focus of the piece of evidence and hence the paper will be entered into trial as physical evidence. Demonstrative (Representative): This is a common form of proof, generally having the form of the representation of an object. Examples include: photographs, videos, sound recordings, x-rays, maps, drawings, graphs, charts, simulations, sculptures, and models, among others. Exculpatory: This tends to clear the guilt of the defendant at trial. Police and prosecutors in the United States must disclose any exculpatory evidence to the defendant or risk a dismissal of the hearing. For example, A person is arrested for a murder because they are found running away from a crime scene however an eyewitness testifies that another person actually committed the murder. The witness’ testimony is exculpatory evidence. Scientific: Crime scene analysis combines the human intelligence with scientific procedures and methods to interpret what has occurred. While the scientific evidence may speak for itself, it is often supplemented by expert witness testimony. All states have rules on expert testimony and scientific evidence. Genetic: DNA profiling/testing is used to help identify an individual who is responsible for a crime. State laws on the use of genetic testing in the United States vary. Genetic evidence can be collected without the suspects' knowledge. Digital: This is evidence stored or provided in digital form to be used at trial. The use of this kind of evidence has increased as the use of technology has increased. E-mails, ATM transaction logs, digital photos, spreadsheets, Internet browser histories, just about anything with an electronic history can be used as digital evidence. Prima Facie: This is "evidence sufficient to establish a claim or defense until rebutted by contrary evidence" (Blackwell, 2004). In Latin, it literally means "on its first appearance", and such evidence is generally deemed sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact if it is not refuted by later evidence or argumentation. A final point. While the Lone Nutters are only able to support their theses with eyewitness testimony and the veracity of the Warren Commission, the CIA and the FBI, Conspiracy Theorists have the luxury of the availability of a veritable ocean of all kinds of other sh*t. So there.

oh, that's right. I remember the testimony now of who was most at fault for sleeping with each other. Apparently they were both ashamed. Can't imagine why. Reading the true grit on Marina as a human makes me think she and Lee really were meant for each other. She was a plain ol' cranky, messy, lazy b-you-know-what. Was shuffled from St Nich house to house and complained of living conditions that Lee provided and avoided housework by sleeping til noon. Hence the shuffling, I'm thinking. Amazing that Bouhe and the Fords and Paine - well, Paine didn't - put up with that crap. Must have been some reason.

I'm only going on this tired, old memory and not messin' with looking for it, but I think I just read that not only did she keep it, she got it and then fired her attorney/friend/business manager (Jim Martin? friend of Gen Max Clark) pretty soon after, and somehow the agreement about the "film" was annulled, or something like that.

that was my point. not defending Trump, just "reason."

the impetus to make Mar Lago a resort and golf club yeah, making money probably had nothing to do with it.

right, that didn't sound like any kind of "choice" or "preference," just a statement of probability. A puppet of the status-quo has no intention of tipping the apple barrel. A rebel has a chance, if he's not shot to death first.

"...the Liberalism that dominated [the] ... Republican [party] ..." what the heck does that mean? today's Republican party overall is at the most tolerant state it has ever been. In truth the acceptance of social versatility is more broad than ever; racism is abhorred by and spoken against just as vociferously as the Democrats. Trump's nomination is a glaring example of this, that the Party is willing to nominate against long-held "norms." And yet Republicans, as a whole, are still labeled "[clinging] to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment..." when this, as a whole, is the furthest from the truth as it's ever been. From the 60's thru the 90's the Party was far less "tolerant." So I'm not sure what the author means by a Liberalism-dominated Republican Party. And regarding current political climes, I won't engage in discussing any here, except as any which are affected by the events of 1963. I've worked hard to gain the thimble of respect I have so far achieved; I won't dash it all by stating my own, guaranteed unpopular views here...

All this talk about Mac Wallace, when all I've (personally) ever thought was that this alleged fingerprint was the only thing that even suggests his involvement. IOW, I haven't given him much thought. I can only assume that there's more to Ms Mellen's exculpation of LBJ than that Wallace wasn't in the TSBD.

I immediately wondered the same thing, but I don't think so. 1) Rose Cheramie apparently told Lt. Francis Fruge that she was enroute to, among other things, "pick up her baby" I don't think that Al Cheramie was a baby. 2) "Rose Cheramie" was an alias for Marcades. As an aside, Fruge's deposition to the HSCA on April 18, 1978 is referenced in the Staff Report in Volume X of the HSCA Appendix volumes. Does anyone know how to see his actual deposition? Personally, I find it very hard to find my way around around the HSCA documents and files. Steve Thomas you're probably way too young to remember this, but in the 60's - (hell in the 80's, remember Mother's Finest, "Baby Love"?) - "my baby" meant "my man." or "my baby's daddy." "or my deadbeat, lazy-ass husband..." but you get the point. or it could have meant "my son." my mom would use it when I was due for yet more cheek-pinching humiliation.

Ferrie's roommate said something about Ferrie having to make an "important flight" on the afternoon of the 22nd. This was coupled with the curious activity at Red Bird airport somehow. He said more about this, but I don't remember without looking at it again.

The grand jury reversed the original decision and they were right about that. As per Cui Bono, when you go down that path the problem becomes that there are many groups and individuals that benefited from Kennedy's death because he was such a shock to the system. You can go from J. Edgar Hoover, to certain Mafia figures e.g. Giancana, Trafficante and Marcello, to the Pentagon and State Department guys who wanted into Vietnam, to the CIA which did not want RFK riding their hides anymore, to David Rockefeller who wanted a globalization policy which Kennedy resisted. You could even include Israel, which wanted to build an atomic weapon, which JFK resisted. How do you pick and choose among such suspects? Which, in those terms, would include Johnson. This is essentially the thesis of the Torbitt Document. Except it leaves one of them out. The CIA. I agree with this completely. This is in fact the point I made in a reply to Sandy's post earlier today, that these "so-and-so did it" categorical phrases are really misleading, because of this fact, that "the problem becomes that there are many groups and individuals that benefited from Kennedy's death." And as you rightly pointed out, it doesn't exclude any of these groups from complicity, either. I do think however that some of these benefitted more than others. This does take some of the wind out of my sails, though, come to think of it to your point... It's kinda something you put in your pocket for when you can use it later, I guess. Hell, I dunno - it can help in categorizing, to some extent. That Israel would risk International Conflict for such a benefit isn't nearly as likely as Giancana and Trafficante risking 'whatever' in order to get their island back. Johnson? Has already proved he'd kill his sister to get a cold glass of sweet tea, so...

Most investigators of similarly heinous crimes put a lot of weight on "who gained the most" or "who stood to gain the most." To me, (and this is just me), this says an awful lot about possible perpetrators, including LBJ, and not excluding Hoover, Anti-Castro elites, etc....

James, Thanks for taking it easy on me with the five million. Your intuition is correct that I am busy. My book, due around the year 2030, is behind schedule. (conservative figures) - 3,060,000 needless war dead in Southeast Asia - 500,000 " " " " Indonesia (the rottenest genocide in history) - 500,000 " " " " Congo, Mid East, Brazil (+ Caribbean, Latin American in general) a wild guesstimate +_______1 multi-trillion debt that never was or will be paid; US from world's creditor to world's debtor 4,060,001 How did all these massive massacres happen after Kennedy? LBJ had to pay the pipers, and that's what it cost. From the Nelson Rockefeller-John McCloy-Allen Dulles-Claire Booth Luce-H L Hunt types to the mechanics pumping out Bell helicopters. They had LBJ over enough barrels to fill a distillery. They didn't have to send him a telegram that said, "Give us what we want so you can continue doing what you want, whatever the inferno that is." And they all wanted pretty much the same thing, robbing and killing the workingman for fun and profit. Less than half of November 22 -- 1 How much trouble for LBJ to sleep on AF2 from Houston to Ft. Worth, and be fresh as a daisy for a midnight rendezvous at Murchison's? Still he had some dark bags under his hooded eyes that day. 1 The argument over the seating for the parade, as beautifully excused in the CTKA article by Vazakas, Coogan, and Dragoo, linked in your comment #43. [Anything worked on by Phil Dragoo could not possibly be any more efficient, organized, colorful, clear. Talk about economy of language! And V V and S C are no slouches. It's easy to see why that article is so highly rated.] BUTTTTTTTTTTT -- what circular logic, what ad hoc ergo propter hoc! Mrs. Yarborough is not even invited to dinner at the Governor's Mansion, and Connally seats Ralph, senior U. S. Senator from Texas, at the children's table. But "the feud", RY (only Southern Senator to vote for every post WW2 civil rights bill) vs. JBC and LBJ is a false equality. When RY was p.o.ed at the Malevolent Duo, he had plenty of good reason. Vice versa, mysterious motives and ulterior motives. You bet because RY could smell a rat, and the Prince and King Rat knew it. IMHO, not only did JBC and LBJ know it was highly dangerous to be in X-100, they knew about this wild card on the loose named Lee Harvey Oswald. Who had been befriended by "fellow-traveler" Mac Wallace, who had his own set of beefs against John Con. (Both had been student union president at UT years apart, but oh how different their success rate had been after college.) 1 Look at John Con's face and demeanor that morning. That's one scared Texan. He doesn't know whether to faint, scream or load his diaper. 1 Textbook example of "excited utterance" (blurted in a scary situation before someone has time to think and couch his reaction) -- John Con screaming, "Oh no no no, THEY are going to KILL us ALLLLLLL!" Jackie was always amazed at the inordinate volume and suddenness of this. 1 Can anyone deny that LBJ owned JBC, had him on a leash? Same JBC who demanded the route and destination, used idiotic subterfuges (found out later, but excused again) to get his (LBJ's) way. 1 Nellie Connally hunkering down in the car right before they hit the Kill Zone. Nothing like LBJ but still... 1 Nellie repeatedly telling JBC, "Hush." She knew he could accidentally let the cat out of the bag. She was a piece of work herself, hard-hearted progeny of bushwhacker stock. She'd had the head of her eldest child Kathleen (an almighty Southern woman!) half blown off by a shotgun. In Florida, sort of opposite analogous to the de Mohrenschildt assassination. And teenaged Kathleen Connally's white-trash husband got away with it, in true Southern white-trash, dirt-bag fashion. So poor, multi-suffering Nellie Connally had no sympathy for anyone else. (Probably not even her husband who stole so hard for her, went to prison in the early 1980s owing an eighth of a BILLION dollars) "They" had taken her slaves, her right as a superior Southern woman. And "they" had taken her first-born daughter. Jim D., let me tell you a secret -- they're all white trash. It may be getting somewhat better (but it's probably too late), but the American South in general, and Texas in particular, and Dallas in most particular, is the world's depository of murderous, work-allergic, back-shooting human offal. Okay, Jim, you got me for now. This is harder than I thought. That's only 4,060,008 pieces of evidence that LBJ was Prime Mover in JFKA. A couple more so I can round it up to 4,060,010: Johnson on AF-One. Why didn't he take his own plane that had all his stuff on it? (Answer: He wanted to keep an eye on "the enemy" who had been so good to him, though not good enough for Texas Pure D White Trash.) Last of all for now, the wink from cancerous Albert "Winky" Thomas. This is not an exhaustive list. Far from it. A good exercise, it's making me think. what a coincidence. Mine is expected to be published the very same year. you have a great sense of humor. I don't know if I can stay alive until 2030 to read your book, but I'll try.

James, no offense at all. I simply asked about Marshall's cause and manner of death. "Culprits aside" I said. A face-value question. I don't hang my hat on Estes, either.