2 hours ago, Rick McTague said:

Steve,

These two factors make it improbable, in my opinion, that the only shots fired at JFK happened as the WC report said.  Who loads different types of rounds, in reverse order of intended targets?  Who partially loads a clip when they are intending to assassinate the president?

Thanks

Rick

Rick,

I have long speculated that somebody screwed up and planted the wrong caliber bullets in the sniper's nest. The 6.5 caliber spent shells were found, photographed, dusted for prints, and placed in an envelope at 1:00 PM. They had already been entered into the chain of evidence. The rifle was discovered at 1:22 PM

Read this WC reply by Will Fritz carefully when he was asked about the mention of a 7.65 caliber Mauser:

"Mr. BALL. Well, did you ever make any---did you ever say that it was a 7.65 Mauser?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure I did not.
Mr. BALL. Or did you think it was such a thing?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I did not. If I did, the Mauser part, I won't be too positive about Mauser because I am not too sure about Mauser rifles myself. But I am certainly sure that I never did give anyone any different caliber than the one that shows on the cartridges."

It's not the rifle he is concerned about. It's the caliber of the bullets.

I can't think of any other reason why; when that live round was ejected and fell to the floor, that Fritz picked it up and stuck it in his pocket, rather than calling Studebaker and Sims to come over and put it in an evidence bag. My belief is, that he looked at it and realized that the caliber of the live shell did not match the caliber of the spent cartridges.

Steve Thomas

I have been thinking about the physical process you go through to load bullets into a clip, and the fact that the live round in the rifle did not have any fingerprints on it. Don't you have to press down on the bullet with your thumb to get it into the clip? Even if the shooter wore gloves to load the clip, wouldn't the unfired bullet have at least Fritz's and Day's fingerprints on it? Both of them handled it. And why would Fritz have stuck this bullet in his pocket and not place it in an evidence bag and give it to Studebaker or Sims who were collecting evidence at the TSBD? The fired shells were placed in an envelope that was marked with the date and time. Why wasn't this done with the unfired round?

Day's and Fritz's testimony are at odds as to when that bullet was dusted for prints.

Mr. BELIN. What did you do with this after you put your name on it?
Mr. DAY. Captain Fritz took possession of it. I retained possession of the rifle.

Mr. BELIN. Did you process this live round at all for prints?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I did. I did not find any prints.

Mr. BALL. After the pictures had been taken of the rifle what happened then?
Mr. FRITZ. After the pictures had been made then I ejected a live shell, a live cartridge from the rifle.
Mr. BALL. And who did you give that to?
Mr. FRITZ. I believe that I kept that at that time myself. Later I gave it to the crime lab who, in turn, turned it over to the FBI.

Mr. McCLOY. Before Captain Fritz ejected the live cartridge, did you dust the rifle for fingerprints?
Mr. DAY. Not before.

Mr. McCLOY. When was the rifle as such dusted with fingerprint powder?
Mr. DAY. After ejecting the live round, then I gave my attention to the rifle.

Mr. McCLOY. Can I ask one question there, did you take any precautions as to fingerprints before you ejected this?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. So in your opinion your fingerprints wouldn't show?
Mr. FRITZ. He could have taken mine but I let him dust first before I ejected a shell.

Steve Thomas

33 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I'm thinking of the 2004 Australian test, which essentially showed that the SBT is "valid" (with respect to the basic path that the 2004 test bullet took through two "bodies", with the missile ending up in one unbroken piece).

Makes me wonder why you put "bodies" in quotes.

Steve Thomas

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Ron,

 

I was watching an interview with Carmen Boulter the other night. She is a Professor at the University of Calgary in Canada. She teaches in the Graduate Division of Educational Research in the Faculty of Education. She said that any theory must have validity and reliability.

That is, any theory must have the quality of being logically or factually sound, and yield consistent results over time.

Testing a theory can be reliable, meaning that the test-takers will get the same score no matter when or where they take it, within reason of course. But that doesn't mean that it is valid or measuring what it is supposed to measure. A test can be reliable without being valid. However, a test cannot be valid unless it is reliable.

I think a perfect example is this WC exchange with Captain Fritz. He is speaking of Roger Craig...

Mr. FRITZ. "One deputy sheriff who started to talk to me but he was telling me some things that I knew wouldn't help us and I didn't talk to him but someone else took an affidavit from him. His story that he was telling didn't fit with what we knew to be true."

 

Fritz is being reliable, but is his theory valid? He is consistent with the evidence he had at hand, but what does he do when presented with new or conflicting evidence? He dismisses it outright.

 

Steve Thomas

Ron,

Here's another one looking at it from a different angle:

The theory is that you can hit a moving target with a bolt action rifle three times in less than six seconds.

So, they tested that out, and sure enough it can be done. So, the theory is valid.

But is it reliable? Can you consistently prove that theory over multiple tests?

Well, no, you can't.

The theory is valid, but not reliable.

A theory has to be both valid and reliable.

Steve Thomas

3 hours ago, Paz Marverde said:

In the past few days, I saw people here saying the solution to this Forum's problems is to give more space to the most astonishing theories on JFK assassination. The more a theory is astonishing, the more it has the right to be here. On the other side, I saw people saying just the opposite: the more a theory is near to what the WC said, the more it has the right to be here.

 

Paz,

Sometimes, just the sheer number of theories that are out there, are used to dismiss all of them.

Here is an example. This was on CNN on Tuesday, March 20, 2018...

"5 things you may not know about JFK's assassination"

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/jfk-assassination-5-things/index.html

"Whether you were alive at the time or not, you probably know that Lee Harvey Oswald killed the President, only to be fatally gunned down by Jack Ruby two days later.

You probably also know there are hundreds of conspiracy theories about who was behind the assassination, and whether Oswald was the lone gunman or if there was another shooter on the infamous grassy knoll."

One statement is a statement of fact. The other is just "hundreds of conspiracy theories."

Steve Thomas

2 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

Paz,

Good suggestion, though even with evidence there are those who would call a theory "crap."

 

Ron,

I was watching an interview with Carmen Boulter the other night. She is a Professor at the University of Calgary in Canada. She teaches in the Graduate Division of Educational Research in the Faculty of Education. She said that any theory must have validity and reliability.

That is, any theory must have the quality of being logically or factually sound, and yield consistent results over time.

Testing a theory can be reliable, meaning that the test-takers will get the same score no matter when or where they take it, within reason of course. But that doesn't mean that it is valid or measuring what it is supposed to measure. A test can be reliable without being valid. However, a test cannot be valid unless it is reliable.

I think a perfect example is this WC exchange with Captain Fritz. He is speaking of Roger Craig...

Mr. FRITZ. "One deputy sheriff who started to talk to me but he was telling me some things that I knew wouldn't help us and I didn't talk to him but someone else took an affidavit from him. His story that he was telling didn't fit with what we knew to be true."

Fritz is being reliable, but is his theory valid? He is consistent with the evidence he had at hand, but what does he do when presented with new or conflicting evidence? He dismisses it outright.

Steve Thomas

16 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

On other forums I've found that "Ignore" works better in theory than in reality.  You end up seeing the Ignored poster's posts when someone you don't Ignore quotes them,

Lance,

You also have to be logged in for the Ignore function to work.

Steve Thomas

Dear Moderators,

I think it would be very helpful to add a thread title to the opening page that contains instructions for members on how to use the ignore function.

You could place it at the top alongside How to Donate to the Site, and Membership Behavior, etc. Put it up there and then lock it down.

Michael Clark provided instructions, but I'm afraid those will get lost in time as newer posts come online.

That way, you leave it up to the individual user to decide who he or she wants to interact with.

Steve Thomas

2 hours ago, Chris Scally said:

Accordingly, I would recommend wholeheartedly that those of us who are interested in intelligent and civil discourse on the true subject matter of this Forum (as opposed to some of the totally insane theories which are sometimes peddled here and elsewhere) consider the simple option of ignoring all posts from those who seek to bring this Forum to its knees.

Amen.

Steve Thomas

I guess I had no idea.

From the WC testimony of George Bouhe:

Mr. BOUHE - For 9 1/2 years I was employed as a personal accountant of a very prominent Dallas geologist, and probably capitalist if you want to say it, Lewis W, MacNaughton, senior chairman of the board of the well-known geological and engineering firm of DeGolyer & MacNaughton, but I was MacNaughton's personal employee.

From: Everette Lee Degolyer, 1886-1956: A Biographical Memoir, by A. Roger Dension. National Academy of Sciences, 1959.

http://www.nasonline.org/publications/biographical-memoirs/memoir-pdfs/degolyer-everette.pdf

"He (DeGolyer) lived to be honored by the highest elective offices and to be awarded the highest decorations of the American Association ofPetroleum Geologists and the American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers. He was a lecturer much sought after, filled distinguished positions at three universities, and was awarded honorary degrees by six. Nine or more United States Government agencies,commissions, advisory boards, and committees called on him for service which he generously contributed.This combination logically made his advice much sought after in business, and he was for many years the world's leading oil consultant. The opinion of his firm, DeGolyer and MacNaughton, on an appraisal of the worth of a property or a company was accepted as final in financial and government circles the world around. This firm was at one time or another consultant to ten or more foreign governments on subjects ranging from organizing exploration programs to the proper price for oil F.O.B. tankers in the Persian Gulf."

George Bouhe would play a prominent role in the life of Lee and Marina Oswald.

Steve Thomas

I have been involved in Internet communications for a long time – even before Windows was invented, and people were communicating in community bulletin boards using DOS.

Haters (I won't use the “T” word) exist for one purpose; to steer the conversation so that it's about them, and not for whatever the discussion is about at the time. It doesn't matter what the Forum is about, or the form that it takes. The moment the Forum, or discussion group, or newsgroup or whatever changes so that the dialog becomes about him or her, and not about what the Forum was created for, the hater wins. You can't win against a hater, because they live for the combat. They thrive on it. The best you can do is not give it food.

The alternative is to leave, which is a loss for everyone else because intellectual thought dies and all you are left with is desert sand.

Steve Thomas

The U.S. State Department was very concerned about the Russians sending false defectors to the United States by having their women marry foreigners, returning with these new husbands to their new home, and then divorcing them. Manufacturing a case for domestic abuse would certainly fall into this scenario.

I've always been surprised by how fast Marina arranged to get away from Lee Oswald once they got back here to the U.S. They returned to the U.S. in June, and by September, was it?,  she was living with someone else.

In his WC testimony, George DeMohrenschildt said:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/demohr_g.htm

Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. “Right from the very first day my wife told Marina, "You have to learn English, you have to be able to communicate, and especially since you do not get along with your husband and you are going to leave him some day--you have to be able to support your child and yourself. You have to learn English and start immediately on it."

WC Testimony of Jeanne DeMohrenschildt

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/demohr_j.htm

Mr. JENNER. Now, as I understand it, you met the Oswalds in the summer of 1962.
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. In the late summer.

How would Jeanne DeMohrenschildt know in the late summer of 1962 that Marina was going to be leaving Lee unless Marina told her so?

Steve Thomas

47 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul,

I really hope you reconsider.  You were on of the best posters here.  And on top of that you were really a class act.

Please think this over.

The departure of you and David is a real loss to this site.

I recently posted a thread asking people not to feed the trolls. I did not use any names.

The thread disappeared within two hours.

Steve Thomas

2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

So why didn't these supposed Mad Doctors try to cover this up during their so-called alteration session?

Marine guards standing at the ready pulling a body bag from the rear door of the plane and throwing it onto the copter?

"Mad doctors"?

"throwing the body"?

my, my, my.

Texas didn't "want" to do the autopsy. They were required to.

The Secret Service, sworn to uphold the law, broke it; and by doing so, broke the chain of evidence, creating 50 years of confusion.

Steve Thomas

8 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

I mean really Steve...that's a huge heap of speculation.

Was there a period of time when the bronze casket was left alone at Parkland long enough for JFK's body to be witched to a shipping casket?

I couldn't find one. As I said, " I was not able to find a time when Jackie left JFK's body long enough for a switch to be made at Parkland."

But I wondered to myself if that's what the big fight in the hallway was all about. I wondered if the bronze casket was empty at that point.

Steve Thomas

1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

 If someone has objections to any thesis that I have advanced, I'm interested in hearing about what those objections  are.

David,

I remember talking to you about this several years ago, and you convinced me that what I was talking about wasn't feasible, but I don't remember what you said.

I was talking about the possibility of using the tunnels that Price talked about in his testimony and reports.

I was not able to find a time when Jackie left JFK's body long enough for a switch to be made at Parkland.

Here's what I posited back then:

"I got to wondering where a "pink/grey" shipping casket may have come from. I mean, what does a hospital do when a person arrives DOA at a hospital, or dies during surgery, etc? Do hospitals keep a supply of caskets in storage or something?

Dr. Price, Parkland Hospital Administrator was asked this. In his Warren Commission Price Exhibit 33, page 111 he wrote this:

http://www.aarclibra...ice_Ex_2-35.pdf

About this time a secret service man came to me and asked how we could move the president's body. He asked if we had a casket, a basket or anything that we could get to move the body immediately. I told him that we had nothing like that, but that we had several military installation nearby where we could get a casket, or we could get one from a local funeral director. He asked me to wait where I was, stating he would be back in just a minute,. I noticed that Steve had started out of the area with a secret service man and asked where he was going. He said to get a casket, and I told him to wait a minute as someone had just asked me about one and had asked that no further action be taken at that tine. Another man in the group who had been talking with Mrs. Kennedy and the other secret service agents near her came to me and asked that we get a casket of any kind from any place the quickest possible way. I then turned to Steve and relayed the request to him, and asked that he see what could be done about it.

I don't know who this "other man in the group talking with Mrs. Kennedy" was. If you needed a "pinkish/grey" shipping casket similar to ones used to ship servicemen home from Vietnam, what better place to get one than from a military installation?

Is this how the casket was removed?

On page 110 of this Exhibit, Price wrote:

While talking with Mrs. Nelson, one of the secret service men who had been bruised or had a minor injury came to me and asked if there were another way that the President and Mrs. Kennedy could be taken out of the building. I told him there was a tunnel exit and that if he would come with me, I would walk it off for him. I walked down to inspect the tunnel, then returned to the surgery area of the Emergency Room.

(Does anyone know about a Secret Service man who had been bruised or had a minor injury?)

While I was talking with him, (a Mr. Maher) another secret service man grabbed me by the arm and asked if I knew an alternate route the Johnson*s could use for an exit. I told him I had walked out an alternate route with another agent a few minutes ago and that if he would come with me, I would show him. We went to the Emergency Room elevator, one of the maintenance men was manually operating it and told him to take us to the basement....

I instructed the elevator operator to go to second (floor for an emergency delivery of blood),and then to take us on down to the basement. The secret service agent and I "ran" the alternate route, then when we got back to the Emergency Room area, he asked me to show him where the Johnsons were.

While all the attention was on Air Force One, could the shipping casket have been placed on Air Force Two, or the C-130 military plane that took the limousine back to Washington? I would have to find the radio logs for Air Force Two or the cargo manifest for the C-130 to find out more."

Do you happen to remember what you told me at the time?

Steve Thomas

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Frazier had an Enfield rifle. And since Frazier drove the assassin to work in his own car on the day of the assassination, OF COURSE Frazier (along with his rifle) is going to be considered a potential suspect and a possible accomplice. Why WOULDN'T he be considered in such a light right after an assassination had just been committed by a person who was driven to work by Frazier on the day it happened?

The same goes for Joe R. Molina, another Depository employee with an apparent "subversive" history (per the DPD files). Molina was questioned within 24 hours of the assassination and released when it was discovered he had nothing to do with the assassination. The same with Frazier.

William Randle's rifle (scope) is investigated. Again, so what? That's to be EXPECTED, in my opinion, since Mr. Randle had a "connection" to Buell Wesley Frazier, who was also investigated.

 

 

Don't overlook a common police interrogation technique. Treat all suspects as if they are guilty and force them to prove they are innocent.
See the FBI  interview of William Chambers. Captain Jones pulls him aside and instructs him that when interrogating the three tramps,
 "Find out which one shot the President".

 FBI 124-10179-10312
http://jfkassassinationfiles.com/fbi_124-10179-10312
page 2

That's the way Buell Wesley Frazier was treated. That's the way Joe Molina was treated.

Steve Thomas

17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

To Steve and Ron:

Thompson does not believe that today, about the two head shots back to back.

 

Jim,

I'm thinking about all of the ear witnesses who were asked to recreate the sounds of what they heard.

Steve Thomas

“Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology” Volume 53 Issue 1 March, 1962

Article 21 Spring 1962 Police Science Book Reviews

FIRST-LINE SUPERVISOR'S MANUAL.

Edited by Glenn D. King,

Charles C Thomas, Publisher, Springfield, Illinois. 1961.

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=5081&context=jclc

Page 3 of this pdf file

Recognize the names of any of these contributors? (*smile*)

Albuquerque Journal from Albuquerque, New Mexico · September 14, 1975 Page 2

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/157051445/

"Jimmy Hoffa (the missing former teamsters president) saw the United States as a jungle and was going to get his share by hook or crook. That's how younger people see society." Glenn D. King, executive director of the police chief organization, said, "At the present time there is no effective deterrent to crime at all. There should be a social attitude against crime. In the past, there was a social stigma attached to crime, but we don't see much of that attitude now." - Only King suggested that,' the death penalty would help deter crime,'

(Donald A, Byrd, former police chief in Dallas would serve as the police chief in Albuquerque, N.M. From 1971 – 1973.)

small world huh?

In 1963, Donald A. Byrd was the Lieutenant of the First Platoon 12:00AM to 8:00AM Shift, Patrol Division, Southwest Area Substation – where Tippit was killed and Oswald was captured.)

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Batchelor_Ex_5002.pdf

(M.N. McDonald, T.R. Gregory (who rode with McDonald that day,) J.D. Tippit, etc. all worked the Second Platoon, Patrol Division, Southwest Substation 8:00AM to 4:00PM shift)

Steve Thomas

1 minute ago, Steve Thomas said:

Bart,

 

See page 4 of this statement by Waldo Thayer to Harold Weisberg.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/W Disk/Waldo Thayer/Item 03.pdf

The Mauser belonged to a guard on the roof of the TSBD.

Steve Thomas

 

Sorry, I juxtaposed his name; it's Thayer Waldo.

See p. 590 of his WC testimony here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=H7pFAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA590&lpg=PA590&dq="Glenn+King"+Dallas&source=bl&ots=q0nbG51TBB&sig=njbP76Hep4mc2Weavo5fCWdu3f4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwik8bfkne7ZAhVH4VMKHfc1Azo4HhDoAQgxMAI#v=onepage&q="Glenn King" Dallas&f=false

Steve Thomas

2 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

King became more known while talking to the press in the 3rd floor corridor, but we also know he talked to Greg Olds and co. when they tried to get in touch with Oswald.

 

I have been given a 7 page article Holland McCombs wrote for Dick Billings of Life Mag.

You can read this piece here: 

http://www.prayer-man.com/dpd/glenn-d-king/

Bart,

See page 4 of this statement by Waldo Thayer to Harold Weisberg.

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/W Disk/Waldo Thayer/Item 03.pdf

The Mauser belonged to a guard on the roof of the TSBD.

Steve Thomas

3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Mr. Thompson thought then a rear shot came from the top of the Records Building.  I've suspected at least one (the back shot) from the second floor of the Dal Tex Building for years.  Blast away as you may at him, and me too.

 

Ron,

It's funny. I was just thinking about this last night.

I think JFK was hit four times. The first one from his left front (the drivers's side) that went through the windshield and hit him in the throat. The second one hit him in the upper back. The third and fourth ones hit him in the head - the first from the rear, and the second from the front.

I think at least two missed. That's at least six shots with four hits.

I'm not a scientist, so I'll probably get blasted too.

Steve Thomas

On 2/5/2018 at 9:45 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Jim,

But the fact remains that owning a “spy camera” is hardly an indication that you are not a spy, eh?

 

I always thought the Minox was a "spy" camera too, but ti turns out that it was a pretty common type camera. They were expensive, but not not unheard of.

https://flashbackdallas.com/2017/12/07/newly-discovered-footage-of-jack-ruby-1960/

“He’s holding a Minox “spy” camera, which was an expensive tiny camera which had been sold for years in several stores in Dallas (and which was offered in classified ads in The News in 1960 for $75) — by the man’s look of utter fascination with it, it appears that it probably belonged to Ruby.” The man can be seen looking through it in the longer clip at the :50 mark.) (See one of the first Minox ads found in a Dallas paper — sold by Linz Jewelers in 1951 — here, and in the year of this footage, in 1960, in a Neiman-Marcus ad, here.)"

The "suggestion" that it might belong to Ruby is intriguing.

Classified ad for Minox camera with leather carrying case: $117.50

https://flashbackdallas.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/minox_linz-ad_1951.jpg

Steve Thomas

14 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

The article is by Josiah Thompson.  He is given full credit,  Washington photographer for the magazine, Oliver Atkins, is never mentioned.  It's more extensive than a synopsis.  Spread out over 12 pages, roughly 8 of them total text, not including pictures and advertisements.  This in a 10 1/2" X 13 1/4" format.  For the time in the Main Stream Media, of the time,  (TV, a few National Newspapers, and a few National Magazines) it was dynamite.  It talks about things they didn't. Four shot's, three shooters, two headshots hitting JFK.  Much clearer film and prints of the z film at Life magazine than at the National Archives or than the FBI used (copy of a copy).  Back and to the Left.    

Ron,

I'm glad you were able to secure a copy.

Do your best to preserve it.

Steve Thomas

On 2/13/2018 at 10:19 AM, Steve Thomas said:

These seem to be an FBI designation.

 

Who decided where to file, or send these Reports? Who decided who these Reports would get routed to? For example:

Did somebody say, "All Reports on Lee Harvey Oswald should go the Internal Security - R - Cuba desk, except these kinds of Reports which should go to the Internal Security - Russia desk?"

And why would a memo about Yuri Nosenko go to the Internal Security-R-Cuba desk, or memos about Oswald in Minsk?

 

Steve Thomas

Posted by Robert Howard in the Education Forum 10/4/2005

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/1919-bernardo-de-torres/?page=2

The Topic is Bernardo de Torres

My note (SAS is Special Affairs Staff)

"Also from Peter Dale Scott Deep Politics III (CIA, Drug Traffic & Oswald in Mexico)

It is clear that throughout 1963, members like David Morales of the CIA’s Special Affairs Staff, designated to co-ordinate operations against Castro (including new assassination projects),...

From about October 1 to October 9 (David Atlee) Phillips made a quick trip, authorized by the Special Affairs Staff, to Washington and then Miami.[193] On October 1 the Mexico City CIA station also sent a cable directing that a diplomatic pouch, sent on October 1 to Washington, should be held in the registry until picked up by “Michael C. Choaden” (i.e. Phillips) presently TDY (temporary duty) HQS.”[194][195] The date October 1 catches our eye, inasmuch as it is the date of the alleged Oswald-Kostikov intercept. One is also struck by Phillips’ presence in the Miami JMWAVE station from October 7-9. There are reports that Rosselli, who had good standing in the JMWAVE station, met on two occasions in Miami in early October with Jack Ruby.[196]

Phillips’ trip coincides curiously with a significant change in the contents and handling of Oswald’s 201 file. Up to late September 1963, incoming documents about Oswald had been referred to the CI/OPS and SR/CI (Soviet Russia/Counterintelligence) desks.[197] But there was a new addressee for the next Oswald document, an FBI Report of September 24 from New Orleans about Oswald’s arrest in August 9 after distributing Fair Play for Cuba leaflets. This was “Austin Horn” of SAS/CI (replacing the usual SR/CI), whose name appears next to the date stamp “8 Oct 1963.” This exclusion of SR/CI, coupled with the initial exclusion of the report (entitled “Lee Harvey Oswald”) from Oswald’s 201 file, helps explain how an unwitting member of the SR/CI staff (Stefan Roll) could clear an outgoing cable that stated, falsely, that

“Latest HDQS info [on Oswald] was ODACID [state Department] report dated May 1962 [!] saying ODACID had determined Oswald is still US citizen and both he and his Soviet wife have exit permits and Dept State had given approval for their travel with their infant child to USA.[198]

Of the six officers responsible for drafting and signing this important cable, only one, Jane Roman of CI/LS (Counterintelligence/Liaison), had seen the incoming FBI report of September 24 that disproved their text. In Chapter III### we shall investigate the probability that this dishonest cable was part of a CIA/CI operation.

Who was this “Austin Horn” who was privileged to see documents on Oswald denied to those who were drafting cables about him? We shall postpone to a later chapter the possibility, as yet still uncertain, that “Austin Horn” may in fact be David Phillips."

Steve Thomas