Ian Lloyd

https://sites.google.com/site/mthsclassof59/deceased-members url="http://www.ancientfaces.com/person/mary-e-kupstis-campbell/102978356"]http://www.ancientfaces.com/person/mary-e-kupstis-campbell/102978356[/url] url="http://www.usdocket.com/26e6a56/dunn-catherine-sue-vs.-campbell-ochus-virgil-court-case-detail.html"]http://www.usdocket.com/26e6a56/dunn-catherine-sue-vs.-campbell-ochus-virgil-court-case-detail.html[/url]

http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/33071/rec/6 26th November 1908 is correct...

Interesting info... http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/CAMPBELL/2000-02/0951328445

Thanks Tommy. I got confused over the relationship between OVC and Mary since one of the web sites showed her as being related to the Campbell family!?!? Yes, all rather odd indeed...

Ian, That's him. I remember the name "Mary Kupstis" from the research I was doing on Campbell a couple of months ago. I seem to remember his birth year's being 1909, as well. Born in Oklahoma as I recall. One year after it became a state. Can you cut and paste the web address here? --Tommy Edit: Upon further review, the call on the field is reversed. He was born on November 26, 1908. Hi Tommy, There are a few sites that give this information - yes, born Oklahoma 26th November 1908 is what I've found as well. I thought that there may be another way to find a photo of him using the Mary E. Kupstis route perhaps? I've not succeeded yet but others may be better at those kind of searches.

Linda, You should try different spellings - there is a Dallas County record of an Ochus (rather than Occhus) Campbell marrying Mary E. Kupstis in 1984, when Campbell was 75 and Mary was 43! It says Campbell was born in 1909. I'm using a tablet at the moment and don't know how to copy links.

(I think I may even be able to make out the fingers on the left hand) I suppose I should have mentioned that I think I can see them when I zoom in!!!...

Looking at the gif, it looks to me like PM/PP is wearing something on his/her right wrist, possibly a wristwatch. I can only find one photo of LHO that shows him wearing anything on his wrist which appears to show him wearing a watch on his left wrist though I'm not sure if the image may be reversed. Looking at the BYPs, it looks like there is a lighter band of skin around his right wrist as if he's worn something on his wrist while being out in the sun. Also, from that gif, it appears to me as if PM/PP is holding something in his/her hands with the right hand on the top and the left hand cupping the bottom (I think I may even be able to make out the fingers on the left hand). Would an Imperial Reflex camera be held in such a way? Would the right hand obscure the viewfinder?

I thought I'd read it somewhere - from the HSCA firearms panel, testimony of Lutz (emphasis mine): Mr. LUTZ. This rifle can be loaded in two ways. If an individual wanted to insert a single cartridge, a separate clip would not be required. The bolt would be opened. Normally the rifle would be pointed down or in some way so that the cartridge could be fed in by hand into the chamber area of the rifle. Then the bolt would be closed on that cartridge and you would be able to fire the rifle with a single round. The normal procedure to load the rifle with more than one round would be to insert a number of cartridges, one through six, in the clip, in this case a brass clip. They are inserted into this and it acts as a retainer or a holder for the cartridges. They are then inserted into the open area by pushing it down. The bottom of the bottom cartridge is forcing the follower all the way to the bottom. It pushes it down and is forced to the extreme bottom and goes into a locked position allowing you then to push the bolt handle forward stripping the first cartridge from the top of the clip and inserting it into the chamber area of the rifle.

Great animation of the internal workings of the M-C here (not really to do with the question of hand loading a single bullet, I just thought it was interesting).... http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/05/28/reconsidering-carcano/

Chris, If in fact it is a Carcano then it requires a clip to fire. Is this absolutely correct? Can't it be manually loaded one bullet at a time? Admittedly, this would still preclude 3 shots within 5-6 seconds, but just for the sake of accuracy? I'm sure I've read this somewhere, I may be wrong though...

I wouldn't be so sure that he's contradicting Lovelady; Lovelady may have seen the same as Shelley but just assumed that because it looked like they were about to enter the building, then they must have entered the building - but it ain't necessarily so...

Tommy, Reading both affidavits, I don't really see the variations between their affidavits as anything more than what one thought was more important to mention than the other. Now, the difference between the affidavits and WC testimony is a different matter but could be as I explained above - due to the passage of time and being given more time to recount the events. I suppose it would come down to being able to identify them properly in the footage and see their actions and then comparing to what they said they did...though, again, memories are notoriously unreliable, particularly when excitement, duress or stress is involved... I'm not looking to argue the point here, just making some observations, maybe they were generalised a bit...

And, as a further thought, I suppose we mustn't forget that the DPD was a pretty hectic place immediately following the assassination, so I'm guessing that, with the amount of people they were trying to process and take affidavits/statements from, they didn't want to spend too much time recording what, at the time, was thought to be unnecessary detail...of course, what, at that time, appeared to be unnecessary detail has since become very important detail to many people: This is also a field in which people looking back now suspect some of the witnesses of lying/prevarication/avoidance etc., etc. due to differences between affidavits/statements and later testimony etc., whereas, the reality may well be that, later on, when time permitted, they recounted the detail that they originally omitted?

I think that other factors may have been in play for affidavits, statements and/or testimony... They may have recounted only the information that they thought to be important; They may have been asked specific questions to which they gave specific answers; If, for instance, the affidavits were being written by a 3rd person as they recounted, there may also have been an element of "oh, you don't need to include that, we just need to know where you were and what you saw when the shots rang out, don't worry about the details of what you did after unless you think it's important or you saw something/someone you think we need to know about." or something similar... ??

From Tommy in post #125: PS Is that helmeted Marion [sic] Baker walking down the steps on the far left? There is another helmeted cop to be seen on the right of the picture, so I guess there were a few milling around in that area at that time...

Didn't the late Mr Purvis subscribe to a/the head shot being further down Elm?

i.e. suspect the light post created an obstruction?...

Yes, Robert, I do. That Oswald was a quick and furtive little devil. Either that or Baker and / or Truly and / or Campbell and / or Reid encountered / saw Oswald in his "Prayer Man" position on the top step and changed their stories from first (Campbell and at least one unidentified "other" -- Reid? Truly? Baker?) seeing him in a ground floor storage room, to finally, Baker's and Truly's encountering him in the ... the second floor lunchroom! (With some "third or fourth floor" versions along the way.) You know, Baker may have started running up the front steps but paused for some reason before going inside, giving that sneaky little Oswald more than enough time to run inside and grab his apple, or whatever. Heck, Oswald might have opened the door for Baker, or strolled ahead of him in full view to the storage room where Baker might have asked him where the elevator or stairs to the top floors / roof were located, during which conversation Campbell and Truly and Reid might have strolled in and "seen" Oswald in the storage room. Here's a wild idea. Maybe Oswald, "hip" to the assassination or "fake assassination attempt," was taking photos of the "Actors" (so to speak) and then Baker ran up to him on the steps and took his camera away. "Sorry, kid, I gotta confiscate your camera. Tell you what. Come on up with me to the second floor lunchroom and I'll buy you a Coke!" --Tommy edited and bumped Her lens is glowing like Prayer Man's: Doesn't light need to enter the top viewfinder lens of the camera in order for that light to be reflected back out through the front viewfinder lens? Was there sufficient light in the PM position for that to happen? Also, the circle of light in the PM clips seems larger than the viewfinder lens? (On the ROKC forum, someone did a test with his son standing in a porchway in similar conditions of shade to the PM scenario with a similar camera and could not reproduce the effect). Since Prayer Man was pointing his twin lens reflex camera in the general direction of the sun, enough light was entering it through the upper "viewing" or "reflex" lens so that half (?) of it, after being bounced back in the direction of the lens by the 45-degree-angled mirror inside and then allowed to escape out through that lens, escaped with sufficient intensity as to make the lens appear to be glowing to an observer. It doesn't matter that he was standing in the shade because he wasn't pointing his TLR at a poorly-lit object, he was pointing it in the general direction of the sun. In fact, it's easier for the observer to see that glowing lens when the camera is in the shade due to the contrast between the "dark" shade and the "light" glow. That's my take on it, Ian. Please correct me if I've made any technical mistakes. This forum won't allow us to post here any photos from certain websites (at least that's my understanding), so I'm unable to post some good photographs which demonstrate what I'm talking about. In order to view this phenomenon, what it takes is for someone with a twin lens reflex camera to point it at a strong light source and at a mirror at the same time in order to create a kind of "selfie" photograph which shows the glowing "viewing" or "reflex" lens of the camera, or for another photographer with any kind of camera to take a head-on photograph of someone who is standing in the shade and pointing their TLR towards the sun. That's why I suggest googling "Vivian Maier" in quotation marks and then clicking on "images" (instead of "web") to see two full pages of Vivian Meirer's photographs, a few of which were taken in the aforementioned "selfie" way and which, therefore, show her glowing "viewing" or "reflex" lens even though she's standing in shade. Or you might want to check out Linda's excellent "photo album" http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/photos/album?albumid=15889118 and blog http://www.reopenkennedycase.org/apps/forums/topics/show/13218499 on the ROKC website. Regarding "PM's circle of light seeming larger that the diameter of his lens," Oswald's Imperial Reflex was a shiny silvery-grey in color, "like aluminum," so maybe that had something to do with it. --Tommy and blog http://www.reopenken...s/show/13218499 on the ROKC website. Page 8 at the above...

Yes, Robert, I do. That Oswald was a quick and furtive little devil. Either that or Baker and / or Truly and / or Campbell and / or Reid encountered / saw Oswald in his "Prayer Man" position on the top step and changed their stories from first (Campbell and at least one unidentified "other" -- Reid? Truly? Baker?) seeing him in a ground floor storage room, to finally, Baker's and Truly's encountering him in the ... the second floor lunchroom! (With some "third or fourth floor" versions along the way.) You know, Baker may have started running up the front steps but paused for some reason before going inside, giving that sneaky little Oswald more than enough time to run inside and grab his apple, or whatever. Heck, Oswald might have opened the door for Baker, or strolled ahead of him in full view to the storage room where Baker might have asked him where the elevator or stairs to the top floors / roof were located, during which conversation Campbell and Truly and Reid might have strolled in and "seen" Oswald in the storage room. Here's a wild idea. Maybe Oswald, "hip" to the assassination or "fake assassination attempt," was taking photos of the "Actors" (so to speak) and then Baker ran up to him on the steps and took his camera away. "Sorry, kid, I gotta confiscate your camera. Tell you what. Come on up with me to the second floor lunchroom and I'll buy you a Coke!" --Tommy edited and bumped Her lens is glowing like Prayer Man's: Doesn't light need to enter the top viewfinder lens of the camera in order for that light to be reflected back out through the front viewfinder lens? Was there sufficient light in the PM position for that to happen? Also, the circle of light in the PM clips seems larger than the viewfinder lens? (On the ROKC forum, someone did a test with his son standing in a porchway in similar conditions of shade to the PM scenario with a similar camera and could not reproduce the effect).

Was anyone disputing that a scuffle of some sort took place?

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "What is this all about? I know my rights. .... Police officer been killed? I hear they burn for murder." POLICE OFFICER C.T. WALKER -- "You might find out." LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Well, they say it just takes a second to die." Reads like a bad movie script...

I thought it had been determined (HSCA?) that the "sling" on the rifle in the BYPs was actually a piece of rope?

As I recall, according to Harry Holmes from Larry Sneed's 'No More Silence', Holmes described himself and Fritz as having faultless memories, that they could interrogate someone without making notes and, when called to the stand in the subsequent trial, could recall perfectly everything that had been said!!!

I can't recall who it was now (Sean Murphy?), but a good case was made for Fritz's notes having been made not contemporaneously, but by using the LHO interrogation notes made by Holmes, Bookhout et al and scribbling down the pertinent points from them sometime later.