Vanessa Loney

Indeed you may, Francois. Indeed you may. Your argument is that Oswald told the truth about some things and lied about others. And you're saying that the way we know when Oswald was lying was when he said anything that supports the PM argument. And the way we know when Oswald was telling the truth was when he said anything that supports the lone nut argument.

Right David. So your position is that in all his other statements Oswald was lying but in this video he was telling the truth? What is your rationale for that? Great find, Barto.

Looks great Barto. Kudos to you.

Hi Pat, I've checked with the author of the petition, Greg Parker and this is his response to the points you have raised. Pat Speer claims this portion of the petition is inaccurate: "but in an unprecedented move, also on his right cheek. This was done for no other reason that to scare a confession. When that did not work, it was leaked to the press that the test was positive - leaving the impression it proved he had fired a rifle and a pistol. The tests are infamous for giving false positives and for not being able to distinguish if the residue is from a gun or from common sources such as urine, matches, pharmaceuticals and fertilizers. It is not possible to get residue on your cheek from firing a rifle. The Dallas police knew that when they did the test." He goes on to make the following points: my response in bold: 1. The cheek test was done so the DPD could say they performed every test they should have performed, not so they could scare a confession. The test was negative. So they decided not to say anything about it. If they did every test they should have done, there are simple things that can indicate if a rifle has been recently fired. Smell, traces of residue. Won't necessarily yield results, but still no excuse for not doing it. On the other hand, the claim Paraffin Test on the cheek was somehow essential or necessary is totally spurious. Here is what the testers testified to: Mr. BALL. Is it usual to find any trace of nitrate on the face if a rifle has been fired? Mr. HICKS. That is the first time that I had the opportunity to make a paraffin test on a person's face. Mr. BALL. You never made one before? Mr. HICKS. Never before. Mr. BALL. The other tests were always on the hands? Mr. HICKS. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Was there some reason for that? Mr. HICKS. I had never had the occasion arise that I know of where anyone had that suggested, that a paraffin test be made of a cheek. On other occasions they were only interested in the hand --------------------- Mr. BELIN. All right, now, suppose you were to examine me for firing a rifle such as a bolt-action rifle rather than an automatic or semiautomatic. Would you expect to find nitrate residue on my hands that a paraffin test would show? Mr. BARNES. Chances are smaller on a rifle than it would be with a revolver. Mr. BELIN. Why? Mr. BARNES. Because your chamber is enclosed. Mr. BELIN. What difference does that make? Mr. BARNES. The powder couldn't get out like a pistol where the cylinder is open, and there is no casing around the cylinder of a revolver, and the chamber of a rifle, it is enclosed with the metal all the way around. Mr. BELIN. Well, I operate the bolt on the rifle, does that make a difference about letting the gas or residue escape? Mr. BARNES. No; all your explosives have already gone down the barrel. It is not coming down the side when you operate the chamber. There is no pressure there. Mr. BELIN. What you are saying then is, that it is the pressure at the time of firing in an open chamber that creates the major portion of this residue? Mr. BARNES. That's right. Mr. BELIN. If you were to have a positive nitrate test on a person's hands, and by positive, I mean it would show the presence of nitrate, would you say, without knowing anything about the firearm that the person fired, that it was more likely that he had fired a .38 caliber revolver, or a bolt-action rifle? I mean a nonautomatic revolver? Mr. BARNES. Let me get your question to see if I am correct. If there were nitrates present? Mr. BELIN. Yes. Mr. BARNES. In my own mind would I come to the conclusion that it would probably come from a revolver? Rather than a rifle? Mr. BELIN. Well, nonautomatic revolver, as opposed to a rifle. Which would be more likely? Mr. BARNES. The revolver would be more likely. Mr. BELIN. Now you said that you took the paraffin casts off the hands. Do you generally take it of both hands when you take a paraffin test? Mr. BARNES. Yes; we do. Mr. BELIN. When you take a usual paraffin test, do you take it of any other part of the body other than the hands? Mr. BARNES. No. Mr. BELIN. In this case, did you take it of any other portion of the body other than the hands? Mr. BARNES. Yes; I did. Mr. BELIN. What other portion of the body did you take it of? Mr. BARNES. The right side of his cheek and face. Mr. BELIN. The right side of Lee Harvey Oswald's cheek and face? Mr. BARNES. Yes. Mr. BELIN. Who directed you to take it there? Mr. BARNES. Captain Fritz. Mr. BELIN. Did he particularly say why he wanted it taken there? Mr. BARNES. I didn't ask the questions why he wanted it. I was ordered to take it from him, and I took it because I had the order to take the test. Mr. BELIN. Was there an order to take the left cheek also, or not? Mr. BARNES. No. Mr. BELIN. How long did you say that you had been making paraffin tests? Mr. BARNES. Since 1956. Mr. BELIN. Roughly, how many of those do you do in a month on an average? Mr. BARNES. It would be hard to say. If I hit it lucky, I won't make too many. If it hits on some other man's duty. It would be hard to say how many I have made over a period of time. I can say that I have made many. Mr. BELIN. Over these years, do you think you have made as many as 100? Mr. BARNES. It would be hard to say. I am not going to go into any actual figures because it would be guesswork. Mr. BELIN. Well, let me ask you this. Of the paraffin tests that you have made, how many have you made of a cheek or cheeks? Mr. BARNES. One. Mr. BELIN. Was that with Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. BARNES. It was. Mr. BELIN. Other than that, you have never made a paraffin test of anyone's cheek? Mr. BARNES. No. Mr. BELIN. Any particular reason why you might not have in any other case? Mr. BARNES. It has never been requested of me before. Mr. BELIN. Based on your knowledge and information about the science of paraffin tests, do you know whether or not it is a common practice or not a common practice to make it of one cheek? Mr. BARNES. It is not a common practice. Mr. BELIN. Any particular reason it is not a common practice, that you can think of or know of? Mr. BARNES. Firing a revolver, should he fire a revolver, I would say the revolver most likely would be far enough away where powder residue wouldn't reach his cheek? Mr. BELIN. What about a rifle? Mr. BARNES. Firing a rifle, you get your chamber enclosed with steel metal around it, and the chances of powder residue would be very remote. Mr. BELIN. Have you fired a bolt-action rifle at all before? Mr. BARNES. Many times. Mr. BELIN. How close would the chamber be to the check as you would be looking through the sight of the gun. Mr. BARNES. Be several inches to the rear of the chamber. Mr. BELIN. Would this have any effect on the paraffin test at all? Mr. BARNES. It sure would. Mr. BELIN. What about telescopic sights? Would that push your face back further or not? Mr. BARNES. Push it even further back. Mr. BELIN. Would this have an effect on the paraffin test? Mr. BARNES. The further you get from the chamber, the less possibility of getting powder residue on it would be. ---------------------- Hmmm. Who to believe. Tough call. The two crime lab detectives who performed the test and stated that Oswald was the ONLY person they had ever tested on the cheek because residue from a rifle landing on the cheek was VERY REMOTE... or Pat Speer who states that the cheek test was among the tests that should be done. In the absence of any legitimate reason for the test, the default position has to be that it was to scare a confession. I suggest Pat do some reading on the use of junk science by police for just this purpose. 2. The test results were not leaked to the press. Curry and Wade announced to the press that the hand tests were positive, and that this proved only that Oswald had fired a gun, not a rifle. Members of the press at first reported this correctly, but within a few hours some news agencies started saying both hands being positive indicated he'd fired a rifle. This wasn't remotely true. It's unclear where this came from but it wasn't from Curry or Wade. The information was LEAKED ie DIVULGED during a press conference. But only selected facts about it were divulged in order to give the impression that it was positive on the cheeks as well. There are two ways to impart information - by spelling it out - or by implication. This was by implication made possible by incomplete data given, 3. It is not only possible to get residue on your cheek from firing a rifle, it is the expected result for most rifles. The paraffin cast for Oswald's cheek was subsequently tested for gsr via neutron activation analysis. This test is still considered valid, and has not been dismissed as junk science. And yet, even though Dr. Vincent Guinn ran a series of controls showing that gsr should have been apparent should Oswald have fired the rifle, this test came up negative as well. The FBI and WC thereby decided to hide this from the public. They got no help from Guinn, though, as he made a public speech in which he discussed his work for the commission. This led, then, to the WC's calling the FBI agent who supervised the tests of Oswald's rifle, John Gallagher, to "testify" as its last witnesses, reading from a script to Norman Redlich. He did not detail the test results for the cheek cast, beyond that the FBI considered them inconclusive, seeing as there was more barium on the back side of the cast than on the front side. What he did not say was that this actually suggested that someone had tried to tamper with the cheek cast, and that the results for the other component of gsr, antimony, were lower than the FBI would have expected, based upon their controls. IOW, the test was negative for gsr. I never called NAA junk science. I called the Paraffin Test junk science. The residue found on the cheek cast via NAA was from contamination - which is the only explanation for it being on both sides of the cast. In any case, I was only dealing with what the police tests showed - not what LATER tests showed. Because it was the police framing Oswald not the Atomic Energy Commission who did the NAA testing. This information is of the utmost importance, IMO, and should be of interest to the Innocence Project. And you are entitled to your opinion. I won't be passing it to them because it is in part not factual and part not relevant.

Thanks Paul and Barto! Greatly appreciate it. Pat, thanks for raising those issues I'll confer with my people and get back to you...

In 2014, Barry Scheck, co-founder of the Innocence Project wrote in regard to the case of Max Soffar, an innocent man dying of cancer on Death Row in Texas,"Soffar's case is like others I've seen in my years with the Innocence Project. He signed a police statement confessing to involvement in a notorious Houston triple murder, but the three days of interrogation weren't recorded. No other evidence inculpates him — no fingerprints, no witness identification and no forensic evidence."Lee Oswald was killed because he would not confess and there was no way that a trial could take place under the spotlight of the world. There was no case, except smoke and mirrors.J. Edgar Hoover said in a phone call the day after the assassination that "the evidence they have at this stage is not very strong." Chief of Police Jesse Curry admitted in his book on the case that they never could put Oswald in that [sniper] window. Meanwhile DA Henry Wade and Captain of Homicide and Robbery, Will Fritz were telling the press all weekend that they had the right man and the case was cinched.It is well known that there was no recording of the interrogation sessions. Less well known is that Oswald prints turned up after initially not being found, and that other evidence turned up only after being missed in previous searches - this includes evidence at his place of residence as well as evidence found on him - hours after his arrest. Junk science in the form of paraffin tests were done - not only on his hands, but in an unprecedented move, also on his right cheek. This was done for no other reason that to scare a confession. When that did not work, it was leaked to the press that the test was positive - leaving the impression it proved he had fired a rifle and a pistol. The tests are infamous for giving false positives and for not being able to distinguish if the residue is from a gun or from common sources such as urine, matches, pharmaceuticals and fertilizers. It is not possible to get residue on your cheek from firing a rifle. The Dallas police knew that when they did the test. This was all exacerbated by the fact that they did not photograph the hand casts showing the dots signifying areas of residue as per proptocol. Instead, they did a sketch showing the alleged pattern, Oswald was also denied legal representation, with the ACLU being lied to when they looked into it. The local delegation was told by police that he had declined representation - a lie proven by Oswald being caught on film and tape requesting that very assistance.Additionally, there is very compelling evidence that the lack of recording of the interrogations was used to alter Oswald's alibi after his death when he could not dispute the changes.On top of all of that is the fact that Dallas County, under DA Henry Wade, put away more innocent people than some entire states. It was a win-at-any-cost mentality, and once you were targeted, you were almost certainly going to jail, guilty or innocent.If Oswald had confessed and was sentenced, he would have been able to appeal on the basis of coercion and pressure brought to bear by fraudulent evidence and lies. If he had lived long enough, he could have requested the assistance of the Innocence Project. There is even evidence in the National Archives that can be DNA tested. This includes fibers and envelopes. Instead, he was murdered and then "tried" without representation and without the checks and balances so essential to justice. This act of murder robbed him of his day in court and his appeal rights. It is doubling down on injustice to deny him - and the family he left behind - the chance to have his innocence tested now with a simple review of police reports and memos, along with the evidence collected from those first 3 days. Where possible, modern forensics should also be used. His case when stripped bare, is no different than any other taken up by the Innocence Project. Someone was murdered. The police, under pressure, latched onto the first good suspect tossed to them (and Oswald was tossed to them by the company that employed him) They then went about molding a case to fit him as they had done to others before Oswald, and as they continued to do after.This petition therefore seeks to ask the Innocence Project to step outside it's self-imposed boundaries and take up the case of Lee Oswald. It is time he has the same chance as anyone else to have his case for innocence explored dispassionately and honesty.PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION TO REQUEST THE INNOCENCE PROJECT TAKE UP THIS CASE.

Tommy I was just clarifying your view on Oswald as it wasn't clear from that sentence what you meant. You are certainly raising obscurity to an art form on here. I'm asking for some evidence to back up your claims that the commies did it and that the CIA was not involved. Time for cards on the table.

Tommy? No evidence yet? Or is it just 'not the CIA' and 'any commie' who did it?

Hey Barto I think the calibre of those coming to your defence indicates the respect in which you are held. I don't see anyone sticking up for the others. We all know the difference between researchers and disrupters. How are you doing? I was really shocked to hear you returned your award. If you don't mind me asking, what on earth happened?

Really? Castro or Khrushchev or Oswald (who you are saying was a CIA asset but that had nothing to do with the assassination??). Well you are nailing your colours to the mast with that line up. What's your evidence for believing in any of those 3 as actors? Let's hear your evidence first then I'll give you mine.

Tommy I see that you have ducked the opportunity to give us your theory on who did it. You keep inviting us to offer speculative views. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Do you now think Oswald did it?

Douglas was accurate about the way the CIA operated in other agencies. After all until a few months ago we all 'knew' that Earle Cabell wasn't CIA, right? Please don't tell me that you now think Oswald did it? You can't possibly believe that. Doyle's behaviour speaks for itself. The mods made the right decision the first time around.

In the same TSBD Museum interview you've referred to Buell said his family was threatened. He said he could deal with threats to himself but his family was a different thing. I don't think Buell knew anything else about the assassination except that Oswald wasn't guilty. Shelley was CIA and I've heard from a reliable source who will soon be revealing his research (ahem) that Truly has intelligence connections. Have you read James Douglas "JFK and the Unspeakable'? You need to turn your view of the world upside down.

Tommy Buell has already identified the person he spoke to as 'Sarah'. There was only one Sarah on the steps - Sarah Stanton. So Buell has outed this person but now wants to protect her identity? I'm afraid that doesn't really fly. I can't think of any reasons that Buell might want to protect Sarah's identity - especially after he's already identified her. I can think of a lot of reasons why he might not want to identify Oswald as PM.

If Stanton is Prayer Man and Buell is talking to 'her' then why hasn't Buell been able to identify the person in the PM position? At last count, Buell has denied knowing who PM is. Surely if PM was the person Buell says he spoke to and referred to as 'Sarah' he would know that PM was Sarah Stanton.

What has caused you to start making common cause with Doyle, Tommy?

Tommy I haven't been on for a while but I'm flabbergasted by this suggestion and that the mods are seriously considering it. Brian Doyle?? I agree with Jim Di. surely Doyle has discredited himself on this forum and many others. Sarah Stanton is Prayer Man? I cannot believe anyone is seriously considering this. If anyone looks like a man it is Prayer Man. No 1960's woman would ever appear in public looking like that man in the corner. What has got into you Tommy?

That's great Bart. Congratulations! Any chance of a sequel or update? PS Hope all is well with you.

Latest SD24 - Prayer Man in Photos https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=728&v=Ujv2UXHV0J0

Hi Chris Yes, SD22 is the most recent. Do you mean you are mentioned? What is the story behind it?

Thanks Chris, appreciate it.

I downloaded 1 of 18 which seems to have Coretta Scott King's 201 file cover but no content unless I haven't opened the pdf file correctly. There seems to be quite a few documents that are copied so badly they are indecipherable.

The real number is 3 times what the Archives has given out??? That certainly is a real discovery. Congratulations to you Ramon. How about you hurry and get that article up on Kennedys and King asap.

Hi Ramon Thanks for the clarification. But I must admit I'm still a bit puzzled. What is the 'hacking' part of the story? Why are Morley and Bradford "off doghouse"? Who is RMS? What's the mock trial got to do with the declassification of the files? Why is Ed Forum going to hit the news? Please explain.