Stu Wexler

I tried to get the MLK records released by way of the Clerk of the House ~15 years ago. In all of my document request efforts, that might have been the "rudest" rejection, so to speak. The seal expired a long time ago. The Clerk could have released it then. They could release it now. That said: those who worry that the records include Hoover's anti-King rumors and innuendos are apparently not wrong (I know from an insider.) That is a major concern to people who do not want to do Hoover's dirty work for him. See the hit job on King by Garrow a few years ago, relying on the interpretation of Bill Sullivan's people of a tape that you can bet was grainy as heck (I have never heard of any 60s FBI tap that was anything but grainy) to make assumptions about what was allegedly occuring inside a motel room. It was outrageous. Given the recent turn against MLK by people like Charlie Kirk, I am not even unsympathetic to those who worry that the HSCA files will be used for nefarious purposes. I feel the best way to do get these files would be through the auspices of the Cold Case Review board, who could (excuse the very bad pun) segregrate out Hoover's nonsense. But we need to get that board more support-- a current focus of mine. Stu

Someone indicated that John Hunt agreed with Chesser and Mantik on the Harper fragment. John Hunt did not agree that the Harper fragment was occipital. He agreed with Dr. Joe Riley and Dr. Lawrence Angel (and I believe Pat Speer.) https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/ADemonstrableImpossibility/ADemonstrableImpossibility.htm

Holland?

FWIW: I am not a car guy. But a Falcon apparently looks a lot like like a Mercury Comet. The Lincoln-Mercury involved someone purporting to be Oswald test driving a *Red* Comet. Probably means nothing.

Could one claim, as seems to be a common assertion by DPD officers, that he heard what happened in the Plaza and hopped to the scene even though we was not on duty? Stu

Dean said he was off duty. Did he ever claim to be somewhere else specifically? Good find. It sure looks like him.

Again: so far nothing I have seen even makes me want to spend the time listening to the interview. Can someone give me something solid that makes me go "wow-- that is suspicious." Plenty of people were covering up and cya'ing but who had nothing to do with the crime itself. Can someone give me something, even from the interview, that is on the level of say the Jane Roman quote to Jeff Morley and Newman, or the SS reports about Sierra/Echeverria, or the Odio story, etc.

Dedicate your research abilitied to finding foreign experts. I once went down this path many years ago (wanting them to evaluate head snap/neuromuscular spasm) but got distracted. But I had some success, for instance, finding Russian wound ballistics experts who did headshot studies for their military. They are no longer around. I have always wanted to interest Virtopsy in Switzerland in looking at the case. Stu

Pat. You do some of the most in-depth and thorough work in this case. I always make it a point to find experts who would comment on my inferences and interpretations after-the-fact. It is often tedious but I have had a good deal of success, especially approaching foreign experts where this case is not as taboo. I start by doing everything possible, either way, from hinting that I am covering the JFK assassination. Have you tried this? I believe it would greatly benefit your work and your work merits their consideration.

With all due respect Robert, that sounds like a whole lot of reasons NOT to spend that kind of money on a book and very few reasons to spend it. Can you give us something from the book that screams "rock solid evidence of something new and substantive." Nothing you listed impressed me. Stu

My high school students became the first class in K12 history to write a federal bill that became a law. We modeled it on the JFK Act-- the Civil Rights Cold Case Records and Collection Act of 2018. So we had the idea before Chuck 🙂

Ben. Consider the possibility that they do not have photos of Oswald because those photos show other people in his company that the intel community want out of the Oswald narrative.

My contention is not that Oswald was not there. Or that the Kostikov meeting did not happen. It is that the "Oswald lost his s#$t" story requires caution because 3 different individuals placed themselves at the center of the story. And one is Leonov, who is VERY interesting outside of that. See the footnote below from a well-known Che biography. [QUOTE] "In November of 1962, with his habitual knack of meeting historic personalities on the even of momentous events, Leonov came face-to-face with Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald had arrived at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City and asked to speak to an official. According to Leonov, he was called out to deal with him. But when he saw that Oswald was both armed and agitated, Leonov decided he was "psychotic and dangerous," and says he quickly called other embassy personnel to help remove him from the premises. Leonov says he was stunned when, soon afterward, he recognized him as the man who had been arrested in Dallas, accused of murdering the American president. In a conversation about the various JFK assassiantion theories, Leonov dismissed the notion that Oswald might have acted on KGB orders, citing the "psychotic" behavior he had witnessed firsthand, and said that, theoretically speaking- even if the KGB had wanted to kill JFK- it would never have used someone so unbalanced and difficult to control." [UNQUOTE]

Sherry Fiester made the same point Pat made in her book. The DPD made all of the mistakes Gil highlighted and more. But those just weren't standard norms and expectations many law enforcement agencies in 63.

Read the article I posted. It appears in other places as well. For instance, here is a footnote from Jon Lee Anderson's well-regarded biography of Che: "In November of 1962, with his habitual knack of meeting historic personalities on the even of momentous events, Leonov came face-to-face with Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald had arrived at the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City and asked to speak to an official. According to Leonov, he was called out to deal with him. But when he saw that Oswald was both armed and agitated, Leonov decided he was "psychotic and dangerous," and says he quickly called other embassy personnel to help remove him from the premises. Leonov says he was stunned when, soon afterward, he recognized him as the man who had been arrested in Dallas, accused of murdering the American president. In a conversation about the various JFK assassiantion theories, Leonov dismissed the notion that Oswald might have acted on KGB orders, citing the "psychotic" behavior he had witnessed firsthand, and said that, theoretically speaking- even if the KGB had wanted to kill JFK- it would never have used someone so unbalanced and difficult to control." Leonov basically said he was the person who experienced what Nechiporenko experienced. Larry Hancock or Jim D can remind me, but an American reporter who befriended a Russian general spoke af Lancer. Not Leonov. This Russian general said he (the Russian general) was the one who dealt with a "psychotic" Oswald at the embassy in Mexico City. The reporter did not realize this but I caught it right away and even confronted him about it when a bunch of researchers met with said reporter right after his meeting.

Kostikov is one element of the story. But the secondary element is that LHO broke down when he wasn't getting his way, brandished a pistol, and insisted that the FBI was out to get him. He had to be talked down. Three different people placed themselves as the antagonist in that story (other than LHO.)

I tend to think Oswald was in Mexico City. That there was an impersonation operation but by phone. The problem with the Soviet Embassy story is that three different people told the same plot but with each narrator as the "main" character. In other words, each said they were the person that Oswald broke down to. They are: Oleg Nechiporenkon (the one everyone knows) Nikolai Leonov: https://english.elpais.com/international/2022-05-04/the-legacy-of-nikolai-leonov-the-kremlins-man-in-the-americas.html A KGB General (discussed at a Lancer Conference by a reporter who lived in Russia but whose name I forget) Stu

I will say this. Harold Weisberg did a lot of shoeleather investigations in this case. He did not just read the WC volumes. He also eschewed speculation as much as anyone. I would love to know where he might be getting this story re an affair.

But is that the W&A re-analysis? Or just acoustics in general?

I do not have Ayton's contact info. Could you approach him? Perhaps you can reach out to both for expediency?

Sorry. I confused pages. I know you had the report in your book with Ayton. On another page that I thought was yours there was a link to an online version of it that no longer works. If you have someway of posting a version of it, it would be appreciated.

David: can you post a link to Michael O'Dell's W&A study here? The link does not work and the wayback machine won't recover it. Thanks Stu

You are joking, correct?

Tom I tried to message you privately through the forum email function. It would not let me do it. Could you message me instead? I am very interested in this topic, even more so now.

Gary and assorted gun enthusiasts: Can we use Gary's detailed information and provide it to someone to recreate hundreds of exact MC replica rounds? For shooting experiments. Stu