Stu Wexler

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

Have not experimented, but I believe these are free and can possibly help us with image analysis we have been dealing with: Forensically, free online photo forensics tools - 29a.ch AI Image Upscaler - Enlarge & Enhance Your Photos for Free - Upscale.media And 10 additional listed on this site: 10 Free Online AI Image Upscalers in 2023 (media.io) Let's get to work!

Re: Leonov. In an interview with either the Church or Rockefeller Committee, Angleton did everything he could to put a giant arrow above Leonov's head re the assassination. I would add that Leonov was one of three Russians who independently told the same story about Oswald freaking out to them at the Soviet Embassy, only each of the relevant persons put themselves as the person who had to deal directly with Oswald when it happened. So someone was lying or they all were. Two other things. Leonov was very close to Che and other Cubans. And he became one of Putin's mentors. Stu

C.B. Peck. FBI Agent who investigated Oswald in MEXI. Definitely a lead that needed a follow up.

So you folks know this is not the first ARRB redo. My high school students drafted and successfully lobbied through the Civil Rights Cold Case Records and Collection Act which created the Cold Case Records and Review Board. There was a major delay in nominating and confirming members so we just got an extension amendment passed. We are trying to restore powers to the board that were weakened in the Senate 5 years ago. Specifically: the presumption of release, greater access to state and local records and greater access to grand jury records. -Stu

I am a bit confused. Is Jeff saying there is more to it that they discovered than what is in that article? Because the article, by itself, provides nothing that warrants such a definitive statement. Hoping there is more people found.

Just going through titles before I dig in: does anyone just ever throw up their hands and say "Wtf! Why would this be classified?"

The bone has sutures in it that definitively identify what it is and isn't. See Joe Riley. See Larry Angel. It is Mantik who has to explain that in a credible way. I have not seen it. Pat has that right here.

I was routinely debating Rahn at the conferences as were others. The writing was clearly on the wall even before Randich, Grant, Spiegelman, Tobin, et al. made it official. But defenders chose to double down even as the entire science was crumbling. Their ultimate claim: Oswald apparently chose the only ammunition in the universe fabricated, packaged and distributed to allow for definitive counting and matching. To the earlier poster: the key point is that Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (NAA) cannot be used to "count" the precise number of MC bullets from fragments or connect, precisely, one fragment to a specific bullet or even a bullet box. It is no longer even used as forensic technique in any lab. The SBT, and the shooting scenario as a whole, cannot be verified with CABL/NAA. Any debate to the SBTs validity must rely on other factors and evidence. In that regard, I do not believe it holds up very well. To Jim's point, Randich and Grant debunked the supposed uniqueness of MC bullet lead composition much touted by Rahn and Sturdivan. The odd numbers could easily be the result of microsegregation and Guinn's sampling method. Relatedly, they further verified Wallace Milam's point about the heterogeneity issues/math Guinn used and Rahn tried to rectify. What Spiegelman et al. showed was that MC rounds are packaged and distributed like all other bullet boxes, with many of the same exact bullet leads found in multiple bullets within and between boxes. Together, this destroys the Guinn/Rahn/Sturdivan. But in fact, together, they national attention these studies received almost definitely helped kill the entire forensic application of CABL. Stu

And Silver did not even support his groupings so they (Guinn and Rahn esp) ultimately went with just 1 element. Even before the 2000s the trend was to look for more and more elemental discriminants, not one. One NAA/CABL expert called the Rahn decision to use one "absolutely ridiculous."

I do not know why Randich and Grant always get mentioned and never Spiegelman, Tobin, et al. In fairness I was a part of that paper (also provided materials to Randich and Grant.) But we won an award from the American statistical association for our work too. I say this because the issue is attacked from separate angles in each paper. Between the two sets, literally every single angle is demolished. The "what are the odds" per David issue is DIRECTLY addressed in our paper. As I have tried to explain to people before: the odds of getting 4 aces two hands in a row is remote unless ofcourse the deck is literally stacked with aces before you play. That is the issue and one I was confronting Rahn with for years and should have been apparent to Bugliosi: you can at best say *at least* two bullets are accounted for in the fragments recovered; 3 is well within statistical reason and 4 is even possible. You cannot say which fragments came from which bullets with any certainty. And you can't-- per Randich's extensive background with all kinds of bullets-- really say these are even Carcano based solely on bullet lead chemistry. Which makes the tiny fragments a big problem.

If I recall the high (cowlick) entry has 3 pieces of evidence cited in favor of it beyond the red spot. 1) The high fragment trail 2) The 6.5mm roundish metallic fragment in the vicinity 3) The radiating fracture pattern near #2. I know there are many problems with #2-- I got Sturdivan to expose one of them. Pat has an alternative explanation for #2 as I recall, but I would really want at least one forensic radiologist to confirm it. Sturdivan raised questions about #3 but that fracture pattern helped convince some of the top forensic pathologists and radiologists of the high wound. I do not know what to make of any of it. Randy Robertson believes two rear shots, right? But there is also good reason to believe in a frontal shot. And all of it (the contradictions) seem to suggest tampering as being possible however much that would normally . Stu

Is it accurate to say they never investigated? Or more accurate to say they did a piss poor investigation and were handled on it? I mean Coleman and co. did go down there.