Greg Doudna

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

 

@Greg Doudna i dont have time right now to answer the other good questions you have asked and will do so later. there have been reports of sexual relations between Marina and some of the agents. I have never focused on this so I dont remember the sources of these accounts. maybe others remember.

and just to be clear since my writing style is very direct, i truly appreciate your persistence in questioning the statements and conclusions that I have made along with those of @Benjamin Cole and @Tom Gram. it helps to strengthen our research/analysis and helps me separate the wheat from the chaff. For the same reasons,I value the input from @Steve Roe.       

A classy answer Larry, and I agree with your thoughts in the final paragraph and vice versa. 

6 minutes ago, Ron Ege said:

Greg, thanks.

There's some back and forth here, but I believe that you are on quite solid ground, making the case that there were three jackets, Oswald's two and the one "found" under a vehicle at the gas station.  Others who have also addressed the issue, to me, have buttressed your position.

I personally, do not recall ever, anyone plausibly refuting that there was a not a third jacket - and no credible evidence that the third "found" jacket could conceivably and rationally be construed to have been owned by Oswald.

Not being omniscient, I cannot know if Oswald actually "ditched", what from the credible evidence we have, was the grey jacket, the one that quite credibly, he wore to work that morning.  But in the light of anything else, it "went" somewhere - between leaving the TSBD, and if we choose to believe Roberts, Oswald entering her rooming house.

Thanks Ron. 

The interesting thing is Myers himself in With Malice is willing to consider that the Warren Commission erred in claiming Oswald wore his blue jacket (CE 163) to work the morning of Nov 22, and suggests that it "remains a possibility" that Oswald may have worn his gray jacket to work that morning, in agreement with the compelling testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier and others.

Of course Myers assumes that the gray jacket described by Frazier was the off-white light tan CE 162, even though CE 162 is nothing like Frazier's description of the gray jacket. Myers does not question that equation. But Myers is open to the possibility that Oswald was wearing his gray jacket--whatever jacket that was--instead of his blue 163 that morning.

In this alternative possibility suggested by Myers, at that critical last stage when Whaley said Oswald left his cab wearing a gray jacket, Oswald walks (unwitnessed) on Beckley, then Oswald enters the rooming house (now witnessed again) without a jacket--where either one of the witnesses is wrong or Oswald discarded his jacket en route--Myers suggests Earlene Robert could be wrong in his scenario, and that Oswald did enter the rooming house wearing his gray jacket (which, in that scenario, Oswald did not change unlike other of his clothes, and wore again which Myers holds to be CE 162 back out the same door). 

Whereas in my reconstruction I accept both the witness of Whaley and Earlene Roberts (finding both their Oswald jacket-wearing/non-wearing witness claims credible), and therefore conclude an abandoned jacket in between like the Tippit killer abandoned a jacket in between two witnessed points. 

So there are the three options:

• Whaley's claim was wrong (belief of Bill);
• Earlene Roberts' claim was wrong (suggested as a possibility by Myers);
• both witnesses were correct: Oswald left the cab with the gray jacket, and entered the rooming house without it (my judgment)

And the conclusion drawn from accepting both of those witnesses as credible concerning Oswald's gray jacket and lack thereof also explains what became of Oswald's gray jacket and why it is not in existence today. 

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

To buy into the premise of Greg Doudna's 117 page "paper", as well as the arguments he has made in this thread, one must accept ALL of the following....

-- Linnie Mae Randle was wrong when she identified CE-163 as the jacket/coat that Oswald was wearing when she saw him that morning.

Misrepresentation. I just got through explaining why Linnie Mae Randle was not wrong in what she did say, which was a resemblance in color to CE 163, not a positive identification as you continue to represent.   

--  Oswald wears a coat from the Depository to Beckley, discarding the coat after exiting Whaley's cab.

The gray jacket, the same gray jacket he wore that morning according to Buell and Linnie Mae, at the TSBD that morning and other mornings according to coworkers, and other mornings in Irving and at the TSBD according to Buell. 

--  Mrs. Reid was wrong when she stated that she saw Oswald on the 2nd floor (basically on his way out of the building) with no jacket.

No, I have an entire section on Mrs. Reid's testimony and support her being accurate and correct on her testimony, on seeing Oswald on the second floor moments after his encounter with officer Baker, wearing the white T-shirt and not a shirt and not a jacket. You are misrepresenting me.  

-- Mary Bledsoe was wrong (or lying) when she stated that Oswald was not wearing a jacket when she saw him on the McWatters bus.  Bledsoe said Oswald's shirt was tucked in.  One does not tuck in his jacket.

She was not lying (which goes beyond saying something in error and must include intent or wilfulness in knowingly saying something untrue). I wrote why Oswald may have had his jacket tucked in when Bledsoe saw him, and why I believe Mary Bledsoe mistook the jacket that two other witnesses on that bus said Oswald was wearing, for an old torn shirt with no buttons that was tucked in. 

-- William Whaley, on 11/23/63, was able to describe, in detail, the shirt Oswald was wearing and made no mention of any jacket even though Oswald was wearing a jacket in the cab.

This canard again, which comes close to wilful misrepresentation on your part, not of me, but of the evidence. Because the first FBI reporting agent mentioned a shirt but no jacket description from Whaley, you assume Whaley's entire corpus of later testimony--his entire Warren Commission testimony, all his later interviews, his Utube video interview I posted, in all of which Whaley spoke of Oswald's jacket, the "gray work clothes" and "a work jacket"... you dismiss (without disclosing that you are dismissing all that). When even on the point of that original FBI interview, Whaley himself is never is quoted as denying a jacket, only is not quoted by the first FBI agent as to what if anything he may or may not have said about it. 

--  For some unknown reason, Oswald discards the jacket he is wearing after exiting Whaley's cab and before entering the rooming house on Beckley.

Its not an unknown reason. It was because he was changing clothes, changing appearance to make tracking him more difficult. I wrote all that. 

--  Johnny Brewer was wrong when he states that the man he saw step into the foyer/entrance of Hardy's Shoes was Lee Oswald.

Correct, according to other witnesses. "Burroughs ... reiterated his story of someone slipping in the theater about 1:35 p.m. that day. However, Burroughs claimed that it could not have been Oswald because Oswald entered the theater shortly after 1 p.m... about 1:15 p.m. ... came to his concession stand and bought some popcorn..." 

-- Oswald wore his coat, CE-163, into the Texas Theater and, in an attempt to help frame the patsy, it was later planted inside the Domino Room at the Depository, to be found three weeks after the assassination.

-- The manner decided upon in which Oswald was to meet his handler (a person apparently unknown to Oswald) at the theater was to sit beside each random theater patron until he (Oswald) eventually sat beside the handler.  How these two identified each other is unknown.

Meeting someone. I don't say "handler". 

--  The jacket/coat that Oswald is wearing in the black and white Minsk photo has a hole in the elbow of the right sleeve and must be gray (as opposed to blue or any other color).

It very likely is Oswald's gray jacket because it agrees so well in description with Buell Wesley Frazier's description of Oswald's gray jacket. And, because Oswald had a gray jacket in Minsk according to Marina, and the jacket in the Minsk photo is not the blue CE 163, and the only jackets Marina said Oswald had in Minsk were the gray and the blue.   

2 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Greg Doudna do you really expect the agents holding her in custody and conducting 46 interviews without the benefit the benefit of counsel are going to document how they intimidated her? have you ever been involved in an adversial FBI or police investigation? are you aware of the tactics that were used in the 1960s and sadly continue in some cases today? The agents were under orders by Sullivan “bear down on her”.  

I am not disputing what you say above. The disconnect--my dispute--is going from facts cited to your conclusion, in going from the above to a conclusion that Marina was suborned into perjury to tell an Oswald-Walker shot story created out of whole cloth.

What makes you so sure that Marina being questioned without counsel, intimidated, agents instructed to "bear down on her", etc. was producing a wholly fabricated tale out of whole cloth, instead of a confession of partial truth? 

And it seems you are going beyond suggesting Marina spontaneously gave a made-up false confession, into suggesting that not only was it false, but Marina did not make it up either but was scripted, told, to tell it the way she did. 

I don't see that as following logically from the facts cited. Certainly there has been no allegation or threat of physical beatings. Similarly, there are no credible allegations that she was scripted to tell a certain story either, suborned to perjury in the legal sense. Granting all of what you say above, and even if you want to say it was her own spontaneous doing and not channeled through her like a ventriloquist with Marina being the ventriloquist's dummy, why assume the pressure you cite produced a confessed story that was false, instead of some version of what was true?

What is the basis for that kind of conclusion, especially when there is so much other witness and physical evidence saying there was something to an Oswald involvement in that Walker shot?

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

If I recall, the only early handwriting ID was based on just a few English words like “Ervay”, not the entire text. The lone HSCA opinion by McNally is not exactly conclusive either. Purtell cast major doubt on McNally’s approach and the validity of the WC era analyses. This is copied from a reply I made in another thread: 

The Russian language writing on documents 23, 56, and 57 is by the same person. Although there are a few letter design forms which appear to be in the Cyrillic alphabet, the bulk are in the Latin alphabet and correspond to their counterparts in the script and handprint in the documents listed in sections I, II, III, and IV above. (40) 

With regard to the Russian writing on items 23, 56, and 57, this examiner is not familiar with this language and the characteristics of the various writing systems used. (64) It is almost impossible to distinguish between class characteristics and individual characteristics unless the writing styles of a language are known. (65) This examiner is, therefore, unable to render definite opinion, but can point out that there are similarities between the writing in items 23, 56, and 57 and the handwriting on the items listed in A, B, and C above. (66)

Was McNally at all familiar with the Russian language? There’s nothing in his HSCA bio about it, and his comments about Latin alphabet design forms suggest that he based his opinion on an approach that was basically worthless, according to Purtell. 

The point remains Tom, that nobody with recognized expertise has shown any cause to suspect forged imitation of Oswald's handwriting in that Note. So to say it is forged or could be forged (and then to proceed as if that is a reasonable option) is just making it up out of thin air. It is not as if this is a contested point. There is nobody (with expertise) even claiming that handwriting is forged, i.e. there is no contesting occurring.

There is no evidence the various agencies forged any other handwriting in the JFK case. It is not as if there are good comparative parallels for what is being suggested here in the absence of any evidence.

I wonder if you may be inaccurate in saying Purtell was critical of McNally's method. I just checked, and isn't McNally saying he makes the same-handwriting identification of 57 (the Walker Note) as 23 and 56 (two letters Oswald wrote in the USSR) on the basis of Latin letter forms in those respective documents (which is not Purtell's method criticism)? (Or do I have that wrong?)

Both of the examiners say the handwriting of the Walker Note looks like Oswald's handwriting in other Oswald writing. One says that identification is certain, and the other says he's unwilling to express certainty but it is what it looks like.

Nobody whose opinion matters is saying otherwise. Lots of other indication that the content of that Note fits Oswald.

If there was opposing expert dispute over the handwriting identification it might be a different matter depending on the weight of the authorities involved and their explanations. But this is a case of people with no expertise claiming it could be a forgery on the basis of nothing.  

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

 

To buy into the premise of Greg Doudna's 117 page "paper", as well as the arguments he has made in this thread, one must accept ALL of the following.... (. . .) --  Mrs. Reid was wrong when she stated that she saw Oswald on the 2nd floor (basically on his way out of the building) with no jacket.

That is a total misrepresentation. 

On 6/16/2023 at 8:47 AM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Greg Doudna Marina cannot recant her sworn testimony or she could be subject to perjury charges. while it is unlikely that she would be prosecuted, her Soveit origins no doubt makes her scared of the government.

I dont understand why you find it difficult that Marina would agree to lie about her dead husband. She was a young mother with two girls. She had a choice to protect her dead husband's reputation in the face of aggressive government pressure or protect her two babies. 

The issue is not whether Marina would have buckled under that pressure if that was the case, but whether there is evidence of that nature of pressure: "tell this wholly fabricated story under oath (or else)". My difficulty is the leaping to that without positive evidence, and in the face of serious implausibility. What is the evidence for that nature of suborning of perjury?  

Think about it: you are suggesting the Secret Service (which had physical custody of Marina and control of her and the Walker Note), knew it was forged, and went and asked Ruth Paine whether Ruth Paine was writing a letter to Marina (a question of a secret Ruth to Marina genuine letter), knowing full well that was not the case and it was secretly forged by the Secret Service? 

I have a little acquaintance with issues of forgery of handwriting and texts (in part related to some court cases in Israel in which there were charges, probably true even though the charges were beat in court, of organized forgery of ancient texts and artifacts, to be sold on the antiquities market to private collectors for enormous profits). 

One detail on forgery of handwriting: most forgeries of handwriting involve small samples, because it is extraordinarily difficult to forge handwriting of large texts without experts being able to detect it. The Walker Note is a lengthy text. Not a single accredited or reputable expert in the entire world in all this time has ever challenged the authenticity of the Walker Note as Oswald's handwriting, which was testified as to a finding of fact early on by an experienced questioned-document examiner. And yet, on the basis of exactly zero positive evidence cited at all, you join others in seeming to believe or have concluded that it was most likely forged handwriting.

If it was forged, it was an extremely good forgery, because any other kind of forgery would be detected, and would have been detected, by now. So you are postulating really a picture-perfect or near-perfect forgery of a lengthy text. Did the Secret Service have a lab and secret expertise on the payroll doing picture-perfect forgery to order? Where is the evidence the Secret Service was in the handwriting-forgery business? 

Well, some (I hope not you) say Ruth Paine forged Oswald's handwriting perfectly! So simple to just say that! Without the slightest evidence Ruth Paine had any training in spy arts, ever did forgery or committed a crime in the past! As if someone with no track record, no history, no training, in the forgery business, could produce a lengthy forged text, in secret collusion with the Secret Service who outwardly at first questioned her with suspicion, in Oswald's handwriting, of picture-perfect expert ability. All without a shred of positive evidence. Just assertion, no matter how implausible. 

Why not suppose one of the Irving police officers planted the Note in Marina's book, or forged it. Why not? (Apart from no evidence.)

On 6/16/2023 at 8:47 AM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

 

The note was not discovered during the initial search of the Paine house. it mysteriously shows up 5 days before the FBI is to send its report to the President and after 46 interviews with Marina where she does not disclose her alleged conversations with her dead husband about the walker shooting.  suddenly, it shows up and when confronted with it, she fesses up. So yes, i think it is as equally possible that the note was fabriacted as it being genuine. Moreover, remember that Bert Griffin told me that the WC used Ruth Paine to put guardrails on Marina's testimony.

Finally, I dont know if there is actual evidence of the  police finding the photo in Oswald's possessions at the rooming house. Is there a photo of the photo of his possessions? The photo could easily have come from the DPD April investigation and then the DPD placed it into the Oswald inventory. that could explain the missing license plate number. DPD was not only inept but also crooked.   

Wasn't that photo identified as having been taken exclusively by a particular camera which was Oswald's camera? Wouldn't that rule out it was a police photo?

I don't think you will deny that Marina intentionally destroyed a Backyard Photograph in a motel room Sat night Nov 23, 1963? Marguerite witnessed it and told of it. Marina also told of it. 

Isn't that of a piece with those original non-volunteering and/or denials from Marina that Oswald was involved in the Walker shot? The direction going from untruthful denial, to fessing up to (a version of) the truth? 

It seems to me these attempts to claim so much of the physical evidence in the Walker case was forged and Marina's testimony suborned to perjury, function not only to go in a direction which isn't factually true, but has the effect of obstructing getting at the actual truth of the Walker shot, which did involve Oswald with the issue being in what way and how.

May I ask you, from your experience or knowledge as a trial or defense attorney in criminal cases--how is the notion that the Secret Service, or FBI, or whoever, suborned perjury of an entire developed fabricated story of Marina in a direct sense not bizarre? Does direct suborning of perjury of that scale and nature happen in your experience? Wouldn't that be extremely risky in the sense of major scandal if it was ever found out--and that alone would act as a deterrent on that happening in fact even if there was motive to do so?

On 6/13/2023 at 12:00 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Bill, I’ve answered many of your questions. Now I wonder if you would answer a couple from me. 

Let’s start with this one. Would you kindly say which jacket you think Buell Wesley Frazier is referring to in the below, and what do you think became of it?

”All I recall about Oswald’s clothing on the morning of the assassination was a gray work jacket.” (12/5/63)

”It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning … I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before … several times…” (Warren Commission testimony)

To which you replied, without answering the question asked:

On 6/17/2023 at 3:43 AM, Bill Brown said:

Linnie Mae Randle has Oswald wearing 163, the jacket/coat found in the Depository a couple weeks later.

Now, she can be wrong; but so can Frazier.

But you see Bill, Linnie Mae Randle did not positively identify the "gray" jacket she saw as 163 as you are claiming--the same gray jacket described by Buell who saw it more than she did. Linnie Mae said that the "gray" jacket she saw resembled 163. You conflate "resemble" as if that is a positive identification, instead of "resembled".

In other words, there is no need to suppose either Linnie Mae, on the basis of her brief memory of the jacket, or Buell, on the basis of his more familiar and multiple times of knowledge of Lee's gray jacket, were mistaken. Linnie Mae only makes a positive identification with 163 by you setting up a straw man claiming that her "resembles" 163 in color means positive identification it was 163. 

Mr. BALL. A gray jacket. I will show you some clothing here. First, I will show you a gray jacket. Does this look anything like the jacket he had on? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. 
Mr. BALL. That morning? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it. 
Mr. BALL. Was it similar in color? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I think so. It had big sleeves. 
Mr. BALL. Take a look at these sleeves. Was it similar in color? 
Mrs. RANDLE. I believe so. 
Mr. BALL. What is the Commission Exhibit on this jacket? 
Mrs. RANDLE. It was gray, I am not sure of the shade. 
Mr. BALL. 163.  

But let's return to Buell Frazier's description of the gray jacket that both he and Linnie Mae saw, a gray jacket that they both DID positively dis-identify (denied without question an identification) was the near-white light tan CE 162. Both said Oswald's gray jacket which they saw that morning was not 162, because Oswald's gray jacket was not near-white like the light tan 162. Instead, Oswald's gray jacket was a non-near-white gray.

Now compare that gray jacket of Oswald that Buell and Linnie Mae kept saying was "gray" and which Buell said was "more or less flannel, wool-looking" with the jacket Oswald is wearing in Minsk in that photo of him with his coworkers in Minsk. That is a black-and-white photo, and because it is black-and-white you criticize the notion that it could be the gray jacket Buell Frazier described, and which Linnie Mae also saw, by suggesting Oswald's Minsk jacket in that photo could equally well be dark blue.

On 6/12/2023 at 2:53 PM, Bill Brown said:

Except you cannot possibly say with any certainty what color that Minsk jacket is.  It could be dark blue.

But here is why I don't think your suggestion is correct that that could be the blue jacket that Oswald had in Minsk according to Marina: because I accept that CE 163 was Oswald's blue jacket or coat. The jacket in the Minsk photo Oswald is wearing is certainly not CE 163, and one does not need a color photo of the Minsk photo to know that.

But the jacket Oswald is wearing in that Minsk photo looks like it could be Oswald's other jacket, the gray jacket Oswald had in Minsk... the one described by Buell Frazier. The one Buell said one would wear on a cool day outdoors when it was too cool to be comfortable in shirt sleeves alone. 

Linnie Mae when shown 163 said 163 resembled Oswald's gray jacket--the one described by Buell--in color.

So did Mr. Ball. Mr. Ball was calling 163 a "gray" jacket as he led Linnie Mae to agree to a color resemblance between 163 and the gray jacket of Oswald Linnie Mae recalled (see testimony above).

There was no positive identification from Linnie Mae of 163, which you should stop misrepresenting as such. Rather, Mr. Ball obtained from Linnie Mae agreement that what Mr. Ball called the "gray" 163 resembled, in color, what Linnie Mae and Buell were referring to, Oswald's gray jacket, which actually was gray.

The "gray" 163 (per Mr. Ball, which actually was blue) resembled the actually gray gray jacket Oswald was wearing, in terms of resemblance in shade, resemblance in tone, and that was true as far as it went, between Oswald's gray and blue jackets--the gray described by Buell and in the Minsk photo, and the blue being 163.   

19 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

I am very clearly saying that FBI was in the process of finalizing its December 5th report on the assassination in the hopes of influcening the WC investigation and Hoover needed to have his 11/22 conclusion that LHO was the lone gunman firmly established. The Walker shooting was a key underpinning of that conclusion because it supposedly demonstrated his tendency towards violence and planning for the murder attempt.

so absolutely yes-in a circumstantial evidence case, Marina was the key witness and she was pressured by all possible means to produce testimony to support the desired conclusion. end of story.

Regarding documentation, the FBI 302s in this case were replete with "perjury traps" where FBI investigators altered the accounts of the witnesses and then when they read their statements and complained, they were told it was a federal crime to lie to a federal official. so the inaccurate 302s remained intact. 

Moreover, Warren allowed the use of unrecorded preliminary interviews of witnesses. This was where many witnesses were told that their accounts were wrong or did not happen. 

If you dont believe that this happed, then you need to read the comments of witnesses . I dont have time today to share the names. perhaps others here can do so.

The historic record cannot be taken on its face --which can be frustrating to a historian like you. but this was not an objective investigation. The US had to show its allies that we were not a bannana republic. this was actually more important than convincing citizens that Oswald was the only assassin. All you need to do is see the acounts coming in from Europe in the winter of 64 to see the real concerns of our leadership. 

I agree with what you say happened re the methods of unrecorded preinterviews and so on. I just can't see that that converts to a conclusion that Marina was suborned to tell a false story fabricated out of whole cloth.

Are you supposing this was a case of Marina pressured to confess to what actually was the case--Oswald involved in the shot? Or a case of Marina pressured to fabricate something false? In the latter case you are then talking forgery of physical evidence too, the Walker Note and the photographs, and not a shred of actual credible positive evidence for claims of forgery of those or suborning of perjury. Only argument from motive and suspicion alone which is not a reliable method of producing accurate conclusions.

I could see what you say in terms of the former however--Marina pressured to spill her beans, which is basically what happened when she was shown the Walker Note. 

And all this defense attorney argument on your part (with respect incidentally; thank you for your current work on the MFF legal actions)--all for a proposition that not only is a tough sell but also simply unlikely to be true (that not only Marina's testimony but the Walker Note and Walker house photographs were forged, if that is where you are going with this) ... all to attempt to disassociate Oswald from involvement in a faked shot which was not attempted murder to begin with.

They had photos of Walker's house among Oswald's belongings which are narrowly dated to ca. April 1963. They had the Walker Note which although it does not mention Walker, from its contents is dated to that time and consistent with involvement in the Walker shooting and in Oswald's handwriting. De Mohrenschildt thought Lee had shot at Walker. They didn't have, but there existed, a BYP with "ha ha hunter of fascists" which had to have been written by Marina even though she denied it, and which was given to De Mohrenschildt by Marina in April 1963 according to Epstein's final interview of De Mohrenschildt which was the truth underlying De Mohrenschildt's dissembling about being surprised to discover it in his belongings years later. They didn't have, but we do, Michael Paine telling that Oswald told him he was spying on Walker--what else is that talking about but sounding like Oswald was mixed up with Surrey and company, a context of involvement in a faked shot. There was the fact that Lee and Marina quickly moved to New Orleans following the Walker shot for no obvious reason, which Marina later said was because of the Walker shot.

Do you have any good theory on why Marina, so adamant in her later years in changing to say that Lee was innocent after all of the JFK assassination, has continued to say directly that Lee did tell her he took a shot at Walker, that that was still true? Bugliosi tells of that in his interview of Marina, and I believe Marina has told others the same.

Here is my theory on that: Marina continues to say that today because Lee did tell Marina he took a shot at Walker, told her that because he intended for her to believe that, maybe intended to prompt her to turn him in. 

10 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

I was only talking about hitting Russian ships that are in the war zone, not ships that are docked or operating farther away. 

We could give Ukraine long-range missiles with the stipulation that they could not be fired at targets farther than XXX miles away. I'd certainly hope we would at least allow them to hit Russian missile sites that fire missiles at Ukraine, and also hit rear bases, rear staging areas, and transportation nodes and lines within 150 miles of Ukraine's border. 

I am thrilled that Biden is finally authorizing the transfer of fighter jets to Ukraine. News reports say we are now training Ukrainian pilots to fly those jets. Assuming we give Ukraine a decent amount of fighter jets, and assuming we train the pilots adequately, the jets will make a huge difference by enabling Ukraine to take meaningful offensive actions.

If in a year or three from now you and the rest of us, assuming we are among the survivors, are looking back at the unimaginable holocaust of a nuclear war that spun out of control, would you still consider these actions in retrospect to have been the correct ones to take?

I know Putin was wrong to invade Ukraine, totally wrong. But for the love of God and future generations, this goddamned war is going to go nuclear if it is not stopped and settled with a negotiated cease-fire and settlement. 

The Russians are saying it will. You think people in power do not mean what they say? 

Is this a little like playing "chicken" in high school, in which cars with young men with too many hormones and too little sense race toward each other striving to be the last one to veer away?

But back to the question: if this horrifying worst case happens, which "no one" wants to happen, would you still consider the present actions in retrospect the right ones to have taken?

Well-reasoned article.

From my point of view Oswald's not taking the rifle in on the morning of Nov 22 does not conflict with the rifle coming from the Ruth Paine garage, based on argument that Oswald himself removed the rifle from the garage on Nov 11 and prepared it that morning for a conveyance, and there is no evidence that the rifle was returned to or present in the Ruth Paine garage after Nov 11. That allows for an unknown number of possible means and trajectories by which the rifle could have ended up in the TSBD 6th floor eleven days later (https://www.scrollery.com/?p=1485).

Velma's voice does sound elderly at the time of the radio interview, but "85" would not work with this Velma Alex b. 1946 because that Velma Alex would not be 85 until the year 2031. Is that "85" (age of Velma at the time of the radio call-in) accurate? (Mentioned above by someone in this thread.) Its not in the partial clip I transcribed. 

Also, Velma in the radio call-in referred to having four children, implied as maybe a single mother, as her reason for not reporting what she saw out of fear. If she was age 17 in 1963 she would not have four children, though Velma could be meaning that as a reason not to tell her story in later years too.

The unidentified Velma may also have had a name "Alex", since that is how the announcer addresses her, likely from a screened call-in note taken by an assistant handed to him before the host put her on the air. Why Velma would identify herself as "Alex" when phoning in before going on the air, and then "Velma" on the air, is not clear. Unless "Alex" was a daughter of Velma placing the call for Velma, my guess is "Alex" may have been her last name, with the radio host confusing a last name as a first name. Is it possible Velma might be identifiable making use of this other name used by the announcer, "Alex"? 

Just guessing ... but here is a "Velma Alex" (maiden name) of Texas who would have been 17 years old in 1963 (old enough to drive?). However her given location, "Harris County", Texas, looks closer to 200 miles from Dallas rather than the 100 Velma told the radio host.

Velma A Mickens of Texas was born c. 1946. Velma Mickens was married to Charles E. Mickens on April 5, 2009 in Harris County, Texas. Family, friend, or fan, this family history biography is for you to remember Velma A. (Alex) Mickens. (https://www.ancientfaces.com/person/velma-a-alex-mickens-birth-1946/96693709)

8 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Greg Doudna The rifle id is very different situation. only Day and Fritz handled the rifle. the other officers said they heard Fritz or someone say it was a Mauser. this is apples to oranges.

Ithink you need to review the chronology of Marina's statements before you find her credible about the Walker shooting. This is what happened (excerpted from my evidentiary analysis for the mock trial):

 Marina had been under the protective custody of the Secret Service at the Six Flags motel in Fort Worth. She was interviewed 46 times without the benefit of counsel.  During this period she had not linked Oswald to the Walker shooting. 

On November 28^th,  the FBI team began interrogating Marina to clear up some of the loose angles in the case. William C Sullivan, chief of the bureau's domestic intelligence division and the official in charge of handling oswald's widow, told the team to “bear down on her”.^[4] 

FBI headquarters dispatched an Immigration and Naturalization service agent to Fort Worth to join the FBI team. The INS agents assignment was to impress upon Marina that now that her husband was dead, she was an alien without a permanent visa and could face deportation if she did not cooperate with the government (Marina had  made it clear to the Dallas police through Ruth Paine that she wanted to remain in the United States with her two children and did not want to be sent back to the Soviet Union. ^[5]) 

Discovery of the Note 

On November 30th Ruth Paine sent to Marina via the Irving County police the Russian housekeeping book amongst other things. Materials that the DPD had previously searched the weekend of the assassination. 

Magically, the Secret Service agents examines these materials and discovers the note written in  poor Russian. The note was not dated and was not signed. It was only after she was confronted with this note at this time that Marina confirmed that her husband had written it and had confessed to her that he was the one who had made the attempt on Walker’slife.^[6] 

Initial FBI Report   

On December 6^th, Katzenback back told Pierre Salinger to go ahead with a press a White House press release confirming that Oswald had been the sniper who took a shot at the general. That same day FBI section chief James L Hanley informed the head of the FBI Dallas office Gordon Shanklin that he could expect a memorandum. 

The memorandum contained the copy of the Walker note with Marina’s account and instructions to Ed Bachner that the FBI report would conclude that Oswald was a sniper in the Walker case and that the Bureau expected the Dallas police to fully support the official version. It was imperative that FBI headquarters move quickly to tie up all loose ends because the Dallas police were not privy to the conclusions in the FBI report and there were still uncertainty about whether Carr and the Texas court of inquiry could be trusted to stay with the official line.^[11] 

Belmont told Katzenbach DPD had not considered LHO a suspect.^[12] 

All DPD witnesses pointed to 2 or 3 conspirators with car. 

Warren Commission Issues with FBI Initial Report 

In February 1964, chief Curry told a Reporter from the Dallas times Herald that the police were ready to name Oswald as the assailant in the Walker case based not on the ballistic evidence but solely on Marina oswald's testimony. 

In  May 1964, , Rankin wrote Hoover a 6-page letter complaining that marina's testimony on the Walker shooting to the FBI and Secret Service was given the Commission lawyers fits because it was riddled with contradictions. He requested that the Bureau undertake an extensive investigation concerning the Walker allegations. Rankin’s letters spelled out in detail six areas that needed clarification and asked to direct that Marina questioned again. Shanklin who thought the Walker case was closed now  had to assign two agents to interview Marina all over again because “her statements “just don't jibe”. ^[13] 

^[4] Shanklin to file (11/20/ 1963) , 89 - 43 - 1297; HEITMAN to file (11 /30/ 1963) file number 89 - 43 - 1421. 

^[5] Forrest V. Sorrels  to Jesse Curry (12/26/63); ser no. 2-34-34,000. DPD Files V12. 

^[6] WCR 183-14; Leon I. Geopadze 12/3/63 serial #2-34.303. Secret Service document 322 

^[11] 89-43 -2613a (12/06/1963 (Shanklin to fil)e 

^[12] 62-109060-1623  (12/6/63) 

^[13] Shanklin to file 2/191964 100 - 10461 - 3537 ; Ranking to Hoover (5/20/1964) Oswald file 105 - 82555 - 3 ? 92; Shangqing to file 6/10/19 64 100 - 104 61 - 6620. 

*******

You are a decent guy who seems to look for the goodness in witnesses which is admirably. But this was the murder of a president with enormous pressures applied to investigators and witnesses to build a case that supported Hoover's conclusion on the afternoon of the 22nd that Oswald was the lone gunman. I think you continue to be overcredulous or uncritical about how Marina's testimony was extracted from her.

the WC called her back 4 times because of how frustrated they were with her testimony. Phil Shenon's book has some quotes about how the WC felt she was not being truthful. And Bert Grifin told me how they used Ruth Paine to cabin Marina's testimony. 

In this case, one cannot take the evidence at face value but see how it was developed. Again, all the "mistakes" go in one direction. that is not normal or likely from a statisical standpoint.      

Larry, all you say about the pressures and the INS leverage and threat is true, but where are you going with that? Are you supposing the FBI wanted Marina to lie to them and make up stuff about Lee out of whole cloth, or to tell them the truth (be forthcoming), as the outcome of that pressure?

Are you supposing Marina out of that pressure on her own creatively made up Lee involved in the Walker shot, and Lee writing the Walker Note, or are you supposing she was told what story to tell? Rehearsed in it? Directly and illegally suborned to perjury? 

Doesn't it make more sense that the pattern was: Marina started out not truthful and cooperative, with denials and minimization, at the outset, and FBI could tell that-- and so there was pressure to "get her to talk" and "cooperate" and "open up" in telling what she knew? As in, tell what she knew of what really happened?

Not, Marina we want you to (a) make up stuff out of whole cloth or (b) here, we have already made it up for you, now you learn these lines and say this made-up stuff, "or else"?

Are you saying "b"? Or "a"? Or neither?

How would that work? Was Marina secretly rehearsed on telling fake stories created out of whole cloth at FBI instigation? That's what is is sounding like where you go with this, and that makes no sense to me in the absence of actual evidence something of that nature was going on.

Do you think the FBI had two sets of files on her, one of her false stories that they had given her which the FBI knew was false. And another file where they asked Marina to "really, now, this is secret, but really tell us the truth here of what happened"? 

If you were the FBI, would you trust Marina with all her personal turmoil and credibility issues, to keep a two-track series of interviews straight, one both Marina and FBI know is untrue for dissemination, and another secret set internal to FBI in which Marina supposedly tells the opposite "truth" to them, but never to see the light of day?

Marina tried to destroy a BYP, later told of how the photo was taken (not necessarily fully truthful there either). 

Marina did not volunteer Lee involved in the Walker shot, then at first denied knowledge of it when it turned up according to reports. Then she admitted it and told of it. Which direction was in the direction of "the truth" there? 

Howard Brennan's version of the same thing Velma saw

From Howard Brennan, Eyewitness to History 1987), pp. 8, 16.

"While surveying the area, I glanced away to the side of the Depository Building and found something I could not understand. At that time there was a side entrance towards the rear of the building on Houston Street. At some point during the morning hours, the police had sealed off parking in that block and forced all cars to move. Saw horses were placed at Elm and Houston to block traffic. As I looked around I saw a lone car parked beside the School Depository with a white male seated behind the wheel. The car was an Oldsmobile, a 1955-57 model. It is difficult to tell the exact year unless one is an expert because all those years looked nearly alike. I remember wondering why all the other cars had been made to move and this one had not. 

"I didn't have the chance to study the driver carefully but he was wearing civilian clothes and appeared to be middle aged.

"One thing that interested me about the car was the way it was parked. The front left wheel was pulled sharply away from the curb and the driver had the door partially open. Later I wondered if the reason for this was so the car could make a quick U-turn in a speedy departure. As I was watching the man in the car I saw a policeman who was on foot walk over towards the car and begin talking to the man in a friendly, laughing manner. So far as I could see, there was no attempt made to get the man to move his car and after chatting for a minute or so, the policeman walked back to his post. It was this fact that made me think the police should have made some report about the presence of the car, but I have never seen any other account of this 'mystery car'.

(... [after the shots, Brennan finding a police officer]...)

"...He [the officer] grabbed my arm and we both ran to the front of the School Book Depository. I glanced back towards the street to the side of the building. The car I had seen PARKED there before the motorcade passed WAS GONE. Although only a few moments had elapsed and all exits were blocked except one, the car had disappeared. The policeman who had been talking to the driver was gone, but I assumed he was looking for the gunman.

"Many times since, especially in recent years, I have thought about the car parked alongside the Texas Book Depository and wondered where it came from and where it went. I have always wondered why the policeman allowed the car to be parked illegally beside the building with its wheels turned outward when other cars had been made to vacate the area. Of course, the paramount question in my mind was, 'Who was the man sitting behind the wheel that day?'

"As I watched the car, it never occurred to me that an assassination was about to take place and this might be the 'get-away' car. Even though I could not have positively identified the man behind the wheel, I can say this for certain. The man was white, middle-aged and dressed in civilian clothes. I didn't have an opportunity to study his face, so identification is impossible but I have always felt that somehow he was involved in the assassination.

"Later, I would remember, 'if that was a "get-away" car, why didn't it wait to pick up the killer?' Was it possible that he was being left on purpose? These questions and others tormented me for years after that experience and will never be fully answered. The one thing I knew for certain--there was a car there before the assassination and it disappeared before the assassin had time to get out of the building.**

" ** Authors note: Howard did not report the presence of the car beside the Book Depository Building initially because he did not make an association. Subsequent to that time he had already made a formal statement and probably realized that to insert this new item might cast some doubt on his testimony. He thus determined not to say anything he could not verify absolutely. In retrospect, he acknowledged he probably should have reported it, but he wanted to be sure his testimony would stand since it was critical."

Other witnesses of the same thing Velma saw

James Worrell said he saw a man come out of the rear of the TSBD, not carrying anything, running with a jacket flapping

15-yr old Amos Euins, said he saw a man "leaving hurriedly after the shooting" and said when he tried to tell he was told to be quiet about it, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62490#relPageId=102).

Roger Craig, saw a running man come around the TSBD from the Houston side and run down to Elm and get in a station wagon, gave descriptions. 

Marvin C. Robinson driving a car on Elm behind that station wagon told of seeing a white man run and get into the station wagon ahead of him, which he called a "light colored Nash station wagon", https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=233493#relPageId=3 .

Richard Randolph Carr, from an HSCA staff report (https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcarrR.htm) : "Carr was asked during the Shaw trial if he noticed any movement after the shots which seemed "unusual." Carr then said that he saw a Rambler station wagon with a rack on top parked on the wrong side of the street [on Houston], heading north and facing in the direction of the railroad tracks, next to the depository. Carr said that immediately after the shots he saw three men emerge from behind the depository and enter the station wagon. He gave a description of one of them: he was "real dark-complected" and appeared to be Spanish or Cuban; he drove the car away, going north on Houston Street. During the Shaw trial testimony, Carr said he had reported this information to law enforcement officers and that someone had told him not to repeat this information. At that point, defense counsel objected to hearsay by Carr, and no further details were elicited about the reported coercion of Carr, other than his statement that he did what the FBI told him to do, "I shut my mouth." 

Marion Meharg saw the same thing but misidentified the car as belonging to his ex-wife--said it was his ex-wife's white-over-green two-tone 1956 Chevy station wagon--and imagined his ex-wife's new husband (who had nothing to do with anything), a younger man his wife had left him for, was the shooter, in conspiracy with his ex-wife to assassinate JFK. Meharg phoned this claim in to the Dallas Police the day of the assassination according to what Alveeta Treon had in her notes (the operator who told of the Oswald call to John Hurt), and Meharg told the same to the FBI on Dec 12. I have talked to the younger son of Meharg and confirmed the son's stepfather (the one wrongly accused by Meharg of being the running man/assassin) and his mother's station wagon were in Atlanta, Georgia, where the boy was, on the day of the assassination Nov 22, 1963. The point of interest in the Meharg story is not the (sad, on a human level) saga of the wrong identification, but that he saw something in the first place which was not itself made up. However one point: I suspected Meharg may have viewed from the same approximate vantage point as Carr, so much so that it would not surprise me if Meharg and Carr had been acquainted or together that day. If so, he could not have seen the back of the TSBD, any more than could Carr from his vantage point, so as to know that the running man actually came out the rear door of the TSBD. But it would look that way from that vantage point seeing a man come running around from the back of the TSBD on to Houston. Also, if that is where Meharg was it would be too far away for Meharg to be able to read a license plate number. Very frustratingly, although the FBI talked to Meharg, there is no report that they ever asked him where his position was when he claimed to have seen what he saw, nor showed any interest in his story for its potential witness value. Either Meharg fed the license plate number of his ex-wife's car (a license number he had not really seen on the car that he did see) to the FBI, or his vantage point was closer than that of Carr, I suspect the former:   

"Meharg was then asked by the FBI Special Agents if he advised Alfred C. Ellington on December 2, 1963 as follows" "That within a matter of minutes after President Kennedy was shot, he observed a man come out of the Texas School Book Depository loading dock at the rear of the building, run across Houston Street and get into a 1956 green and white Chevrolet station wagon; that he further observed the license number on this vehicle and believes the first four digits were PW 17. He was further asked that did his former wife not own a 1956 green and white Chevrolet station wagon with a 1963 Texas license PW 1784." Meharg stated that he did furnish SA Ellington this information and advised that he was worried about his two boys who are in the custody of his former wife, Mildred, and is afraid she might have gotten mixed up in this affair. He stated he is sure he observed a 1956 green and white Chevrolet station wagon on Houston Street with Texas license starting with PW or PB or PF or something, and was afraid it was hers." (https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t585-the-case-of-the-nuisance-phone-calls-redux)

7 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Velma at the 17:58 mark:

 

Thanks for this Vince, and thanks to Douglas Caddy. The link given to the full radio program isn't working, and the clip of Velma starting at 17:58 in Vince's above is cut off midway unfortunately. But below is my transcription of what it has. The notation <...> means the radio host or another voice in the studio, not Velma.

(A point of detail: Velma did not say the car was "buff" colored but "gray, dove colored". There is a color called "dove gray" which is defined as "a color of gray with a hint of blue, sometimes described as blue-gray".)

START TRANSCRIPT

<Let's go to our final caller, with you Alex, first-time caller. Hi there>

Hello?

<Yeah, go ahead please>

Uh, I am Velma, and I live a hundred miles from Dallas. I was living in Dallas at the time. And I had my car parked behind that Texas Depository Book Building?

<Yes, ma'am>

I saw the shooter came out and he had a very high powered rifle. It was no bolt action. And, uh,--

<Well now let me ask you please, because that rifle that they said Oswald used to kill Kennedy was apparently left upstairs.>

It was.

<You're saying you saw someone else?>

Yes sir.

<With a high-powered rifle.>

Yes.

<OK, tell me what happened then.>

OK, I'm sitting in my car and there's a gray, dove-colored old one-seated Plymouth car sittin' there. And there's a man with a felt hat on with a wide band, and he had on a suit, and he had black hair and real heavy eyebrows, and he'd look at me kind of dirty. Well about that time a police car come and told that man to move. And he didn't move right away. And the police got out of his car, and I knew later it was Tippit, and he told him, he said, "I said move that car!" Well then, this man, that's in this old gray car, he went straight on around and went around this big building that was across the street from me. Tippit went the other way, so they must have met back there. Anyway this man--

(different voice) <There were dozens of witnesses that saw-- >

<Let me ask you this Alex, because we're ready to hit the hour now, did you say this to the Warren Commission, or to anybody else?>

I haven't told anybody, because, uh, I didn't want--I had four children I was having to support them, and I didn't want to get shot. And I saw the man, and I could tell you how he's dressed--

[cuts off] 

END TRANSCRIPT

On 6/12/2023 at 3:17 PM, Bill Brown said:

There is no real reason to believe that Oswald would ditch a jacket between exiting Whaley's cab and entering the rooming house.

Greg Doudna wants to believe Oswald was wearing a jacket on the McWatters bus and the Whaley cab but he knows Oswald entered the rooming house with no jacket.  This is a problem for Greg and his entire 117 page scenario, so what does he do?

Simple conclusion.  Just have Oswald throwing his jacket away after getting out of the cab and before waking in the house.

This is a perfect example of one having a pet theory all set up and then dismissing the inconvenient evidence which would destroy the pet theory. 

Dismiss the known evidence by having the patsy dismiss the jacket on Beckley.

This seems a little silly. Whaley said Oswald had on a jacket getting out of his cab, "had on gray work clothes, a brown shirt ... and a work jacket" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UORpPiG9QmI, at 0:14). Whaley said that consistently throughout his Warren Commission testimony, never wavered from that in his testimony, never denied Oswald had a jacket. And Earlene Roberts said Oswald had no jacket going into the rooming house.

Either one of those witnesses is wrong or Oswald took off his jacket en route between the two. It doesn't get much more simple and basic in logic than that. It’s one of those three options, not so complicated. Just like the Tippit killer had a jacket according to witnesses, then didn't according to witnesses Brewer and Julia Postal going into the theater balcony, therefore conclusion the killer dropped the jacket somewhere en route. You accept that. You don't apply your logic above to that.

It is known otherwise that Oswald was feinting and changing his direction and appearance as seen by others in his movements following the shots that killed JFK. He changed all of his clothes in the rooming house, including jackets. Ditching a jacket at this point before he went in past Earlene Roberts, as these two witnesses at either end put together indicate, is in keeping with his known pattern of behavior at exactly this time.

Your solution is to reject one of the witnesses' testimony, Whaley's testimony that Oswald was wearing a jacket. You say cabbie Whaley invented and fabricated his testimony that Oswald was wearing a work jacket. You disguise the weakness of your insistence (that Whaley made it all up about Oswald wearing a jacket) by throwing all sorts of shade with words and rhetoric on something that is not a problem but simple logic.

2 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Greg Doudna I have worked with government types for 40 years in my law career and I know that there is a range of diligence among government employees. But you are assuming that that all of the officers co-signed without carefully reviewing the paperwork.  Maybe 1 out 10 would be so careless but 4 out of 4  is simply not consistent my extensive government experience and may I suggest violates your simplest answer doctrine.

And has it ever occured to you that every "mistake" by the DPD, FBI or others that WC supporters cite to explain away evidentiary discrepancies ate always one way- in  support the lone gunman theory? That is not probably or even likely from a statistical standpoint. I think you are being very credulous. -IMHO

Well, four officers reflected one officer's mistake on identifying a Carcano as a Mauser (definitely a mistaken ID and not a real Mauser, as shown in the Alyea film). Was that kind of mistake in the name of four officers believable? Well it happened. One identifies (the mistake), three others copy. Is that an analogy to here? I don't know. 

To me, I consider four things as facts of the case: that the Walker Note was written by Oswald and genuine; that Marina's story of Lee telling her he shot at Walker was unprompted and uncoerced from Marina and default assumption is her story reflects what Lee told her; that the photos of the Walker house in Oswald's belongings are from Oswald (since match to the camera; and Marina's story of Oswald's notebook of documentation); and Robert Surrey was present at the time of the shot (because seen there by Kirk Coleman). The last point plus what Kirk Coleman saw of his man No. 1 supports the staged shot in which Oswald was working with Surrey and one other person on the staged shot, both confirming Oswald took the shot while clearing him of having attempted murder, simultaneously.  

So Oswald taking the Walker shot comes out after the assassination, first from reasonable general suspicion as early as that question of a reporter to Curry on Sat Nov 23, then from the Note of Oswald found by the Secret Service in the book where Marina admitted she had hid it. Marina at first denies, then spills her beans.

With that setup, I suppose the argument for a switch in the bullet would be that it would seal incrimination of Oswald on the Walker shot to have the bullet switched for one that matched or could match to the Carcano found in the TSBD which had been Oswald's rifle. Oswald is already wrapped up tight on JFK and Tippit, so this would be just further icing on the LN cake--frame him still further, dig his hole deeper, motive? But isn't the FBI running things at this point--did the FBI have means to do the switch without it being noticed by others? Who exactly would have done the switch and how? What about the risk of it backfiring--going awry, someone leaks and it comes out that Oswald was being framed by a switched bullet? Was the payoff at that point worth that risk? If there were multiple officers at large who knew the bullet was steel-jacketed, what was the risk one would blow the whistle on the switch to a copper-jacketed one?  

But there ought to be a way to easily check--compare photos of the bullet the night of the Walker shot, to the copper-coated evidence bullet in the Archives today, see if its the same bullet by comparing closeup photos. Simple enough, right? Photos of the bullet taken immediately and also that weekend at the crime lab, right? Except supposedly there are no photos? Really? Shouldn't there have been photos? Were there photos? Is it believable that no photos would be taken of that bullet? But if there were photos, what happened to them? If there were photos and those have been disappeared, that raises the suspicion-meter for me.

But I don't know--what was customary practice on taking photographs of key physical evidence such as a Walker bullet by the DPD in 1963? Do you or anyone else know?

Bill, I’ve answered many of your questions. Now I wonder if you would answer a couple from me. 

Let’s start with this one. Would you kindly say which jacket you think Buell Wesley Frazier is referring to in the below, and what do you think became of it?

”All I recall about Oswald’s clothing on the morning of the assassination was a gray work jacket.” (12/5/63)

”It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning … I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before … several times…” (Warren Commission testimony)

(duplicate)

10 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Greg Doudna on the steel vs jacketed controversy, if you understood that @Benjamin Cole is right that 4 DPD officers each saw/handled the bullet as opposed to your statement that the controversey was due to a "simple mistake on the part of one officer, repeated by three others", would that change your thinking about if CE573 was indeed the bullet recovered from the Walker house? 

Not necessarily. My question focuses not on any notion that an officer carefully looking at that bullet, holding it in his hands, etc. would confuse its identity while studying it, or would knowingly call a copper-jacketed "steel jacketed" as a figure of speech. 

Rather, my question focuses on the writeup of the reports and paperwork and the possibility of a careless labeling or error by one officer in a later writeup, cosigned, and then copied from that report by another report signed by two more. As Mark Ulrik suggests, officers might prefer to cosign a report written by someone else rather than go to the work of writing up a report of their own, and might assume what was written was correct when signing it. 

You could have a situation in which Norvell mislabeled it in the writeup (one mistake in labeling) from misremembering it, in an hours later or day later report writeup. Norvell gave up the bullet that night to Brown (crime lab) and never saw it again, including when he later drafted up and then prepared for Tucker's co-signature the report of that evening.

It was not as if this is a case of he is looking right at the bullet and writes "it is steel-jacketed" in real time.

Instead, it is a case of Norvell found the bullet that evening, handed it over to the crime lab that evening (at the instruction of Van Cleve), never saw it again, and the next day (or whenever) writes up his report and mis-described it or however the error happened (if it was an error). 

Then Tucker cosigned Norvell’s report (Tucker may have deferred to Norvell who wrote the report when signing it). Whichever of the two wrote up the Van Cleave and McElroy Supplementary Offense Report, cosigned by the other, then may have copied or adopted "steel-jacketed" from the written report authored by Norvell.

One person’s mistake in labeling (created with the help of time separation from seeing the bullet), then repeated under four signed names.

Wasn't Norvell, the one who labeled it “steel-jacketed”, the rookie who also didn't remain long at DPD after that? Is it excluded that a factor in his possibly quietly behind the scenes being let go was this very mistake at the time? 

23 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Yes, all of that is in the footnotes, the Dallas police reports and the FBI reports.

No one disputes that the written official record is that all four DPD officers held and initialed the true Walker Bullet.  

Sorry, I cannot find in your footnotes (I checked again) any reference to evidence that officers Tucker, McElroy, or Van Cleave marked the bullet.

I am disputing that until seeing evidence.

Not only do I not see any testimony saying Tucker, McElroy, or Van Cleave marked it, the FBI report on the bullet (CE 573) lists the initials that are on it and identifies the names of those initials, and none are Tucker, McElroy, or Van Cleave. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10040#relPageId=10 .

Also, it does not make sense that all four would mark it. There is uncontested evidence that only one of those four, Norvell, personally handled it before turning it over to the crime lab that night in the person of Brown who was there (conflicting reports on whether it passed through Van Cleave's hands; in either case there is no indication he marked the bullet).

The one finding it and personally handling it, Norvell, marks it, turns it over to Brown of the crime lab who is at the scene, who also marks it. That makes sense. None of the four officers of the reports ever saw the bullet again after that point that night.

Where is evidence that Tucker, McElroy, or Van Cleave marked it? 

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LS--

The four DPD officers not only handled the true Walker bullet, but inscribed their initial (s) into the slug with a stylus or awl. 

If you look at CE573, it may be the most obviously copper-jacketed bullet in existence---and not only that the four officers inscribed the bullet, thus revealing fresh copper in their marks. 

Remember, the DPD officers were collecting evidence at the scene of an attempted murder of a very high-profile public figure---someone nationally famous.  

But then all DPD four officers agreed the evidence they had collected, that they had actually inscribed, was a relatively rare steel-jacketed bullet? An oddity? 

Benjamin, you are saying that all four officers at the scene who cosigned the two reports (Van Cleave, McElroy, Norvell, Tucker) "inscribed their initial(s) into the slug with a stylus or awl"?

In the article by you and Tom Gram, you write: "All four DPD officers had held the Walker Bullet that night in their hands that night, and inscribed their initials into it, according to official reports." 

Could you document that? I know Norvell's "N" is confirmed, he marked it, said he did, said he recognized his mark, there is an "N" on the copper-jacketed evidence bullet. But could you document that the other three marked? I don't see a link or reference in your article on that.

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I rather suspect the purported true Walker Bullet bullet that went through the wall did not come to rest in-between bundles of paper. 

It could be the FBI report was incomplete. That Tucker and Novell noted a streak on top of one bundle, and on the bottom of one bundle, illustrating how the slug came to rest exactly in-between bundles of paper. Well, anything is possible. 

However, by but the time the bullet passed through a wall, it had become mushroom-shaped. Seems to me the slug would not come to rest exactly in-between bundles of paper without making quite a scene. A jagged tunneling effect.  

If the FBI report is roughly accurate, then the location of the true Walker Bullet stretches credulity. As if someone placed the bullet between the bundles. 

Pure speculation (aided by a pitcher of mai-tais): OK, Walker staged the shooting. Maybe even hired LHO. LHO brought his rifle, loaded with copper-jacketed ammo, and agreed to take a potshot at the empty den-room from the alley.  LHO is no dummy, and says, "Hey, leave behind this 30.06 steel-jacketed bullet where the cops will find it. That way even if I am spotted and become a suspect, I will be cleared." 

The thing I have the most trouble accepting is four different cops calling a copper-jacketed slug, collected as evidence at the scene of an attempted murder of a very high profile public figure,  a "steel jacketed"  bullet, in two separate official reports filed that night. 

Even game wardens knew the difference between steel- and copper-jacketed slugs. 

On the steel versus copper jacketed and bullet-substitution issue ... I don't want to be 100% on this, but I honestly think a simple mistake on the part of one officer, repeated by three others, or something like that, is a simpler explanation. I know you question that that is plausible. I can suggest an explanation to Tom Gram's (and your) issue of why Dallas Police officers were not asked to clear it up however.

I bet they were, it just isn't reported. And I have a pretty good idea what would happen if those officers were asked by the FBI, "Hey Patrolman Barney, did you idiotically screw up calling this copper-jacketed bullet steel-jacketed?"

That already happened once. The Dallas Police grabbed camera equipment of Michael Paine out of a drawer, even though Michael tried to tell them it was his, during the original search for Oswald's things. Then the Dallas Police marked the items, wrote them up, and conveyed them to the FBI. One of the items was a Minox light meter which the Dallas Police wrote up on the list as a Minox camera. The list and checking off got by even an FBI agent in Dallas overseeing the conveyance paperwork. The mistake was not discovered until the FBI lab in D.C. checking the items found where on the list it said "Minox camera", instead what had actually been shipped was a similarly-shaped Minox light meter.

OK, FBI sends to Dallas to get the Dallas Police to acknowledge correction and fix the paperwork. SURPRISE SURPRISE! The Dallas Police and the FBI didn't like each other very much. The Dallas officer asked--"Mr. Gus Rose, were you so idiotically ignorant that you wrote down a Minox light meter as a Minox camera?" 

He said No, and the rest of the Dallas Police backed him up, and put the story in the media, making the FBI look bad! (DPD probably smiling behind the scenes at payback to the FBI for whatever past history added up to "they deserve it").

Never mind that this took legs and became a decades-long conspiracy theory with adherents to the present day, the Minox Camera Substitution Conspiracy featuring the nefarious FBI, and Ruth Paine (of course), and etc and etc. 

Because--Gus Rose, that honorable Dallas Police officer, said he had not made a mistake! Just ask him--he'll tell you himself! 

Well this is not he says versus they say.

There is evidence, smoking-gun evidence, that tells exactly what happened on that one. That evidence is a Dallas Police photograph of the evidence they had collected, taken by the Dallas Police (nothing to do with FBI), and before the evidence was conveyed to the FBI. All of Michael Paine's camera equipment is there that the Dallas Police took that day mixed with things of Oswald's, including rolls of film of Michael Paine. And there is a Minox light meter, and an empty Minox camera case and no Minox camera. This was part of Rusty Livingstone's DPD evidence photographs published by Savage, First Day Evidence.

And officer Gus Rose, who denied he had gotten it wrong, I have noticed Gus Rose made exaggerations and misstatements on other things.

The Dallas Police by not acknowledging that error which their own evidence photograph proved (but which the world and public did not know about, the evidence photograph that is), came out in the press with the FBI looking bad as if the FBI had altered that evidence! In a context in which the Dallas Police had grievances against the FBI. Maybe a little bit of payback there.

So back to the current topic. Same song, verse 2. How easy is it going to be for an FBI agent to get a DPD officer to admit they were a klutz? 

I think the FBI didn't write up interviews on those officers because they informally found out or knew that it would only be denials (just like Gus Rose earlier), and they weren't interested in denials (which would complicate things, just like the prior Minox saga, and no doubt the DPD would vouch for its own) but in resolving the issue. Therefore, no reported interviews at all with those officers. Only the new one, Norvell, was suitable for FBI purposes.

That's my hunch on this. The bullet was copper-jacketed from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano from the outset and was mislabeled by mistake. 

Bu unlike the case with the Minox in which a DPD evidence photograph answered that question, this one does not have a comparable photograph to answer that question, therefore is a case of an incompletely-resolved odd error, so as noted this is only my hunch re the Walker bullet, not 100% certainty. 

Page 98.

"Oswald at his rooming house on North Beckley

"Oswald gave Whaley an address on N. Beckley in Oak Cliff that would take the cab several blocks beyond Oswald’s rooming house. He told Whaley he wanted to go to the 500 block of N. Beckley which was south (beyond) the rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley. Before Whaley had gotten to the block requested, at about the 700 block, Oswald told him that was far enough, to let him off there. 

"Oswald paid Whaley $1.00 for a $0.95 cab fare with a nickel tip (Whaley remembered the cheap tip of Oswald), got out of the cab, crossed the street, and may have intentionally let Whaley see him walking south in the opposite direction from his rooming house until Whaley was out of sight, after which Oswald reversed direction and walked north to his rooming house. 

"Lee entered the rooming house with no jacket, according to housekeeper Earlene Roberts who saw him arrive at about 1 pm and go to his room, then leave maybe three or four minutes later zipping up a jacket on his way out, in a hurry going both ways, not stopping for any conversation.

"What happened to Oswald’s gray jacket?

"The gray jacket worn by Oswald that morning went with him when he left the Texas School Book Depository, with him on the bus and with him in the cab. But Oswald did not have it when he entered the rooming house, according to Earlene Roberts. 

"As previously noted, Oswald was in a mode of feint and deception in his movements starting from the time of the shots that killed President Kennedy, attempting to make himself hard to track. 

"The gray jacket of Oswald itself was old and had at least one hole in the right elbow, likely in worse shape than when it was photographed in Minsk from use since then. Therefore it was no great loss that Oswald would toss it, dispose of it, as the evidence indicates Oswald did at some point after leaving Whaley’s cab on N. Beckley but before he entered the rooming house several blocks north on Beckley. 

"What became of Oswald’s gray jacket is not known, but Oswald’s disposal of it occurred sometime just before 1 pm on Nov 22, 1963, in the vicinity of the 1000s-700s blocks of N. Beckley. It is possible it could have been found at some later point by some private party unaware that it had been Oswald’s. If Oswald tossed it inside a bush invisible to external view it is possible it might never have been found."