Greg Doudna

How about this possible solution to the package Wesley Frazier said Oswald was carrying Fri morning Nov 22?--it was neither curtain rods nor was it a firearm, but instead was the package with the strange "601 West Nassaus Street" nonexistent address that turned up in the Irving Post Office the week after the assassination (carried by LHO Friday morning from Irving to Dallas inside a paper bag which may have also had his lunch). Has this previously been considered?

On Wednesday Nov 20 Marina and Ruth were gone to a medical appointment that day, and a mail carrier left a postage due notice for a package. But the package, addressed to Lee, was reported delivered, and Marina herself said she paid the 12 cents postage due and got the package. Assume that all happened Wed Nov 20. Assume--though there is no verification, it is plausible--that Marina contacted Lee and told him of the package Wed eve. It is not known what was in the package, and it may be that Marina did not know either if she did not open it, since it was addressed to Lee. But Lee knew, and something about that package perhaps was the reason Lee unexpectedly asked Wesley Frazier on Thursday for a ride out to Irving Thursday evening.

On Thursday evening Marina conveys the package to Lee, who puts it in a paper bag large enough to hold it as well as his lunch, and Lee takes it with his ride with Frazier into Dallas. Lee then drops it in a mailbox in Dallas--perhaps for a second time of the same unopened package--where it again ends up the next week forwarded to the Irving post office where it remained, this time not delivered.

The mystery is why does anyone mail a package to a non-existent address with no postage? The content of the package is unknown--there was an 18" heavy-paper liner or bag inside the package, open at both ends, in the already-opened package at the Irving post office. The speculation that the package had contained a magazine is just that, and does not explain why it would lack postage or bear the nonexistent address in what appears to be Oswald's handwriting. Certainly there is no verification by anyone who saw that it contained a magazine. The placement of a package in a mailbox such that it would end up in a post office dead drop (able to be reclaimed later) has been proposed by Gary Murr citing Newcomb and Adams to be a way to have something able to be produced a few days later.

That the address does not exist and the package was dropped into a mailbox with no postage is very odd, and it is only a small further step to identify the two packages addressed to Oswald, each having postage due, around the time of the assassination as the same one mailed twice by Oswald to himself, and that package as not only the explanation of the package Frazier saw Oswald carrying Friday morning but itself perhaps the cause of the unplanned trip of Oswald out to Irving on Thursday, after the package's first delivery to Marina on Wednesday.

In other words, perhaps the package delivered to Marina on Wednesday caused Lee to come out on Thursday where he retrieved it, took it back in to Dallas Friday morning and again dropped it in a mailbox to mail it to himself--again with no postage, again with the same intentionally undeliverable address (but which had nevertheless gotten forwarded to the Irving Marina and Lee address the first time--my grandfather was a small-town postmaster and used to tell stories of postal employees' skill at getting mail through to people even in different cities with name only and no street address at all). In this reconstruction Lee did have a package Friday morning but it was too small for a rifle just as Frazier has insisted all these years. Perhaps LHO told Frazier it was "curtain rods" because the true purpose or contents were private. 

Marina testified that she thought Lee did take a "small" package with him that morning, with his lunch, while denying that it was either a rifle or curtain rods.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know whether your husband carried any package with him when he left the house on November 22nd?

Mrs. Oswald. I think that he had a package with his lunch. But a small package.

Mr. Rankin. Do you know whether he had any package like a rifle in some container?

Mrs. Oswald. No.

All that needs to be supposed is (a) the package which owed postage addressed to LHO, delivered on Wed Nov 22 to Marina, had something to do with LHO's decision to come out to Irving the very next evening; (b) that was the package LHO took to work Fri morning according to Frazier; and (c) that package was dropped into a mailbox again in Dallas without postage by LHO (possibly pulled out of a larger-than normal paper bag with his lunch and dropped in a mailbox prior to walking in the TSBD that Friday morning?), and is the very package addressed in LHO's handwriting to "601 West Nassaus Street" which turned up the next week in the dead letter section of the Irving post office.

I do not know whether this is correct but it is an effort at making sense of some things. If this reconstruction does hold up, establishing what the package Frazier saw Oswald carry that morning WAS, it in turn would further establish what it WAS NOT--a rifle in the TSBD.

Yes thanks very much Andrej for your work on this. I am willing to work on producing a transcription if you get usable recording, if there are not others to do this. 

Joe, the bullet "pointed at its tip and showed no signs of damage" that Nurse Phyllis Hall says she saw "lodged between [JFK's] ear and his shoulder" is from here: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/jfk-mystery-bullet-lodged-body-nurse-article-1.1512283 or https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/nurse-phyllis-hall-tells-efforts-2713685.

19 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

Pretty obvious she was there.

She does relate a few recollections that are not based on facts. I think a failing memory might be the issue.

...[snip]...

Nurse Hall doesn't seem emotionally or mentally off base

 in this interview above. Or exaggerating or overly dramatic

attention seeking.  

 

Maybe you could be right after all. As I recall my skepticism was influenced by certain details recounted by Phyllis Hall, according to reports, that did not seem to add up to me as being consistent with someone who was there. (i) She had Jacqueline present in the trauma room throughout, and says Jacqueline declined an offer to wait outside, but other accounts say Jacqueline was sitting outside the door during much or most of the time. (ii) She also described the throat wound of JFK upon arrival as a gaping exit wound, which seems to describe post-tracheotomy or autopsy description rather than the way others described the throat wound prior to the tracheotomy.

But as you suggest could it be that the decades have garbled details in the memory of a witness who, as you say and I agree, "doesn't seem emotionally or mentally off base...or exaggerating or overly dramatic attention seeking". The problem is at this distance if she has these other details wrong, is her testimony reliable concerning the bullet? If she was there and did see a bullet, it is of interest that she says the bullet was not misshapen; that she says she never saw that bullet reported (apparently unaware that in the brief first hours that first night, the bullet which was found on a stretcher in a different location in the emergency area indeed was initially considered to have come from JFK, from the back shot, exactly in agreement with what Phyllis Hall describes); and that she says the bullet was pointed, not rounded at its tip. On that last detail both Wright and Tomlinson, the ones who found and turned in the bullet, also said the stretcher bullet was pointed not rounded. But C399 matched to the Mannlicher Carcano found in the TSBD has a rounded tip, not pointed, and it has other irregularities in its chain of custody. Is Phyllis Hall a further witness supporting that C399 was a substitution for an originally different stretcher bullet, in fixing up the case against Oswald? 

On lack of testimony or corroboration that she was in the trauma room with JFK, there is this (Dr. Jenkins testimony WC):

Mr. SPECTER - At about what time did you arrive at the emergency room? 
Dr. JENKINS - Oh, this was around 12:30-12:35 to 12:40. I shouldn't be 
indefinite about this--in our own specialty practice, we watch the clock 
closely and there are many things we have to keep up with, but I didn't 
get that time exactly, I'll admit. 
Mr. SPECTER - Who was present at the time of your arrival in the 
emergency room, if anyone? 
Dr. JENKINS - The hallway was loaded with people. 
Mr. SPECTER - What medical personnel were in attendance? 
Dr. JENKINS - Including Mrs. Kennedy, I recognized, and Secret Service 
men, I didn't know whether to block the way or get out of it, as it 
turned out. Dr. James Carrico and Dr. Dulany-Dick Dulany, I guess you 
have his name, and several nurses were in the room. 
Mr. SPECTER - Could you identify the nurses? 
Dr. JENKINS - Well, not really. I could identify them only having later 
looked around and identified from my own record that I have, the names 
of all who were there later. Now, whether they are the same ones when I 
first went there, I don't know. I have all the names in my report, it 
seemed to me 
Mr. SPECTER - Could you now identify all of the nurses from your later 
observations of them? 
Dr. JENKINS - Well, I can identify who was in there at the close of the 
procedure, that is, the doctors, as well as those who were helping. 
Mr. SPECTER - Fine, would you do that for us, please? 
Dr. JENKINS - These included a Mrs. or Miss Patricia Hutton and Miss 
Diana Bowron, B-o-w-r-o-n (spelling), and a Miss Henchliffe--I don't 
know her first name, but I do know it is Henchliffe. 
Mr. SPECTER - Margaret? 
Dr. JENKINS - Margaret---certainly. Those three--there were probably 
some student nurses too, whom I didn't recognize. Shall I continue? 
Mr. SPECTER - Yes, please. Have you now covered all the people you 
recollect as being in the room? 
Dr. JENKINS - Well, as I came into the room, I saw only the, 
actually--you know, in the haste of the coming of the President, two 
doctors whom I recognized, and there were other people and I have 
identified all I remember 
Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the President's condition when 
you arrived in the emergency room? 
Dr. JENKINS - Well, I was aware of what he was in an agonal state. This 
is not a too unfamiliar state that we see in the Service, as much trauma 
as we see, that is, he had the agonal respiratory gasp made up of 
jerking movements of the mylohyoid group of muscles. These are referred 
to sometimes as chin jerk, tracheal tug or agonal muscles of 
respiration. He had this characteristic of respiration. His eyes were 
opened and somewhat exophthalmic and color was greatly suffused, 
cyanotic---a purplish cyanosis.   

Should the lack of witness testimony corroborating her presence in the trauma room be better characterized as ambiguous, not decisive?

And finally, on her keeping the bullet sighting to herself and not speaking of it publicly for decades, you correctly point out the factor of a tremendous  climate of fear in Dallas toward coming forward with information. That is seen in so many other witness reactions (the family of Ed Hoffmann and the Odio sisters, to name just two examples of fear and silence; not to mention the unknown undoubted hundreds of witnesses who remained so silent that no one ever knew of their existence). Point taken there.

21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Greg:

You can probably find it at MFF. I know they have examined it at ROKC.

Thanks James--as great as the Mary Ferrell site is I could not find any transcript of the HSCA interview of Buell Wesley Frazier there and I wonder if one was even made by HSCA (seems odd). I did find the complete four hour audio tape of the HSCA interview with Frazier at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GhPJBfLxy8&feature=youtu.be. Unfortunately the majority of that four hours is unintelligible due to bad recording quality, some kind of loud humming or buzzing sound drowning out faint voices heard in the background (as if the recorder was set next to a noisy air conditioner or something). ROKC that you mention and some other sites have discussions and I see occasional references to a transcript of the poor-quality HSCA recording done free-lance by a Denis Morissette, but I have been unable to find a full form of such a Morissette transcription online--only soundbite quotes from it here and there, some of which are quite interesting. If such has not already been done, someone with mixing expertise and equipment could do a real service by attempting to get better-quality audio, better signal-to-static ratio from the existing recording, then produce from that a professional-quality written transcription. Apart from that I am curious how it is that HSCA could have a four-hour recorded interview with a witness as important as Buell Wesley Frazier and have its sound quality be so bad that the majority is unintelligible, and the part that is intelligible apparently never transcribed by HSCA in written form (or if HSCA did produce a transcription or written report of that interview, where is it?)? 

Does anyone have a link to Wesley Buell Frazier's HSCA testimony? Thanks--

Even though I think the original report out of Parkland that the bullet found on the stretcher came from JFK was likely correct and the best explanation for what happened to the bullet that hit JFK in the back, I do not think the story of Nurse Hall contributes information to this. First, there is a lack of verification or corroboration that she was in that room with JFK. No other witness named her as being present in that room. Second, none of the witnesses who were in the room with JFK reported seeing what she says she saw--a bullet visible from outside JFK’s body near JFK's ear in plain sight. And third, she claims she kept her sighting of that bullet secret, never told anyone including even her own husband for years, before finally coming forth with the story. If she had seen such a bullet for real in the emergency room near JFK's head, one would think she would have told a supervisor at work or contacted the FBI or the Warren Commission, let alone confide in her own husband--what was the big secret? Therefore this testimony does not strike me as credible. 

David this is a very interesting document find you bring out, and certainly adds weight to the plausibility that the Mexico City Soviet "Oswald" embassy phone calls could have been voice impersonated, adding to the point already noted of the language issue. Do you have a link or reference to this document? Any idea what the context was of it, or if the "fabricat[ion] on tape phoney conversation of Cuban ambassador for insertion Lienvoy mechanism" was carried out?

On 8/26/2020 at 7:45 AM, David Josephs said:

Another great find is this CIA memo outlining how phone conversations would be FAKED - specifically a call from Cuban Ambassador 

...and this is in January 1962.....

 

I see Bernie Sanders has welcomed Kamala Harris, and that former Gov. Kasich from my home state of Ohio will be speaking on the first night of the Democratic convention. This election is it, for whether America goes hard fascist. Pre-Third Reich days. Biden has his faults but does not breathe cruelty and lust for totalitarian power combined with charismatic appeal to the worst instincts of demagoguery to achieve it. That 40% of Americans support this nightmare president, who is just as open as can be concerning what he intends to do with political opponents and unleashed authoritarianism, is appalling beyond words.

I would like to see a Bernie party (though Bernie is not going that direction) or some social-democratic equivalent follow a policy building from the ground up of "contesting only winnable elections" and then winning them. Standing down if an election does not have a reasonable prospect of outright victory, and coalition with the larger Democratic Party strategically in caucusing and votes (and trade-off standing down in election districts as part of coalition negotiation). But since nothing like that is taking traction, its the Democratic big tent for me, since that is where the Bernie people are, at least here in Washington state.  

40 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

With the back wound inches below the throat wound the trajectory is inconsistent with a SBT shot from any position.

Why unnecessarily muddy the issue?

I see your point, you are right. "The HSCA's ballistics experts concluded that, between the back and the throat, the bullet carved an 11-degree upward track" (Aguilar and Cunningham 2003). Even with a shooter at street level does not remove the trajectory problem.

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Factually incorrect. Early critics like Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi correctly pointed out that the back wound was too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

If one doesn’t start with this root fact all analyses are garbage-in garbage-out.

<snip garbage>

Don't see how this is different from what I said ("The main argument against the single-bullet theory has always been the trajectory as inconsistent with the 6th floor TSBD").

The main argument against the single-bullet theory has always been the trajectory as inconsistent with the 6th floor TSBD. One suggestion (credit to Mark Tyler from another thread) is to start with the traditional single-bullet interpretation (back-->throat--Connally) and determine the trajectory/elevation of the shooter from that (do not assume 6th floor TSBD). If that is done the argument from trajectory against the single-bullet is basically gone. A second common argument against the single-bullet, the questions raised concerning the pristine condition of C399--really becomes irrelevant once the original stretcher bullet (whether or not it was C399) is disconnected from Connally. As is well-argued on other grounds, the original stretcher bullet would be either from the JFK back shot as originally thought, or else unrelated to the assassination, but in either case unrelated to Connally. 

The question then becomes: is the traditional single-bullet interpretation a valid argument, if objections of vertical trajectory and C399 were non-existent? The reason for the appeal of the single-bullet is not hard to understand: it neatly would explain where the shot of the upper back entrance exited, would explain the throat shot wound, and then where that bullet went (through JFK into Connally causing his wounds). All that would remain, it might seem, would be to assume and identify a different, lower-elevation shooter than 6th floor TSBD. BUT--it does not seem that simple. 

Two arguments still remain against the single-bullet (back entrance-->throat-->Connally) even if trajectory and C399 were removed as issues: (a) at the autopsy the testimonies that no through-path was found for a bullet from the upper back entrance to the throat despite intense efforts to find such. If there was such a through-path what is the explanation for those testimonies? And (b) Connally's testimony combined with support from Zapruder that Connally was hit after JFK was hit and before JFK was hit again (1-2-3 distinct hits). It just looks extremely questionable to interpret Zapruder as Connally hit with the same bullet that causes JFK's elbows-rising reaction, instead of the JFK hit being caused by an earlier shot, Connally turning and then starting to turn back again and hit with a second bullet (followed by the JFK head shot), in keeping with Connally's and Nellie's testimony and what seems to be visually in Zapruder. 

Still, those who favor a single-bullet interpretation may have another reason: "no other good explanation for the wounds". In other words, some interpretations even if they do have a few problems are considered correct if there seems no other good way to account for the evidence.

But the original interpretation, before there was the single-bullet idea, seems to have been: (a) the back shot did not go in to JFK's back very far, and fell out and was the original stretcher bullet found at Parkland; and (b) a rear EOP entrance wound bullet, deflected downward by the angle of the skull bone, went downward through the neck and exited at the throat (and ended up in the limousine but not in Connally). Pat Speer's website has developed the early Parkland/autopsy argument for EOP-->throat. 

But if "a" and "b" just named are considered viable--and therefore the single-bullet is not a necessary interpretation on the grounds that there is no other reasonable alternative--this raises its own new problem, which has caused me more grief than about any other single question: how can the wound to JFK's upper back have not gone in more than ca. an inch, so little penetration that it came back out again, if that is what happened, as was the earliest conclusion outcome from the autopsy (and the arguably best explanation for the origin of the original stretcher bullet found at Parkland)? A jacketed bullet from the Carcano or any other rifle at ca. 2000 fps would blast right through JFK, not barely break the skin. A bullet with such low velocity to cause only a ca. 2" penetration in JFK's back ... what would be the point of an assassin firing such a low-powered shot in the first place? Was it a frangible bullet that failed to expand as intended? But still, that does not explain the extremely weak penetration. What is going on there? I read some of the past discussions on this site of this question, studied firearms websites, and wracked my brain trying to come up with a viable explanation. 

Yet it did not seem correct to reject a ca. 2" penetration of an upper back shot in favor of the back-->throat(-->Connally) default standard interpretation, for reasons cited. As I thought about this, a possible solution emerged, which takes into account two other phenomena which require explanation.

The first is the overwhelming testimony of the numbers of witnesses who heard not three evenly-spaced shots, but rather a single shot, then a few seconds, then a final flurry of two or three final shots in quick succession: "bang...bang-bang(-bang)". That the first one shot, the one which preceded by a few seconds the final flurry, was separated by that space of time--the few seconds--unlike the other shots, seemed to call for explanation; why?

And second, the overwhelming number of witness reports that that first shot sounded different--like a "firecracker" is the repeated witness report of the sound of that first shot. Why were witnesses calling it "like a firecracker"? How does a firecracker sound different from a regular rifle shot? Well, a firecracker sound seems like a muzzle blast without the sound of a bullet echoing through air, without the "echo". Maybe a shot fired that is subsonic. But subsonic--from a high-powered rifle? And if so, why were the later shots not remembered as distinctively "firecracker-like" by the witnesses? It is only the first shot which gets this aggregate witnesses description. The first shot--the different "firecracker" sound; separated in time from the others; and causing a very weak wound of little penetration in JFK's back. What can possibly account for all three of these phenomena, and make any rational sense in a professional assassination or sniper context? For it seemed to me that each of these phenomena, individually seeming so odd, might be related such that a single solution would explain all three. 

The objections to the back-->throat interpretation, combined with a struggle on my part to understand the mechanics of how an assassin or assassins could escape undetected from a building such as the TSBD, have led me to consider the possibility that that first "firecracker" shot was fired from a pistol from the sixth floor TSBD, subsonic, but with a loud sound, with the primary purpose being to attract focus of attention and eyeballs to the sixth floor TSBD, where another person was then seen shooting the Carcano pointed out that window. In this hypothesis, the purpose of the pistol shot would be precisely to get public attention to the sixth floor TSBD, just as the limousine moves into the killing zone where actual deadly shots happened from perhaps two snipers in other locations, each firing a single lethal shot, in addition to the shooter of the Carcano.  

The pistol shot was not designed to kill but to divert attention toward the Carcano linked to Oswald, and away from the two other shooters. Oswald per this hypothesis is being totally framed and is not party to the shooting, does not realize the Carcano is in the building. That there were two, not one, involved in the shooting of the Carcano at the 6th floor TSBD, is from several witness testimonies, and also from the witness testimonies concerning what I believe was the method of successful escape. The two involved in the shooting at the 6th floor have come down from the 7th or roof having entered earlier that morning. They made their escape following the shooting by simply walking down the stairs where they are encountered and thought to be unidentified plain-clothes "Secret Service" in the stairway and at the rear entrance before the first real Secret Service agent, Sorrels, arrived. The three shell casings, the paper bag the size of the rifle at the 6th floor, and the Carcano itself traced to Oswald via the backyard photographs and paper trail will pin it on Oswald, as the real assassins escape. This relies on a separate argument that the Carcano may never have been in the Paines' garage, never went to Irving from New Orleans, Marina's surprise that the rifle was not in the blanket notwithstanding. When all is said and done, an original misunderstanding of Marina concerning the disposition of the rifle and then desire to please interrogators by "confirming" that she had personally seen it once in the blanket after arrival to Irving, is the totality of the actual evidence that that rifle ever was in the Paines' garage--not very substantial, given Marina's mercurial and self-interest-motivated testimony under duress for herself and her children. 

Oswald's movements before and after the assassination then can become interpreted differently than the usual narrative. On Thursday night he attempted to reconcile with Marina, was rebuffed, and left practically all of his money, $170 (equivalent to $2000-3000 cash in today's money!), and his wedding ring for her. The visit to the garage of Lee that Ruth Paine remembered based on the light having been left on, becomes Oswald retrieving something but not a rifle. The wedding ring and the huge sum of cash--he was saying goodby for a while. Something was up, but it need not have been an intent to shoot anyone that day. The smaller paper bag that Wesley Buell Frazier saw with Oswald that morning may have been something unrelated to a firearm, or it may have been nothing more than Oswald's lunch, with the "curtain rods" explanation of Oswald of the evening before being Oswald's nonsense explanation to Frazier as to why he was going out to see Marina a day early. By this interpretation, Oswald was simply framed, did not realize he was being framed, was on the first floor of the TSBD at the time of the assassination, and his actions following the assassination are no less consistent with an innocent person framed as the more common interpretation that he was guilty. 

But back to the pistol at the 6th floor TSBD: the pistol makes the noise, and the pistol then leaves TSBD concealed on the person of one of the two involved in the shooting from the 6th floor TSBD. The purpose of the pistol shot is to draw attention. The reason it is heard like a "firecracker" different from the rifle shots which follow is because it is muzzle blast only, subsonic, and not a rifle. The shooter of the pistol aimed at JFK and happened to hit JFK in the back, at about 60 yards or so, within the range of some pistols to hit a body. The shot was so weak that it did not penetrate very far--but the purpose of that shot was to make a loud noise and draw attention. That bullet then became the original stretcher bullet, which then as a separate and later event had a bullet from the Carcano (C399) substituted for it, as part of a fixing of evidence to support the lone-nut shooter narrative once that was quickly decided, replacing an apparent original intent to have a Castro conspiracy blamed. The Carcano framing Oswald is left to be found in the 6th floor TSBD, the two walked down the stairs and out the door perceived as law enforcement, and two other snipers in locations other than the TSBD successfully escaped as well, their weapons not found. Oswald is hunted down, arrested, and killed in police custody. Oswald who had no Carcano ammunition in his belongings and no verified practice target shooting. (I think the alleged Sports Drome sightings, of a person who witnesses recalled looked like Oswald from what they saw on TV but who never claimed to be Oswald, did nothing distinctive that identified himself as Oswald, and could not have been Oswald at the times seen per the accurate calendar-documented timeline testimony of Ruth Paine, are best understood as neither Oswald nor an impersonator but as simple mistaken identification on par with other mistaken witness identifications.) 

This is a roundabout background to the only explanation I can think of that explains these three things of that first shot--its separation in time from the others; its "firecracker" sound different from the others; and its weak penetration of JFK's back-- . . . a pistol shot from the 6th floor TSBD, for the purpose of drawing public attention to the 6th floor TSBD, setting up the actual kill shots.

Yes, in reading Pat Speer's compilation of witness testimonies it seems so clear there was a first "bang" like a firecracker, then a pause, then a final flurry of two or three shots very close together. The idea of three evenly-spaced shots seems to have been driven by a need to have timings of shots compatible with a single shooter, rather than the weight of the witness testimonies. From the blur analyses the second strongest indication next to Z313 and Z330 seems to be around Z290, but that was not considered a shot, including by Alvarez who wrote the original blur analysis and recognized a major blur there, due to impossibility of a single shooter, as brought out in work of Robert Harris. 

But this raises the question of the Connally hit, which everyone places ca. Z220-230 (including Harris, who interprets Z290 as a missed shot which Nellie Connally mistakenly thought hit Connally even though Connally had actually been hit earlier). But the witness testimonies do not generally seem to support a shot heard at ca. Z220-230. Nor does a Connally hit at that point agree with his own testimony that he turned right, then turned back and was facing about forward when he was hit and Nellie then pulled him down, whereupon he heard JFK hit with the head shot immediately. This sounds and looks in Zapruder like Connally hit at Z290. Compare Connally telling of it himself here starting at 4:22: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqpfHEkRpIw. But that leaves the Connally grimace, the lapel bulge, and the hat flip at Z220s, usually interpreted as reactions to being hit--but can those be interpreted otherwise (Connally shouting "no, no, no" = the "grimace"?)? 

There is a major blur at Z313 matching the head shot and then another major blur at Z330 but then there are actually three major blurs after that, perhaps reflecting Zapruder's own trembling and shock at seeing what happened in the JFK head shot at that point (didn't Zapruder say he was weeping at that point?). If the major post-Z330 blurs can be from other causes perhaps the Z330 blur could be too. Some witnesses said they heard a shot after the head shot, but if there were two or three rapid shots between Z290 and Z313 could there be confusion to witnesses as to which sound was associated with the head shot that they saw with their eyes?

In reading the strength of the witness testimonies of the "bang" ... then 4-5 seconds ... "bang-bang-(bang)" ... Pat Speer brings out another phenomenon which is striking: a majority of the witnesses located at the corner of Elm and Houston heard four, whereas those at the Grassy Knoll and in the motorcade heard only three, not four. It occurs to me there could be a simple explanation for this unequal distribution corresponding to physical location of who heard four shots. How far apart in time do two shots need to be for the average human to hear them as two, rather than one, shots? A guess: maybe one-quarter second. Less would be heard as one shot, more heard as two. If, say, a shot was fired from a building near Elm and Houston 0.3 seconds earlier in absolute time than a shot fired at the Grassy Knoll, and if it takes 0.15 seconds for the sound of a muzzle blast at Elm and Houston to reach people at the Grassy Knoll, then those two muzzle blasts would be heard at the Grassy Knoll only 0.15 second apart = as one shot. But witnesses standing at Elm and Houston would hear those two muzzle blasts 0.45 seconds apart = as two shots. In this scenario there would actually be four shots--one plus a final flurry of three close together--but two of that final flurry were so very close together that they were not distinguished by many witnesses depending on their physical location and the amount of time it takes sound to travel.

And the cumulative weight of the witnesses hearing a single "bang" followed by several seconds and then a flurry of either two or three more shots very close together ... is inconsistent with a single shooter with a bolt-operated rifle. Is the interpretation of the witness testimonies of the hearing of these shots a case of the weight of the sheer aggregate numbers for a final two or three very close together have been there all along but have not been "seen" so clearly in the history of expert analyses due to a filtering effect on interpretation from the single-shooter presupposition? 

Johnny Carson was to me a "zero" in that he had all that audience, all that media presence, the most-watched late-night program in America, and he used it for nothing but cotton-candy laughs. He never took up a just cause, never made a social statement, never took a stand of conscience, never sought to get people to think about something that required a little thought below the level of surface humor, never sought to use his celebrity the way some celebrities do, in which they use their "celebrity capital" in the service of some worthy cause of their choice that they believe in, to try to make a difference in the world in some better way to the best of their ability. He was good at getting laughs, end of story. He was not nasty or damaging in his public persona (most of the time; Garrison excepted according to reports here, I did not see). But Carson was just a net zero, a waste of potential. My opinion.  

On the John Barbour film on Garrison, mixed feelings. The fundamental cognitive dissonance to me is Garrison took down the Warren Commission report, made the connection of the JFK assassination and foreign policy direction, brought the Zapruder film to public access and attention, and developed a number of leads. He also showed considerable courage, basically declaring war on the CIA. Those are the positives. But then the negatives: it came at the cost of a prosecution and attempted ruination of the life of a man innocent of the assassination of JFK, Clay Shaw. Is it necessary to defend a prosecution which should never have happened of a man innocent of anything to do with the assassination of JFK, in order to have the Warren Commission questioned? That is the ethical dilemma. It is also what those out for Garrison's blood used largely successfully to discredit Garrison. Some specific comments:

-- the basic contradiction: "Lee Harvey Oswald ... had nothing to do with the assassination" (at 41:08-40, with emphasis, and repeated several times by Garrison in the documentary). But Clay Shaw was charged by Garrison: "did willfully and unlawfully conspire with ... Lee Harvey Oswald ... and others ... to murder John F. Kennedy". 

-- the witness, Perry Russo, is credible to the extent of establishing David Ferrie ranting about Kennedy should be killed, but that's about it. Russo's identification of Oswald as present was clearly mistaken, and the mistake on the Oswald identification calls into question Russo's identification of Clay Shaw as present as well. Even on Ferrie was there a criminal case on the basis of Russo's testimony beyond establishing that Ferrie hated Kennedy and advocated killing him? Russo said there were plans discussed--at a party, with non-insider, non-conspirator Russo able to move freely and overhear? ... plausibility issues, lack-of-corroboration issues. Talk of hating and wanting to kill Kennedy probably happened at many parties in the South. That is not enough to take into court and get a criminal conviction for doing the assassination.

-- That Clay Shaw lied under oath re CIA history is true, but irrelevant to the charge for which he was under trial: of being in a criminal conspiracy with Oswald and others to assassinate JFK.

-- It can be established with confidence that Dean Andrews was not contacted by Clay Shaw with a request to provide legal counsel for Oswald (that was almost certainly Clem Sehrt, which is also why Dean Andrews refused to violate a confidence and say who it really was: Clem Sehrt, Mob/Marcello, old friend and legal help to Marguerite Oswald; Clem Sehrt who later told a friend he had been called by Marguerite seeking legal counsel for her son Lee after the assassination; Marguerite who also later said that she had called Clem Sehrt seeking a lawyer for Lee after the assassination); also the Airport VIP Lounge signature of "Clay Bertrand" at a time when Clay Shaw was present collapses. 

-- No other leads, of the anti-Castro Cubans, or JM/Wave in Florida, or organized crime elements, or the known compartments in CIA involved with Oswald and the disinformation attempting to tie Oswald to Castro, and so forth--none of these leads go to Clay Shaw. Clay Shaw just had nothing to do with anything (related to the JFK assassination). And there is the strong impression that many of Garrison's own staff, including the honest ones, knew it.

-- the film shows a photo at 1:26:20f and says, without caveat or qualification, that it shows David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, and Lee Harvey Oswald in the same living room at a social gathering. But the face said to be Oswald is too dark to see clearly in the film. So I looked up that photo, and the face is not that of Oswald at all! But a viewer of the film who does not do their own fact-checking (and how many do?) will be left with that lodged in their memory as if Oswald in that photo with Clay Shaw is a fact.

-- Unlike Clay Shaw, David Ferrie was a person of interest in the JFK assassination in Garrison's sights but of course Ferrie died untimely. I remember as a 13-year old newspaper carrier in Ohio reading first of the Garrison sensational charges in the news, then of Ferrie's suspicious death, and thinking "whoah!" But Garrison never pursued the Ferrie lead in the most obvious direction--toward Marcello, crime boss of New Orleans and Dallas. That was one thing Garrison had in common with the FBI and the Warren Commission. I was surprised when I first discovered Marcello does not even appear in the Warren Commission report index, as if he did not exist. Garrison apparently did not think Marcello was much involved in significant organized crime--similar to J. Edgar Hoover on that issue. Maybe as a public official in the heart of Marcello's turf that may have been a healthy policy for Garrison, I don't know.   

So in the end Garrison seems to merit a mixed report. I think if I were on the Clay Shaw jury I would have agreed with what apparently was the sentiment of most of the jurors polled after the trial: they were convinced by the part about there was a conspiracy beyond what the Warren Commission said, but they were not convinced by the evidence shown that Clay Shaw should be convicted of having been involved in it. There is a systems criticism of the legal system in which prosecutors feel pressure, if a crime is unsolved, to get a conviction, any conviction, and close the case. That is good for prosecutors' statistics but it also results in some wrongful convictions. I wonder if that prosecutors' mentality may have been a contributing factor in Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw. 

David--you speak as if the only two alternatives are it was Oswald or an imposter--why? If the Sports Drome person had claimed to be named Oswald, or if he had done anything to distinctively identify himself as Oswald, or given any sign to anyone of wanting to be identified as Oswald, even in retrospect, that would be a different matter. Then one would be looking at either/or "Oswald or impersonator". But since none of those factors are the case in any of the Sports Drome claims, why is not a third alternative on your map for consideration: somebody who was neither Oswald nor an imposter, just misidentified? Why the desire to leap for X-Files' explanations when routine and mundane explanations are just simpler?

You're familiar with how CIA in Mexico City sent up a picture of what it said was a photo of Oswald in Mexico City. You've seen the photo, and of course it is not Oswald. FBI showed that photo to Marguerite Oswald, who promptly and firmly identified it as Jack Ruby, whom she had just seen on television. 

Do you consider that evidence that the man in that photo was an imposter impersonating Jack Ruby in Mexico City? Or that there was an elaborate impersonation project operated by CIA of multiple Jack Rubys? Of course not. It was not Jack Ruby nor was it anyone pretending to be Jack Ruby, even though the man in the photo has a similar body type and thinning black hair on top. Marguerite was simply mistaken. No X-Files impersonations of Jack Ruby, etc. required. There was no one scripting Marguerite to say that behind the scenes, no creation of a legend, no two Jack Ruby theories, etc and etc. She just got it wrong, nothing more complicated than that.

So I am afraid you and I may not be quite seeing the same world in some ways, even while looking at the same data.

I finished your Part 3 of the Mexico City series. It seems the argument is proposing large-scale fabrications of material evidences and false witness testimonies throughout the course of the Oswald Mexico City trip which are quite elaborate and complicated, combined with a starting premise of the Warren Commission argument that the Silvia Odio Oswald visit is incompatible with an Oswald trip to Mexico City on timeline grounds. You insist the Silvia Odio visit occurred where Warren Commission fixed it, on Thu Sept 26 or Fri Sept 27, instead of as Silvia Odio later told Gaeton Fonzi, that she all along did not know the exact day of the week for sure and had told the FBI that but the Warren Commission had sort of decided her uncertainty for her on that detail. A Silvia Odio visit on Wed Sept 25 leaves 5.5 hours of timeline before the Houston bus leaves at 2:35 am later than night, adequate time for the 3.5 hour driving time needed for Dallas to Houston of the Oswald whom Silvia Odio last saw ca. 9 pm that evening leaving in a car with two other men. Of course that is not evidence that Oswald did go to Houston that evening. But it removes the linchpin premise claim of WC and your argument that it is excluded because impossible.

But speaking of the Mexico City trip, I would like to ask you two questions:

(1) The CIA photo of "Oswald" in Mexico City--the one that is not a photo of Oswald (the one Marguerite mistakenly thought was a photo of Ruby)--do you think that was a photo of whoever was claiming to be Oswald at the Cuban consulate and Soviet embassy in Mexico City? 

and

(2) As you reconstruct the many witnesses' testimony being fabricated to support the Oswald Mexico city impersonations, do you include Oswald himself as one of those witnesses fabricating testimony falsely putting himself in Mexico City, i.e. witting to the impersonation of himself as you see it? I refer to a handwritten document purporting to be written by Oswald which refers to himself as having gone to the Cuban consulate in Mexico City. 100% of handwriting experts say that is genuine Oswald handwriting. Do you think that was forged, against 100% of expert testimony? I'm a little concerned that this is going in directions of just arbitrary and implausibly large-scale fabrications of evidence for not soundly justified reasons.

If it is genuine Oswald handwriting (and Oswald is aware of what he wrote in that handwritten document), would that mean Oswald was cooperating in fabricating the story of his impersonator for that trip? But if Oswald was being scripted to cooperate in his own impersonation, might it not be simpler to just have Oswald do the impersonation personally, i.e. go to Mexico City and be his own impersonator himself? 🙂 I appreciate your good cheer David, thanks--

22 hours ago, David Boylan said:

Here's a selection of photos of Diaz-Garcia.

https://tangodown63.com/diaz-garcia-herminio/

 

Well the top right photo and the middle two on the bottom row show slicked-back hair, removing that objection. Does the 2nd photo from left of the second row/=top left photo show hair on the chest just above the top button of his shirt? Perhaps there is no actual negative objection from physical description after all.

As for association of de Torres and Diaz-Garcia otherwise, the only thing I can find is both are said to be involved with the Trafficante crime organization (de Torres according to this informant report at p. 2: https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/180-10097-10488.pdf). This 1975 document, p. 12, cites a CIA 201 file on Diaz-Garcia with CIA denying it ever used Diaz-Garcia "operationally", but says CIA was in contact with him but decided to end contact with him in September 1963 (hmm): http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/NARA-Nov9-2017/104-10103-10183.pdf. This from a previous forum discussion of Diaz: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/8257-did-herminio-diaz-garcia-really-die-in-1966/. 

22 hours ago, David Boylan said:

So, if de Torres was Leopoldo, who would he be Angel/Angelo?  Who was de Torres hanging around with in 1963? It wouldn't be Murgado.

More than a few researchers believe it was Herminio Diaz-Garcia.

Physical description of "Angel" from Fonzi, The Last Investigation (p. 111). From Annie: "the shorter, heavyset one had dark, shiny, hair combed back, and 'looked Mexican'." Silvia: "[Silvia] described him as her sister did, 'looking more Mexican than anything else.'"

It is a little puzzling what "looking Mexican" means, but in thinking about that and class language it may have included a connotation of darker skin color (compare at the end below), perhaps some sense of closer to Native American look, less Spanish-European-white?  

Mrs. Odio. ... And the other one was short, very Mexican looking. Have you ever seen a short Mexican with lots of thick hair and a lot of hair on his chest? 

Mr. Liebeler. So there was a shorter one and a tall one, and the shorter one was rather husky? 

[...]

Mr. Liebeler. And the shorter man was about how tall, would you say? Was he taller or shorter than Oswald? 

Mrs. Odio. Shorter than Oswald. 

Mr. Liebeler. About how much, could you guess? 

Mrs. Odio. Five feet seven, something like that. 

Mr. Liebeler. So he could have been 2 or 3 inches shorter than Oswald? 

Mrs. Odio. That's right. 

Mr. Liebeler. He weighed about how much, would you say? 

Mrs. Odio. 170 pounds, something like that, because he was short, but he was stocky, and he was the one that had the strange complexion. 

Mrs. Liebeler. Was it pock marked, would you say? 

Mrs. Odio. No; it was like it wasn't, because he was, oh, it was like he had been in the sun for a long time.

From photos turned up on search engines (there seem to be issues with some misidentified photos) Herminio Diaz Garcia seems to agree in height and weight and darker skin color in general agreement with the physical description of "Angel" up to this point. But in addition to no known evidence otherwise of actual association of de Torres and Diaz, Silvia Odio said "Angel" had a hairy chest, but photos do not seem to show Herminio Diaz Garcia with a hairy chest. And second, "Angel" had "dark, shiny hair combed back", but photos of Diaz seem to show him with "Afro" hair. These seem to me to weigh negatively against Diaz being the correct identification.

Well David you are right Malcom Price does SAY Sept. 26 followed by the turkey shoot a couple of weeks later, but isn't that a simple matter of he is just confused on the date? All other witnesses have that turkey shoot in November, including Malcom Price himself later in his same testimony. 

Mr. Liebeler: And 2 weeks later would have been the 12th of October, and the Sunday following would be the 13th of October; is that right?

Mr. Price: Yes, somewhere around there. They had a turkey shoot and I went down to participate in a turkey shoot ...

[...]

Mr. Liebeler: When was the next time you saw him, the third time?

Mr. Price: Well, I don't remember just exactly when it was, but it was--it could be anywhere from 1 to 3 weeks later--I don't remember exactly, but it was on a Sunday, Sunday was the only time I went down there after that in a good while.

[...]

Mr. Liebeler: Let's see if we can establish the date of he last time that you saw this man at the rifle range. Do you recall that the President was assassinated on Friday, November 22? Can you tell us approximately how long prior to the assassination this time was that you saw the man?

Mr. Price: The last time I saw him was a week before Thanksgiving; Sunday before.

Mr. Liebeler: The Sunday before Thanksgiving--that's the last time you saw him at a rifle range?

Mr. Price: That's the last time that I was down at the rifle range--the last time I swent there until after, oh, a month or so after the assassination.

Mr. Liebeler: You mean it was the Sunday immediately preceding Thanksgiving?

Mr. Price: That's right; I was down there for the turkey shoot we had.

Mr. Liebeler: You saw him at the rifle range that day?

Mr. Price. Yes.

Mr. Liebeler: Well, the last Sunday before Thanksgiving was after the assassination.

Mr. Price: It was after?

Mr. Liebeler: Yes; and you saw this man at the rifle range, you saw Oswald at the rifle range after the assassination?

Mr. Price: I believe I did, because that twas the last time that I went down there.

Mr. Liebeler: And the time you saw him the last time and looked through the scrope was the last time you were down at the rifle range?

Mr.Price: Yes; that was the last day I was down there.

Mr. Liebeler: What makes you say it was the Sunday preceding Thanksgiving, are you sure about that?

Mr. Price: Well, I'm not exactly positive but it was getting close to Thanksgiving because I was trying to get a turkey.

Mr. Liebeler: Do you remember whether you saw him after the assassination?

Mr. Price: No.

Mr. Liebeler: You are not sure one way or the other?

Mr. Price: I know I haven't seen him after the assassination, but it was before this assassination--I was down there the last time and I was thinking it was a week before Thanksgiving, but anyhow, it was before the assassination, the Sunday before, but they were holding a turkey shoot.

Mr. Liebeler: The Sunday before the assassination would have been the 17th--that would have been two Sundays before Thanksgiving.

Mr. Price: Well, it might be right--that's been so long ago--I'm not sure about the dates, I don't remember dates too well.

[...]

Mr. Price: Well, I try to help all I can. I don't remember dates too well--it's been quite some time.

Are you sure it was Oswald at the Sports Dome sightings? The man witnesses thought had looked like Oswald there drove his own car, had a different kind of rifle than Oswald with a modified stock and a leather gun case, had a pair of binoculars with him, was a skilled accurate shooter, and the sightings took place at times that Ruth Paine testified that Oswald, who had no car nor access to one, was with her and Marina at her house in Irving those entire weekends and could not have been at the Sports Dome location for those periods of time. Mrs. Slack at the Sports Dome said the man had fuller and more hair than photos of Oswald. The man at the Sports Dome never claimed to be Oswald nor is there any reason to suppose he was impersonating anyone. There are proven cases of people who mistakenly thought they saw Oswald but actually saw Jack Ruby's employee Larry Crafard: Don Stuart and the electronics store; Mary Lawrence at the Lucas B & B Restaurant. Are you confident it was really Oswald at the Sports Dome instead of a mistaken identification? I think the Sports Dome were mistaken identifications of someone who resembled Oswald but was not him. 

From a certain angle Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, was the spitting image of my brother. We had a lot of fun over that because it was so striking. These things happen.

As for why the man at the Sports Dome never talked much to any of the others there or socialized, and never was seen showing up shooting there again after the assassination, I don't know if that is very odd but it does seem a little odd ... Larry Crafard split town in a hurry immediately after the assassination for unknown reason, just before his boss Ruby killed Oswald ... is it possible that was Larry Crafard at the Sports Dome? But hard to know at this point. 

No David, I did mean Wednesday August 28, 1963 for Oswald in Austin (for reasons explained).

The way LHO could get from Silvia Odio's in Dallas to Houston the night of Wed. Sept 25 has nothing whatever to do with any bus schedules. All the talk about bus schedules to Houston that Oswald never took is entirely irrelevant to anything. That Marina said she thought Oswald had left New Orleans by bus is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Oswald arrived to Silvia Odio's place in Dallas in a car driven from New Orleans (according to what Silvia Odio was told by her visitors, whose physical appearance of greasy hair and unshaven noticed by Silvia agreed with their claim to have just arrived from New Orleans). Then Silvia Odio sees Oswald leaving her place in the same car driven by others. That is what is relevant. 

On reports of Oswald at the Sports Drome on Sept 28, are you sure about that? According to this FBI report of an interview of Malcom Price, the Sports Drome firing range did not open for business until October 26: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95643&relPageId=65&search=Malcom_Price. If the Sports Drome was not open for business until Oct 26, then it does not seem very likely Oswald would have been shooting there a month before it was open. None of the FBI interviews concerning the claims of Sports Drome sightings occur before Oct 26 that I can see. Surely some mistake?

Hi David Josephs--I have only read Parts I and II so far of your Mexico City series but thought I would offer this comment so far. It seems the method in arguing that Oswald did not go to Mexico City relies in part on arguments from chronological impossibility, citing the Silvia Odio visit as well as witness reports in Austin. The Silvia Odio visit is not a chronological impossibility at all for Oswald to get from Silvia Odio's place in Dallas to Houston by 2:35 am the night of Wed. Sept 25, by being driven there. I showed that in the "Identity of 'Leopoldo'" thread.

On Austin, there are witness accounts of Oswald in Austin from Dannelly at the Selective Service office, and Stella Norman at the Trek Cafe, both of which read as credible to me. However that cannot have occurred Wed Sept 25 consistent with the Silvia Odio visit and then Oswald to Houston that night, and in addition Stella Norman said the one weekday her Oswald encounter could not have occurred was a Wednesday since Wednesday was always her day off. Mrs. Dannelly on the other hand remembered very specifically that Oswald had visited the Selective Service office on a Wednesday, since she was paid every other Wednesday and she remembered the day Oswald was there had been one of her paydays. 

From digging through the documents on the Mary Ferrell site the solution is recognizing errors in date reconstructions which produce illusory contradictions that are not necessary. Neither Dannelly nor Stella Norman were certain of the date, remembering only their respective specific but seemingly-contradictory Wednesday linkages. But although Stella Norman claimed she always had Wednesdays off, the FBI interviewed her employer who checked his records and said while that was normally true she had been paid for working Wednesday Aug 28 (seven days that week). As for Dannelly, Wed. Aug. 28 was one of her biweekly Wednesday paydays. Since that date works for both of these witnesses, since Sept. 25 is excluded, and since both of these witnesses appear credible, I say Oswald was in Austin Aug 28. LHO has relevant Austin address information in his address book related to that trip; LHO was engaged with New Orleans attorney Dean "my records of Oswald were lost in a burglary" Andrews about his Selective Service case in that time frame; and the case is known to have been on Oswald's mind, so it is not implausible that he would go to Austin in person about his case. Therefore neither the Dannelly and Stella Norman Austin witness accounts, no more than the Silvia Odio visit in Dallas, provide argument establishing negatively that Oswald did not go from Dallas to Houston the night of Sept. 25. I realize you have other arguments that Oswald did not go to Mexico City; I only mean here to show these ones are removed.

Some final thoughts from reading Gaeton Fonzi's The Last Investigation (2016 edition, first published 1993):

-- how very scary it must have been for Silvia Odio and her sister Annie. When they saw Oswald on the news following the JFK assassination they were terrified, resolved that neither of them must ever speak of it. But they confided in their sister Sarita, who confided in a close friend who promised to keep it confidential and only told one or two of her closest friends and next thing they knew the FBI came calling. Silvia Odio gave her testimony to the Warren Commission and the WC said she was deluded and Oswald could not have been at her door. The WC's evidence for this was a bogus timeline argument, in which WC explained that it would be difficult for Oswald to get from Dallas to Houston, a 3.5 hour drive, by car the evening of Wed. Sept. 25 after being at Silvia Odio's door and be at a Houston bus station by 2:35 am that night, and also make a brief long-distance telephone call of a few minutes' duration to Houston at some point that evening, because, WC explained:

"Therefore, it appeared that Oswald's presence in New Orleans until sometime between 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. on September 25 was quite firmly established [OK, yes] ... the only time not strictly accounted for during the period that Mrs. Odio thought Oswald might have visited her is the span between the morning of September 25 and 2:35 a.m. on September 26 [OK, yes] ... Automobile travel in the time available, though perhaps possible, would have been difficult [why?] ... It thus appeared that the evidence was persuasive that Oswald was not in Dallas on September 25, and, therefore, that he was not in that city at the time Mrs. Odio said she saw him."

Oswald was not driving when he arrived in a car to Silvia Odio's, with Leopoldo explaining to Silvia that the three had just driven direct from New Orleans, and Oswald was not driving when Silvia saw the three leave her apartment in the same car "on a trip" (destination not said). But that was WC's explanation of why their investigation found it "persuasive" that a 3-1/2 hour drive from there to Houston between 9 pm and 2:35 am did not happen: "it would have been difficult". Such a pivotal point to WC's finding, WC's basis for excluding Silvia Odio's testimony as of any further interest, with that as the explanation! My favorite television program was "Colombo". What would Columbo have said to that? I have driven from east Texas to Houston myself. I did not find it difficult.

-- then came HSCA in the 1970s, and Fonzi, the honest dogged investigator, tells of the machinations and politics of HSCA, and like a great pall over everything, CIA covering up and obstructing. Blakey comes in and, like a good team player in the name of effectiveness, cooperates with CIA so that Congress and CIA can share in the process of investigating the JFK assassination while not investigating actions of CIA. Fonzi went to a lot of work to gain Silvia Odio's confidence that this time would be different and to be willing to testify again, and HSCA called Silvia Odio to testify and arrangements were made, but at the last minute there is pressure from above and Silvia Odio is told she is not wanted to come to Washington, D.C. to testify, citing some unrelated reason of a scheduling problem, while Fonzi is placated with a promise that her story will be told well in narrative form in HSCA's report so not to worry, it would effectively be the same; then at the hearing Silvia's narrative is not read out so that news reporters would report on it, but citing lack of time, is simply stipulated put into the record without reading it aloud and moved on, meaning it did not become a news story by the covering press. The appearance of purposeful downplaying of Silvia Odio's witness account by both WC and CIA-pressured/cooperating Blakey of HSCA. Blakey taking HSCA to a Mob-did-it conclusion, not necessarily wrong as a half-truth, but the notion (the implication of Blakey's conclusion the way Blakey framed it) that Mob bosses would on their own in consultation with one another decide to hit a sitting president and declare war on the entire US Government bringing down the wrath of God on themselves, makes no sense at all; they simply could not be that irrational. Blakey pursued the Mob angle while overseeing steering HSCA investigators such as Fonzi from CIA angles.

-- It is established on the basis of Fonzi's book (assuming Fonzi's 1993 edition has the same as the 2016 edition) that the de Torres identity of "Leopoldo" originated from Fonzi 1993, not from Gerry Hemming's or Angel Murgado's or Joan Mellen's later endorsements of it, all in their various ways attempting to discredit Silvia Odio's testimony even while not contesting that de Torres was "Leopoldo", likely professional disinformation with Joan Mellen unwitting purveyor of it even though Mellen meant well. Is there professional (as distinguished from free-lance) disinformation in the case of the JFK assassination which does NOT go back to CIA?

-- Fonzi tells Silvia Odio's story of meeting "Leopoldo", "Angelo", and Oswald, giving physical descriptions except for the most striking feature of physical description for Leopoldo remembered by Silvia Odio: the unusual forehead and hairline. A male pattern baldness in which one side of the forehead hairline goes "way back" more than the other could fit many men, but it is a striking match to de Torres photographs--Fonzi leaves that out of his book, just as he refers to de Torres by the pseudonym "Carlos" and not by real name in that book.

-- The way the JFK assassination chewed up innocent people. Silvia Odio did not seek publicity, told the truth, lived in fear. She did not ask for it, but through an accident of history encountered the ones driving Oswald to Houston on the first leg of the Mexico City trip whatever that was about, and through another accident of history that which Silvia and her sisters intended never to be publicly disclosed because of fear, came to attention and was "investigated" and dismissed on the most transparently flimsy grounds. So went the investigations into the assassination of an American president who threatened structural change in good directions for America. 

Cliff, the final "bang-bang" that so many witnesses heard corresponds to the two greatest blurs in Zapruder at Z313 and Z331, according to the studies. Those are 1.0 second apart and shots one second apart will be heard and remembered as distinct shots by most people, in agreement with the witnesses who heard a final "bang-bang". Those final two blurs/shots at Z313 and Z330 are the JFK head shot at Z313 and a good argument for the Connally hit at Z330. Where in Zapruder are you putting the shot Bennett says he heard at the time he saw JFK's back, just before Z313?

It is possible to have a blur in Zapruder not caused by a shot, but not possible to have a shot without a blur in Zapruder. Single witnesses can be fallible but this science must be prior.

I may have erred in thinking five shots instead of three or four. Either or both of Z152-158 and Z227 I believe could arguably be eliminated as shots without violation of visual evidence in Zapruder, and would be in better agreement with the large number of witness reports hearing three ending with two close together, "bang-bang".

I agree Bennett refers to three shots but Bennett himself spoke of his first as a "fire cracker" sound without calling it a shot (even though we know it was a shot and we call it a shot); Bennet's second shot heard he calls "a shot", and Bennett's third shot heard he calls "a second shot" in his early statements. I was quoting Bennett's terminology, minor point, doesn't matter. I think Bennett must have looked at JFK very close before the head shot of Z313, saw the tear in JFK's jacket already there, immediately heard two shots--"bang-bang" as he saw JFK's head blown apart, and associated in his mind the first of that "bang-bang" with having caused the hit to JFK's back, and the second of that "bang-bang" with the JFK head hit, even though that was slightly mistaken on the order of a fraction of a second or a second in time.  

BLURS IN ZAPRUDER FILM

Cliff Varnell, on the testimony of Glenn Bennett, I interpret his testimony a bit differently. This is my transcription of the photo of his handwritten statement of 5:30 pm Nov 22, 1963:

"...The President's car, the motorcade, had been traveling for approximately 30 minutes enroute to the Trade-Mart, when we made a left hand turn and then a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a fire cracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed fire cracker, looked at the Boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder; a second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the Boss's head. I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the left <1119 to?> left, but was unable to see any one person that could have rendered this terrible tragedy. The President's auto immediately kicked into high gear and the follow-up car departed the scean. The President was taken to a nearby hospital and was rushed therein..."

Clint Hill, in the same followup car, heard only two shots, with the first being a firecracker sound, the second being the Z313 head shot--parallel to Bennett. From Clint Hill's WC testimony:

Mr. HILL. Well, as we came out of the curve, and began to straighten up, I was viewing the area which looked to be a park. There were people scattered throughout the entire park. And I heard a noise from my right rear, which to me seemed to be a firecracker. I immediately looked to my right and, in so doing, my eyes had to cross the Presidential limousine and I saw President Kennedy grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left. 
Mr. SPECTER. Why don't you just proceed, in narrative form, to tell us? 
Representative BOGGS. This was the first shot? 
Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo. I put my right foot, I believe it was, on the left rear step of the automobile, and I had a hold of the handgrip with my hand, when the car lurched forward. I lost my footing and I had to run about three or four more steps before I could get back up in the car.

So this parallelism:

Clint Hill's #1 = firecracker. Bennett's #0 = firecracker

Clint Hill looks at JFK, sees JFK "grab at himself and lurch forward and to the left". Bennett looks at JFK, sees "a shot [Bennet's #1] that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder".

Clint Hill's #2 = Z313 head shot. Bennett's #2 = Z313 head shot.

In this parallelism which agrees at the outset and at the end, the look at JFK in the middle may be two versions of the same thing, by the parallelism. The only difference is that Bennett claims he hears a shot at the time he looks at JFK, whereas Clint Hill does not claim to hear such a shot. 

Two versions in parallel tellings of two agents in the followup car. Bennett saw the wound (after it happened), and Clint Hill saw JFK's reaction to that wound, also after it happened. The only difference is Bennett's ambiguous "saw a shot that hit the Boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder" (one cannot "see" a shot but the sense could read as *"saw that a shot had hit...") becomes edited, in the typed version of his handwritten notes typed the next day, to "saw a shot hit the Boss..."

I think Bennett's memory is incorrect on the point about hearing a shot at the moment he looked and saw the hole in the back of JFK's jacket. The evidence is an Altgens photo at Z255 shows Bennett still looking hard to the right, in agreement with a Willis photo at Z202 also showing Bennett looking hard to the right. In the Altgens photo one end of the rear view mirror is about at the position of Bennett's left ear in line of sight, and the hair of the agent sitting in front of Bennett blocks Bennet's nose in line of sight, but other than that there is a clear profile view of the left side of Bennett's face, with Bennett looking fully to the right. This means Bennett did not turn to look to see JFK until after Z255. But no shot occurred after Z255 until the head shot at Z313 (or two shots indistinguishable in sound at Z310/Z313 is permitted by the blurs if that is argued). It is certain there was no shot between Z255 and Z310 or 313, because there is no blur episode in those frames, and there cannot be the sound of a shot without a blur episode in Zapruder's handheld panning of the camera. 

In addition, Bennett's later iteration of testimony to HSCA (if the interviewer reports him accurately) drops the claim that he observed the creation of the hole in JFK's back as distinguished from seeing the mark in the back of JFK's suit jacket: "He then heard another noise and saw what appeared to be a nick in the back of President Kennedy's coat below the shoulder. He thought the President had been hit in the back ... he believes the first and second shots were close together and then a longer pause before the third shot ... he does not recall any agents reacting before the third shot." 

Bennett was one of the agents up into the early hours of the morning in Fort Worth at The Cellar the night before. Bennett wrote in his statement on that that he left The Cellar at 3 a.m. Like most of the agents who had been there, he reported that he had drunk only grapefruit juice, nothing alcoholic, at The Cellar. Bennett got to sleep some time after 3 a.m., then got up and reported for duty at 7:20 a.m. He could hardly have gotten more than three hours sleep at best with shower and breakfast. How would reporting to work protecting the president on only three hours sleep the night before affect not only reaction time but acuity and accuracy of memory? It would be something that an opposing attorney in a trial situation would surely bring out.

Because a shot at the time Bennett looked and saw a tear created by a bullet in the back of JFK's suit is excluded by evidence (no blur episode), and because Bennett's reflexes were likely not in the best physical condition due to lack of sleep, I interpret Bennett's early claim to have heard a shot, and to have seen the actual moment of creation of the back wound, to be mistaken on Bennet's part. I think he looked at JFK when he said he did in his earliest handwritten account, saw the tear in JFK's jacket of the bullet hole in JFK's back, correctly interpreted it as caused by a shot, but did not see the creation of that wound to JFK's back. All of this is consistent with the back wound of JFK occurring at the shot at Z180-193.

9 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

The photo of DeTorres that Steve Boylan posted is from the mid to late 50s.

I hope someday we will find out officially that Odio IDd DeTorres as Leopoldo, as I believe she privately did to Gaeton Fonzi.

Fonzi did his best to ID Leopoldo as Bernardo DeTorres in his book, without coming right out and saying it. At the time of publication, DeTorres was still very much alive, engaged in nefarious activities, and not someone that anyone would want to anger. If you carefully re-read the pertinent sections regarding Leopoldo, you'll come to the same conclusion as I did back when his book was first published in the early 90s.

Matt Allison you are right, I just read much of Gaeton Fonzi's book, The Last Investigation, and I see what you mean and agree. It is definitely suggested, just not confirmed. Fonzi says his only justification to HSCA for investigating a circle of persons centered around Carlos (de Torres) in the late 1970s was because "There were two men in [Carlos's] operation who fit the description of 'Angel' and 'Leopoldo', the two men Silvia Odio said had visited her apartment in Dallas with Oswald" (p. 240). Fonzi directly says he had two particular men in mind, never names them, but they are in a circle of persons close to Carlos (de Torres).

"Leopoldo" as a war name was not Silvia Odio's speculation but, according to Fonzi that is what Leopoldo himself said ("identified himself as 'Leopoldo', although he admitted he was giving her an alias or a 'war name'", p. 111).

Fonzi tells of wanting to get photographs of Carlos (de Torres) and associates, and that he obtained cooperation from the Metro Dade Organized Crime squad to set up a surveillance van to take such photographs, but Blakey in Washington D.C. ordered Fonzi not to proceed with that (p. 241). 

Fonzi tells of Silvia Odio's deep continuing fear for the safety of herself and her children when he interviewed her, and his attempts to protect her from further abuse of the kind she received from the Warren Commission (pp. 115-116). That context offers a very simple explanation for why no identity of "Leopoldo" has been publicly confirmed from Fonzi or Silvia Odio. 

Carlos (de Torres) told of having been "in contact with Oswald", according to Fonzi's informant (p. 234).

And de Torres matches the physical description given by Silvia for "Leopoldo". 

I think your comment has been the most valuable comment of this topic. 

52 minutes ago, Paul Bacon said:

The blur at z313 could also be a result of a shot immediately before it,  say at z310.  If you look closely, JFK's head is pushed forward just before z313.

There is so much more information to be considered before you present your theory, although I do appreciate your sincerity.

This is a good point Paul and you are right. This means the argument I was following of Donald Thomas and Milicent Cranor of my second paragraph re Z313--has to be withdrawn in claiming Z313 blur onset proves the shooter of the bullet impacting at Z313 was very close by Zapruder, because of the reason you give. A Grassy Knoll position of the shooter of the shot impacting JFK's head at Z313 would still be true on other grounds, but not established from the argument from blur onset.

I had not thought the movement of JFK's head forward just before Z313 represented a hit from a rear shot because, as I looked at Zapruder, I interpreted that as part of all of the occupants in the limousine moving forward slightly due to a momentary braking of the presidential limousine, not bringing it to a full stop (in the films, despite remembered as a full stop by some witnesses), but enough to move everyone forward, not just JFK. JFK's head goes forward a bit more than the other heads but that all are thrown forward as the limo was braked was the key point to me, and JFK's slightly greater head movement, differing in extent but not in kind from the others, I attributed to JFK's back brace restricting movement of the rest of his torso. That was my thinking, in discounting the forward JFK head movement just prior to Z313 as indicating a shot from the rear. 

But if that JFK forward head movement was from a shot from the rear hitting at say ca. Z310, sounds of shots only ca. 3 Zapruder frames apart, about 1/6 of a second--as would also be compatible with Zapruder--that surely would be indistinguishable from being heard as a single shot by nearly everyone. Also I assume 1/6 of a second would be too close together for blur analysis to be capable of distinguishing as distinct shots, since the startle response span of time is greater than that. If so, this would mean a six-shots theory instead of five, and this sixth shot at ca. Z310 would be where the rear occipital entrance occurred (if the arguments for inferring a rear entrance wound in the back of JFK's head are correct), leaving Z330 to be solely the Connally hit.

It does not seem to me that a distinct shot hitting JFK in the rear of the head at Z310 is necessary from the evidence though it is possible.