Ron Ege

"No one was ever able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas Schoolbook Depository with a gun in his hand." - Former Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry. If only there was.

Lance, thanks - understand. Don't disagree that any record that may have indubitably incriminated the CIA (and/or any of their, just maybe, still unidentified "partners"), would've been intentionally destroyed, forthwith. So, what is the harm in releasing all the records, just for posterity's sake, if nothing else? I know, CIA paranoia, for sure. It seems the implication of it not doing so, is, "Nothing to see here folks; move along" - which tends to make the agency suspect. So, so much JFKA controversy still, some sixty years later. If Oswald WAS the lone assassin, it seems that the "all the dots" would've been long ago connected, conclusively, in fairly short order. The Oswald conspiratorial (maybe only six to ten conspirators required) option's dots' connection - whether LHO was involved, knowingly or unknowingly, e.g., duped into a false flag op as some have suggested, may have taken a little longer to unravel. Whichever one is the truth, appears to remain elusive. And why is that? Understand all the 60 years of "muddying" of the story" that has occurred, purposely or not, by so, so many (insert any entity(s) and or person(s), here). Still, I cannot help but suspect that the controversy continues, just perhaps of course, due to the still yet unsolved need by some unidentified entity(s) desire "to protect the guilty". I don't subscribe to a "Deep State". But I do think, "never say never." Just leaving open the option, perhaps, of the JFKA being the result of a tightly knitted conspiracy, rogue or official, LHO a participant or not, involving no more than a dozen or less "in the know", with only a couple surviving the post assassination "clean-up", who did not ever "spill the beans". I am sure there are more than a few here who were in government service, maybe for years or even decades, with access to Top Secret intelligence who have never breathed a word and never will. Lance, I'm not necessarily, "agin ya", or "fer ya". Appreciate yours, as well as everyone's input.

Charles, thanks. Agree. A 100 percent agreed to (proven), beyond a shadow of a doubt) LHO motive for the JFKA, would be great place to begin - to eventually reach the final conclusion, answering the "whodunit" of the JFKA. As you seem to have implied, Oswald's motive has really never been 100 percent established. And all I have ever read - seems to have boiled down to, in the end, relative thereto, are suspicions, suppositions, hypotheticals, theories, and the like; some with seemingly good circumstantial evidence and some not so much. It would be wonderfully illustrative/instructive if we just had a "LHO's life brain memory tape" to view, so we could conclusively prove everything that has been proffered as to "who "really was" - especially, the exact moment in his rather short life, when he (if he did) decided to kill JFK Otherwise, me thinks it is just "guess work" on the part of whomever, who may proffering an alleged motive for him. That, of course is a non-starter, so where are we, and where do we go - for lack thereof? Probably just me, but if Oswald's motive was as simple as one day, on the spur of the moment (for whatever reason) he "went off his nut" and decided to shoot JFK, or he coldly/calculatingly (psychopathically?) planned it much ahead (days, weeks, months, years?) - IOW, just an "Average Joe", with nothing in his 24 years, other than maybe some form of undeniably causal mental illness, pointing to him being just and only, that - why is there so much controversy, relative to his guilt, e.g., LNer vs CTer - almost 60 years later? People in either camp (or both) cannot possibly be totally responsible for such a prolonged controversy. Caveat; sure, the waters could be muddied somewhat by one side or the other, given their view of the totality of the "evidence". Ma-a-ybe, if every government agency just released every record that is "still classified for national security reasons" (not buying that excuse), then the controversy might just go away? Wonder how many, over the years, how many of those records have already found their way into the "circular file/file 13"? In any case, with ALL the records available for scrutiny, me thinks Oswald's "motive" might just become apparent, helping us ultimately reach the answer (unequivocally) to the "whodunit" question. Ponder this: If some TRULY "Average Joe", even in '63, or during the intervening years, or just recently - assassinated a POTUS and then killed a police officer, and then, in police custody, was himself killed by just an "ordinary citizen" who allegedly just, out of the goodness of his heart, did not want to see the president's wife suffer the publicity of a trial of the accused - how long would it take to determine, beyond a shadow if ANY doubt, that that "Average Joe" in question, truly, acted independently? Among others, I thank Mr. Bauer for, in his enviably inimitable fashion, alluding in the past (as I remember it, anyway), to some of the above, which prompted this post. Joe, it's a compliment! remember it, anyway!

Lance, thanks. Steve had referenced my post (at Ieast, that's what I perceived) and it seemed to me that "this" was in regard to it. I just thought I should perhaps, clarify. Anyway, all good - no harm, no foul, as far as I'm concerned!

Lance, thanks. I think you possibly, may have inferred something I did not intend. I really don't think I have been a member here long enough to "periodically trot out", much at all. But if that's how you see it, no umbrage taken. I try my best to be respectful of everyone here, regardless of their view of the JFKA; I surely cannot recall calling anyone names, only just referring to them being on one side or the other of the debate. I believe I mentioned in an earlier post that I do not necessarily even cotton to the terms, CTer and LNer, but it seems well accepted here. I was not suggesting that you or anyone here is an agent of anyone, to upset anyone, and I certainly was not implying that ANYONE here, is any kind of agent. The farthest thing from my mind in the post is that - "the CIA is spreading disinformation through Lone Nutters." The reason for the link was just an addendum to Mr. Niederhut's post. Ma-a-y-be, just a wee, possible FYI/FYE to read, digest, and accept/discard as per one's opinion of it. Perhaps, it was too long of post, on my part. For brevity's sake, yes, I do believe that "We don't know (unequivocally, 100 percent) what we don't know", regarding the JFKA. I thought that's why the debate, here - to find that out. Secondarily, yes, I do believe that certain governmental elements, have, for a very long time, for whatever reason, way before 11/23/963, and most certainly subsequent thereto, have indeed, purposefully inserted, shall we say "roadblocks", to prevent finding the truth about (insert whatever questionable action/scenario, here, along with the JFKA). Be those "roadblocks" purposes of the "left", "right", or somewhere in between, IMO, there is ample evidence that "stuff" has gone/goes on, relative to left, right, or the in be tween's goals. We all remember JEH's comment about the CIA (yeah, I know, he was certainly throwing stones from inside of his own glass house). But still. Lastly, I only attempted to bring, perhaps, a little nostalgic "dressing" to my observation that EVERYONE, here - is simply trying to confirm, as they view it in their own minds, the truth about the JFKA (and yes, also, to attempt to convince the other side, too) - and to eventually bring, at some future point, the debate issue to complete closure, be that a pro or con conspiracy conclusion. Do I lean toward the pro conspiracy side. Yep. Am I ready to absolutely bet MY life that LHO acted completely alone? Nope. Still believe in the old "death and taxes" adage. That's why I read everything you and everyone else here posts in any of the threads, with an open mind and with respect. I absolutely, "DO wanna learn what I don't know." You and the rest here help me with that, a lot!

Mr. Niederhut, thanks for digging that one up; a great refresher for those who remember it and FYI/FYE for those who may have missed it. And: https://investortimes.com/freedomoutpost/cass-sunstein-employing-behavioral- H-m-m. Anyone noticing a little correlation between Sunstein's proposed "program" and "current events" (especially, those of the past several years)? And - just ma-a-y-be, certain government elements were "kinda/sorta" practicing the same type of machinations, say, even before 11/22/1963, not to mention the obvious practice of the craft, subsequently thereto. If "there's nothing to see here folks, move along", just please kindly release each and every scrap of paper/audio tape/video tape, etc., relative to the JFKA, as well as the RFKA and MLKA - and also, all the records in support of all of the government's questionable/improbable "official explanations", in regard to to so many other national/international governmental "actions" over the decades. Me thinks that that would certainly clear up a lot of on-going discussion/dissension of so many things. Of course, I don't think we should hold our breath. Please, no, "It would threaten national security." That continual excuse, is well beyond the "lame" category. Yes, I will grant that "the right" is also complicit in attempting to control the populace' thinking, attitudes, etc. Our "mission" here, as I see it, is reality/factuality, and it seems that most, in their individual/collective quest to bring the debate to a much desired final conclusion, simply desire, to eventually be as successful (regardless of whatever side one is on), as was the TV series, MISSION IMPOSSIBLE'S fictional protagonist, "Mr. Phelps". Thus, here, all have, "decided to accept" the "mission". Be careful though - of "the secretary's" probable disavowment! The truth will out.

Jake, thank you; I do understand your point. I'm just wondering, considering all the evidence that's surfaced over the past almost six decades, that it is highly probable that Oswald was, indeed, an undercover low-level intelligence operative and perhaps even a confidential FBI informant, would that not color the actions/demeanor that he displayed, leading up to the assassination and immediately, thereafter - and thus appear to make him seem guilty (of something) - even though he had no part, whatsoever, in the assassination or the Tippit shooting; even more so, if he been duped into participating beforehand into participating in a "false flag" operation, as some have suggested - and realizing he'd been double-crossed, began "scrambling" whilst in custody, to begin proving his innocence - which, I think, to some, could've made look even more guilty. To me, it would seem that undercover operatives' behaviors, after they been outed, though not thought to be maybe much suspicious theretofore, would suddenly become quite suspect, considering the surreptitious nature of the tradecraft involved.

Denny, thanks. I would guess that the sticking point for some - would be the "allegedly". Perhaps, and just a "perhaps", many remain unconvinced that that Oswald actually "owned" the MC in question. For me, it is yet hardly definite that if he did own it, let alone how much he. "regularly practiced". The incidences of him allegedly doing so, are questionable at best. Imposter? ?Mistaken identity? In any case, for Oswald to actually allegedly accomplish what he's been credited as doing, gives many, quite a bit of pause, to say the least - considering all we know about the rifle, it's condition, a scope which would be contraindicated for his task at hand, that day, and so on. Can't speak for other gun enthusiasts, not a hunter, but as an avid target shooter (once owned some forty pistols/rifles of several different calibers), I was always aware that I had, at the very least, a minimum of one box of whatever ammo I needed for whatever gun I owned, remaining, as I took inventory, each time that I went out to shoot. Any caliber of less than "one box on hand", I replenished at the local gun store, on the way to - or back from the range. What I will note - is that if I were on the way to assassinate the POTUS, I'd take more than four bullets for my rifle, e.g., extra clips/magazines, and I'd also carry a loaded pistol, along with extra ammunition - just in case I was unable to make my "getaway" unnoticed. Oswald, if it was, indeed, him that day, shooting from the sixth floor did not. It's may be just me - but - curious that.

Jim, thanks for the reminder of the link; had read it before, certainly a great refresher. Always amazes me, regardless of the myriad of puzzle pieces that have been laid out the past near 60 years, indicating that the JFA was a conspiracy, that all somehow get waved off as just so much balderdash. In just your link alone, there's Oswald (pretty obvious false defector (FD)), linked to the Nag's Head training facility for FD's, Marchetti, Hurt (intelligence background), Blakely "throttling back" on the "Mafia Did It" refrain, Schweiker's statement, the SS interested in a "Heard/Hurt", and on and on. Instead, Oswald was just some mixed-up young guy who just decided to buy an antiquated rifle, mysteriously acquiring a few bullets for it, and miraculously pulled off a shooting feat, that has never yet, been EXACTLY equaled. IOW no variables in the recreations - an inexperienced shooter (not experts/snipers) from the same location, in the same amount of time, shooting at same target, at the same speed, using the same rifle in the same exact condition as it was found that day, i. e., not repaired/adjusted/conditioned, and on and on. Are we to believe that none of the those referenced pieces in the link, not to mention gosh knows how many others (100s and 100s, 1000s?) that have been offered over six decades have absolutely no connection to a conspiracy. What would be the probability of that? I would proffer - beyond, astronomical.

Charles - and Ben - thanks. The "false flag" theory is a distinct possibility - especially in light of everything we have come to know about Oswald's link to the world of intelligence. Maybe some believe Senator Schweiker to have been a CTer, but I would have a difficult time being convinced. Senator Richard S. Schweiker's (Rep, PA) statement, in 1975, on CBS's Face the Nation: "We don't know what happened, but we do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there are the fingerprints of intelligence." The senator's statement was in direct contravention of the official government/WCR stance that Oswald was just simply a "lone nut". Does it not maybe follow, as Ben (and maybe others, before?) has suggested - that conceivably, Oswald could've been convinced to becoming part of a "false flag" operation - viewing it as part of his "patriotic duty"? Or, even more simply, as has also been proffered, completely innocent of any role, whatsoever, in the assassination - totally unaware that he had been set up, in large part by the now pretty evident "off the official books" intelligence world's building of his "legend" bona fides as a pro-communist/pro-Castro supporter - which was key to buttressing its eventual conspiratorial plan to blame Cuba, and at the least, using it as a cause celebre to invade the island and retake it? Either way, the building of the "legend" and then eventually tying Oswald to the assassination did not have to be preplanned. For its intelligence gathering purposes regarding Castro/Cuba, Oswald's role as a pro-communist/pro-Castro supporter, at the time, was useful in and of itself. And when the decision was made to assassinate the president, Oswald was just selected as the convenient, "useful idiot". The implication, within Oswald's statement, "I'm just a patsy", could have been either and, if I may opine, could be anyone's inference, therefrom.

Pat, thank you. As doggone nearly all the time, you're right on. In the context of his predicament, his implication always seemed pretty clear to me - and others, I'm sure. Yes, of course, "I'm just a patsy" and then no more. Implicit in that short statement, IMO, was: "I going to have to speak to a lawyer, before I say anything more. Eventually, you will discover that my background, which you are currently, clearly unaware of, has put me in a position to be easily fingered as the fall guy. In the end, I'm confident that my innocence will be proven." For a 24 years' old guy who had been arrested for killing a police officer and was just told by reporters that he was also going to be charged with assassinating the POTUS, Lee portrayed one very cool young man. Most of us would most likely display more nervousness than Lee did, if we were to be stopped by a police officer for "California Stoppin'" a traffic stop sign! He was not maniac or a psychopath or anything else akin to those extremes. And he certainly was not a publicity seeker, looking to go down in the history books. At the moment, so Oswald thought, an innocent man has nothing to worry about. That's the way I see it, anyway. And because of Ruby, here we are.

Tom, you rock! Thank you. At 80 years old, have listened to a lot of Big Band, old time rock 'n roll ('50s primarily), C & W, and some other genres - but not so much the GD. I'll check it out - as - "I DO wanna learn, what I don't know"!

Charles, thank you. Don't know if Mr. Davis Josephs originated it - but I like it: "You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know." Thank you, David. And Mr. DiEugenio mentioned earlier in the thread the overwhelming evidence that Oswald was obviously some type of intel asset. Is there any agreement from the NCBr aka LNr (I don't particularly like that term) side that Oswald WAS an intel asset?

Michaleen, thanks. Relative to the JFKA, I am first reminded of part of Churchill's quote: ". . . a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma . . ." After near 60 years, the picture is somewhat clearer, but still there is still that ring of truth. And then also relative to the assassination, Donald Rumsfeld: "We know what we know, we know what we don't know, but we don't know what we don't know." In deciding to be a CBr (Conspiracy Believer) or a NCBr (Non-Conspiracy Believer) (my interest in the JFA began in 1967, when I read SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS), I eventually had to ask myself, considering the entirety of Oswald's biography, simply beginning with his USMC enlistment and continuing up to the moment Ruby killed him, what do I believe was the most likely way, his bona fides, which eventually built his rather impressive resume, came about? What came to mind was the Infinite Monkey Theorem. As a 17 years old high school drop-out, what is more believable as to how that roadmap became laid out, from the day Oswald raised his right hand to that day he died, just seven years later? 1. He independently planned/developed, managed, and executed all the actions he took and the myriad of things that he accomplished, including the assassination? Or 2. Others, along the way assisted him - by way of indoctrination, training, and education, and "handling" - which enabled him to function as a low level intelligence operative for some years - until eventually, he was manipulated into the position of "fall guy" for the JFKA? You are so right. Reporter: "Did you shoot the president?" Oswald: "No. They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union." Reporter: "What time did you leave the building?" Oswald: "I'm just a patsy." I do leave the door open to the possibility, as some here have suggested, that Oswald was hoodwinked into becoming part of a false-flag operation and was double crossed. When it comes to the JFKA and deciding to be a CBr or NCBR, I would think, figuratively of course, most here subscribe to the old adage: "I'm from Missouri. Show me" - seeking only the truth. That said, two people can be shown/be aware of the same exact information and come to a different conclusion. Either because they're each from a "different part of Missouri" - or more likely due to each one's unique, individual Frame Of Reference (FOR) developed over a lifetime. The give and take here is always informative, in some way or another, and often, as a bonus, extremely entertaining. I thank you all, for that!

Jim, thanks. I'm aware of everything you say in your post. Including, Sandy's work, the link and H & L, in its entirety. I respect all the hard work you've done over the years.

Sandy, thanks. I hope you don't think I'm debating whether or not Oswald was a CIA operative. I've been on that page for decades. I only sought to clarify - if there was something entirely new. I am a huge fan of your work!

Paul and Sandy, thank you. Paul - for all the additional Oswald's discharge paperwork and sundry information. Sandy - for your comments about Oswald and Powers being employees of the CIA. Powers - I was aware, and, therefore, yes, it follows he would've been issued the DD Form 1173. Point taken. Oswald - By your statement, I gather evidence has arisen that confirms, beyond all doubt, that he was a CIA employee. I've always believed that everything, for just about forever now, points to him being an ONI and/or CIA low level operative. Anyway, if I am following you correctly, you are saying that Oswald's DD Form 1173 "DOD ID Card" (for which there may have been a "handshake agreement" between the DOD and CIA allowing the agency to issue one to any of its employees), dated 09/11/59, the same date as all of Oswald's discharge paperwork, and prepared/signed by the same person (A. G. Ayres, 1st Lt, USMC) was issued to Oswald that day because he already WAS or was ABOUT TO BECOME imminently, a bona fide CIA employee and would need the DD Form 1173 for personal identification, facilities access, etc. As much as Oswald's entire history of behavior/actions in the military and after bespeaks of "being undercover", as well as the CIA always denying that he was one of theirs - well, as the late FSU Head Football Coach, Bobby Bowden would've said, "I'm bumfuzzled." Nothing new, for me.

Jim, thank you for the refresher. I do have a question, in your provided link, near the end, there is this: " . . . On September 11 HARVEY Oswald was given a Department of Defense photo ID card. . ." As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, if for nothing more that the "OF SPONSOR" being amateurishly blacked out on block 10, I believe that the card is problematic. Are you able to further refresh my memory and share the hypothesis as to who/what entity may have made up the card and also as stated in the link - the reason - that it "was given" to Oswald? I find it interesting that the 09/11/1958 date on the card is the same as the date on Oswald's Discharge Certificate, signed by the same USMC officer. Also, the expiration date, 12/07/1962, coincidentally, well covers that year for Oswald's eventual return from Russia, on 06/01/1962.

Paul, thanks. The DD 217 Form 217 MC is Oswald's discharge certificate. Whilst on active duty, he should've been issued a DD Form 2 MC ID card, surrendered to the USMC upon his active-duty discharge. If Oswald then, indeed, entered Inactive Reserve status, one would think the USMC would've issued him a DD Form 2 MCR. For me, the DD Form 1173, purported to be "Oswald's military ID card" is problematic. That form is issued by the DOD to military dependents, civilian employees, contractors, and other authorized persons for the purpose of identification, facilities admission, benefits eligibility, and so on. Oswald was none of these. Also, as noted above Oswald's DD Form 1173 was "monkeyed with", as indicated by the blacking out of the "OF SPONSOR" in the lower left corner of the front of the card and the insertion of "MCR INACT", i. e., Marine Corps Reserve Inactive. It would be interesting if someone here could share with us if the service number on the card IS actually Oswald's USMC service number. Typically, in that era, the service number would have a prefix. In the USAF it was "AF"; in the USA, I believe, it was "US". If memory serves, it seems that it was long ago determined that the DD Form 1173, "Oswald's military ID card", as noted at the beginning of this thread, was a forgery - by Oswald and/or person(s) unknown for whatever the reason was at that time. And yes, A. G. Ayres, 1st Lt, USMC, signing both the DD Form 217 and the "Oswald's military ID card is quite a stretch of the believability continuum. Don't have the USMC regs/manuals in front of me, but yes, it is difficult to believe that when Oswald's discharge was changed from honorable to undesirable, that he would've been allowed to continue his USMC Inactive Reserve status, along with his ID card, identifying him as such. So, in the end, if all of this is just "old ground recovered" for everyone here, apology herewith.

Re post directly above: Note that the lower left hand corner block of the military dependent ID card below, reads: "SERVICE AND STATUS OF SPONSOR", i. e., the military member who is "sponsoring" the dependent. In this case, the "USA AD", indicates that the military member sponsor of the dependent is Active Duty, United States Army. The "Oswald's military ID card" image below is the same DD Form, but the lower left had block on it has the "OF SPONSOR" portion blacked out. I believe that the "SERVICE NUMBER OF SPONSOR" most probably would've had a prefix before it. The USAF used "AF", and we see the USA, used "US". My take is that the card is an unprofessional forgery. Era appropriate military dependent ID card: http://munozfamily.homestead.com/ID_Card.GIF And "Oswald's military ID card":

Gil, thanks. I'm probably way off base and going from memory, so apology herewith. Here goes. Re "Oswald's military ID card", directly above. Long ago, I thought that there was a discussion that that type of ID card (have not been able to establish the actual DD Form number of it) was traditionally used to identify military service dependents. In particular, I can vouch for that, as I was in the USAF, from 1961-1990 and was married. My spouse, as well as all dependents (even as a minor, over a certain age) were issued that type of card. Further, still from memory, I thought there was also a discussion that established that that same type of ID card was also issued to civilians in the DOD's employ. After his alleged defection to the USSR, Oswald's discharge was changed from honorable to undesirable. Thus, subsequently, he could not have been in the USMC inactive reserves. How could he be classified as "Reserve/Inactive" on any USG, DOD, or Military Service ID card? Here is an image of a USMC inactive reserve ID (DD Form 2MCR) card from that era. The USMC Active Duty Card (DD Form 2MC) from that era looks the same, other than color reading "ACTIVE", where the DD Form 2MCR reads "RESERVE (INACTIVE)". Bottom line, I cannot fathom how the "Oswald's military ID card" can be legitimately classified as such. I served in Okinawa in '62-'63 as a Morse Intercept Operator and each year, there was a tri-service (USMC, USA, and USAF) "contest" - to establish who was the best, as we called ourselves, "ditty-bopper". I can assure you that an active duty Marine's military ID card in that era was the DD Form 2MC, as directly above, and he been honorably discharged, he would've been issued the DD Form 2MCR - and not the the DOD Card, "N 4, 271, 617". I also so not think that the photo on the fake SS card or the photo on the DOD card is "military", per se. Oswald's photo on his DD Form 2MC would've pictured a 17 years old youngster with a "buzz cut". The picture would be similar to this: Considering Oswald's brief length of service, he probably would've retained his original ID card, until he was discharged. My ID card with the "buzz cut" pic was not updated, with a new picture (with longer hair) - until I four years after I enlisted - when I reenlisted. The DOD ID card picture, if Oswald, shows an older man, with a full head of hair.

Sandy, Re this above: "As for the surveillance photos.... the CIA used them to implicate KGB accomplices to the Fake Conspiracy. For example, this one." To my 80-year-old eyes, the profile photo under the verbiage above looks suspiciously just like Louie Steven Witt, The Umbrella Man. https://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?p=louie+steven+witt+-+photographs&fr=yfp-t-s&im If so, I'd think that would be a pretty good "find".

Joe, thanks. "Assuming", would be the word. Taking away LHO shooting at Walker, IMO, leads to him not shooting JFK and then Tippit. Just Gil Jesus' fine work (see below), I believe, would have exonerated Oswald for the Walker shooting. There have been reams written with regard to the improbability of the government's official story. Most are aware of the almost surreal "party line" story of Lee taking his rifle on the bus, burying it/picking it up later, etc. I've come to think that the Walker "incident" was simply integral to the building of "the legend", for Lee. Gil, thank you. Was Lee Harvey Oswald Really Guilty ? (gil-jesus.com) Also, a fairly good summary here - outlining, IMO, much reasonable doubt that Oswald was involved. Did Lee Harvey Oswald Shoot at General Edwin Walker? : The JFK Assassination (22november1963.org.uk)

Ben, thanks. Or maybe? Gun Shot Residue Evidence - Not Always A Smoking Gun! (ohiocrimelaw.com) From the article: " . . .Studies in major metropolitan areas around the country have determined that there are an alarmingly high number of GSR particles on handcuffs, the back seats of police cars, holding cells, interrogation tables and chairs, as well as on police officers themselves. See BALTIMORE SUN TIMES SPECIAL REPORT , STEPHANIE HANES, EVIDENCE UNDER SUSPICION , Jan. 23, 2005 (noting Baltimore testing of police departments revealed GSR in interview rooms, on tables, on chairs, and in the air and also that an internal Los Angeles Police Department test found that police cruisers were contaminated by GSR and that the particles transferred onto people who hadn’t fired anything); Berk et al, GUNSHOT RESIDUE IN CHICAGO POLICE VEHICLES AND FACILITIES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY (2007), 52 J. Forensic Sci. 838); Thompson & Nethercott, “Forensics”, The Champion(June 2005), at 50; FBI Symposium (Report of Dr. Jon Nordby). These studies determined that defendants may easily be contaminated with GSR residue when held in police custody prior to testing. . . ." Probably old news to the more enlightened here, but "new news" for me.