Mark Ulrik

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

How did this Cuban in a drugstore in San Antonio know the night before the assassination that Oswald was going to kill the President ?

Allegedly!

17 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

Maybe the "Oswald-did-it" crowd would like to take a crack at this one:

How did this Cuban in a drugstore in San Antonio know the night before the assassination that Oswald was going to kill the President ?

https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/62-109060-sec-10-pg.-67.png

Can you direct us to where this unknown person with a possibly Cuban dialect mentions Oswald specifically?

22 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

I think that Inv. stands for Investigation, or Investigation of, or for Murder.

Thank you?

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Crazy.

Footnote in Manchester's book:

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

But that doesn't really make much sense either, because all murders are investigated.

~shrug~

https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340104/m1/1/

There are many others where that came from.

Perhaps we should ask Mervyn.

11 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

One odd thing that I noticed in McDonald's arrest report is the reference to the type of murder that McDonald claimed Oswald was being charged with—"Inv. Murder". I assume the "Inv." means "Involuntary Murder", which is quite strange (and inaccurate) in this case with respect to the murder of Officer Tippit, which was the first of the murders Oswald was officially charged with.

"Investigation for murder" would be my guess.

45 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I’m hearing “Lankt” and 8th. I think Bill is hallucinating if he actually hears a “ster” in there somewhere. 

I'm not sure I hear the "s" either, but there is something. I'm getting "lanktr'n'8th".

Pretty sure Bill is correct here. It's doesn't sound like "Lansing" to me either.

23 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Mark,

Isn't that what he told the reporters out in the hall?

Somebody asked him if was in the building. He responded, of course, if I worked in that building, I was there.

Steve Thomas

Completely different question and circumstances.

12 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

By 4:00 in the afternoon, when this lineup took place, Oswald had been under arrest and interrogated for approximately two hours. Everybody in that building knew who he was and where he worked, including Sims and Boyd, who had been in the TSBD, set out for Irving to go apprehend him, and sat in on his interrogation.

If he had lied in the lineup on what his occupation was, there would have been howls of protest from the police authorities.

But occupation and place of employment are different (albeit related) concepts. It's quite feasible to state one without revealing the other. Also, why would a suspect be required to tell the truth when the other participants aren't? As I understand it, the purpose of asking questions during a police lineup isn't even to elicit truth, but rather to enhance the identification process by adding sound.

8 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

So, Mr. Oswald, what is your occupation?

"Oh, I pick melons out in the fields"

Steve Thomas

I note that you reject Gil's version:

Q: What do you do for a living, No. 2?

A: I'm currently employed as an order filler, Sir, and although you didn't ask specifically, it's down at the book depository, you know, the building where the cops say the shots were fired from.

3 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Perry testified he gave fictitous answers. ( 7 H 234 )

Clark testified he gave fictitious answers. ( 7 H 238, 239 )

Ables testified that Oswald was asked questions. ( 7 H 241 )

Does Mr. Brown believe that Oswald gave a fictitious answers as well ?

What would be the purpose of Oswald giving fictitious answers ?

NO, the police gave the fictitious answers to hide the fact they were detectives.

I think the problem is that you made up the part where Oswald "gave his place of employment as the Texas School Book Depository".

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Wouldn't Judyth Vary Baker know Ferrie's voice?

She met the guy and she is very alive.

Anyone here on the forum connected to her well enough to ask her to ID the voice on DM's linked recording?

You've got to be kidding. She has no credibility whatsoever.

Stephen Roy, Education Forum post, 11 Dec 2009, "Funny thing: I've had people who knew Ferrie well tell me that they thought Pesci's portrayal was pretty good. But when I first heard a recording of Ferrie's voice, I was struck by how low, well-paced, modulated and north/midwestern he sounded. And he was quite a bit taller than Pesci."

Judyth Baker, Fetzer blog article, 6 Apr 2011, "David W. Ferrie is probably best known today through his portrayal by Joe Pesci in Oliver Stone’s film "JFK". Ferrie was taller and had a deeper voice ..."

Stephen Roy, Education Forum post, 12 Apr 2011, "ABOUT WHICH BAKER SAID NOTHING UNTIL I POSTED IT ON THE INTERNET."

He may have been a lone wolf and somewhat of a publicity hound, but so was Sherlock Holmes. The report also says that, "His ability as an officer cannot be questioned. His informant coverage is excellent."

PS: The scan on the MFF site is easier to read: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=129778#relPageId=4

Boone and others guarded the rifle (CE 139) until Day came over and took possession, marked it, etc. This is fairly well documented. The notion that it wouldn't have been admitted into evidence in a criminal trial is just bizarre.

As has been mentioned in recent threads, Norvell did identify CE 573 as the bullet he found (CE 2011).

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

I agree. The FBI used terms like "similar" to mask the fact that things they compared were not identical.

What do you mean by "identical"? That seems like an impossibly high standard in the real world. I don't know how it would play in a court of law, but I'd be skeptical of an expert witness claiming that two physical objects were identical.

56 minutes ago, Gil Jesus said:

#2. ON COMPARING THE BULLET REMOVED FROM GENERAL WALKER'S HOUSE TO THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE:

The Report concluded:
"Joseph D. Nicol...concluded that 'there is a fair probability' that the bullet was fired from the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy." ( pg. 186 )

But the evidence said:
https://gil-jesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WC_Vol3_513-nicol.gif

Huh? The discussion on page 513 is about the Tippit bullets, not the Walker bullet. Your emphasis below.

Quote

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, I was not clear whether you drew any conclusion on the other three bullets-- that is, did you definitely--find yourself definitely unable to identify those bullets [recovered from the body of Officer Tippit], or did you reach a "probable" conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. I would say there was nothing, no major marks to preclude it. However, I was unable to find what would satisfy me to say that it positively came from that particular weapon. So that I would place it in the category of bullets which could have come from this particular weapon, but not to the exclusion of all others.

What did Nicol say about the Walker bullet? My emphasis below.

Quote

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Nicol, did you make an examination of Commission Exhibit 573 to determine whether it was fired from the same rifle as Commission Exhibit 572, which we have one of which we have also been calling K-l?
Mr. NICOL. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. NICOL. I found that within the limits that Commission Exhibit 573 is badly mutilated as a result of having struck some hard object on the side that the class characteristics generally correspond, that is to say it would be fired from a weapon of comparable rifling to Commission Exhibit 572. Then looking at an area which I can best describe on 609 as being a burr that develops along the edge of the rifling, I found both on the upper surface, which would be the groove impression, and along on the shoulder, quite a few points, individual characteristics, which matched up in each of the positions which were visible. Because of the mutilation I was not able to put these in the kind of a match relationship that would suggest a positive identification. However, I did not find anything on Commission Exhibit 573 that was incompatible with Commission Exhibit 572, so without going to the degree of saying that there is a positive identification, I would express it this way--that there is a fair probability that Commission Exhibit 573 was fired from the same weapon that fired 572.

Wow, it seems that Nicol actually did conclude that there was a fair probability that CE 573 was fired from the rifle used in the assassination of President Kennedy!

WC 1 -- Gil 0

Gotta love the grandstanding. Don't ever change, Gil.

One would be hard-pressed to find a better example of an actual red flag than the thread title.

It's just an extremely poor quality photograph.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1135#relPageId=176

PS: I notice that it's prohibited to "take bears with steel trap". Wow! I'm allowed to bring my traps made of iron or brass!? Do you think that's a reasonable inference? Or could the term "steel trap" refer to a certain type of animal trap where "steel" is not necessarily supposed to be taken literally?

10 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Meanwhile, do not hunt bear in Pennsylvania in 1931...with steel-jacketed bullets.

But I'm allowed to use FMJ bullets? Let's hope I'm a crack shot then; otherwise we might end up having a bunch of mortally wounded bears running around. Remember the shootout scene in "Scarface"? It was the guy with the shotgun who got him in the end. Not a great analogy, but you get the picture ...

15 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I guess the Dallas Police Department detectives McElroy and Van Cleave are "justifiably suspected of knowing very little about firearms and ammunition." 

I guess you're free to suspect anything you like.

I think we all knew that, Gil. The WC already had Norvell (via the FBI) and Day identify the bullet, of course, but showing it to Walker would have been a nice touch.

When asked why someone might have called CE 573 steel-jacketed, Frazier told the WC that the only reason he could think of was that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed. The same idea (that the term "steel-jacket" is a misnomer commonly applied to jacketed bullets) was expressed in the 1938 firearms identification book that I posted a page from earlier. It would be refreshing to see at least one of you guys show a bit of class and admit that Frazier's comment wasn't entirely made out of thin air to (say) appease the FBI director.

Ben and Gil on the case. What can possibly go wrong?

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Frazier's comment stands unique in the literature.

Bridges, Burtis C. Firearms Identification: The Science of Examining Guns and Ammunition Used in Crimes. Chicago Institute of Applied Science, 1938, p. 16