Henry Heiberger and "Chalk"

[Gary Murr]

In reading through a previous posting thread initiated by Tom Purvis - "A Few Miscellaneous Items" - an item mentioned by Tom regarding Henry Heiberger of the FBI lab, a chalk message regarding Oswald, and the mention of a "RR boxcar" sent me digging through my files as I was sure I had something squirreled away on a similar, if not the same, subject matter. Tom indicated in his previous thread that Henry Heiberger had indicated in an interview/converation with Tom, that he, Heiberger, had been "sent to Georgia to examine "Oswald was Here" found written on the inside of an abandoned RR boxcar, and was thereafter tasked to determine who manufactured the chalk which had been utilized to write this. Thus, he was unavailable for testimony before the WC." What follows is a brief outline of documentation that I possess which involves Heiberger, an alleged "Oswald" message and chalk. Because the location of this incident is not Georgia, but rather Detroit, Michigan, I do not know if it is the same episode that Tom Purvis indicates Heiberger relayed to him "long ago." What I do know is that I can find no reference to, or copies of, a travel/"pay voucher" issued to Heiberger to travel to Georgia to investigate the incident outlined by Tom in copies of FBI documentation I have acquired over the past forty plus years.

At approximately 9:30 am on the morning of December 2, 1963, four employees of the Kahlbaum Brothers, Inc., Mill Company,(3546 Mill Street, Newport, Michigan) manager Harold P. McCormick, and three men in his employ, Edward Van Washenova, Allen Bressler, and Gerald Masserant, opened NYC RR boxcar # 124475, parked on a RR spur siding beside the Kahlbaum Mill. This RR car had been put into this position on the siding on Friday evening, November 29, 1963. The boxcar in question was opened by these individuals in order that the car be "readied to accept" a load of grain. Upon opening the car, the following message, written in yellow chalk, was found on the facing wall. "Lee Oswald, Dallas Texas. Future Man of Destiny, Apr. 4, 1963." Harold McCormick notified the Detroit Field Office of the FBI and on December 3, 1963, SA J. Paul David Costello of the Detroit FO "examined New York Central Boxcar number 124475 at the siding next to the Kahlbaum Brothers" site. In his report SA Costello noted the following: "Inisde the car on the west side, printed in yellow chalk, slanting upwards, was "Lee Oswald, Dallas, Texas. There was a line under Dallas, Texas. The letter 'D' was found to be seven feet from the base of the car. Printed to the right, also in yellow chalk, 'future man of destiny, Apr. 4, 1963.' Apr. 4, 1963, was found to be 5', 8" from the floor of the car." The inscription was actually photographed by SA James E. Cullen of the Detroit FO lab on the evening of its discovery, December 2, 1963, a photograph that was eventually submitted to the main Bureau lab in Washington, D. C. On the same date as the Costello examination, December 3, 1963, a letter was sent to the Director of the FBI, attention FBI Laboratory, a letter that "requested the Laboratory to attempt to determine if certain chalk samples obtained from NYC railroad car # 124475 at Newport, Michigan, could have been made by chalk commonly used by railroads." On the following day, December 4, 1963, a follow up communique was issued from the Detroit office, enclosing with this same correspondence "a medium hard 'lumber crayon' on the type used by the NYC RR in Detroit to make various markings on freight cars..." in the area of the Kahlbaum Brothers Mill. This same second Detroit FO letter "requested" that the main Bureau lab "compare this 'lumber crayon' with samples submitted with relet to determine if the samples came from a similar crayon." The December 3 letter from the Detroit FO had transmitted "under separate cover...twelve specimens of chalk and crayon taken from the above railroad car..." submitted to see if any of these items could be identified with the "Oswald" chalk writing found in the empty boxcar.

As the surviving evidence sheet generated by "HBH" - Henry Heiberger - indicates, the Detroit FO communications were slightly misleading. What Heiberger had received from the Detroit office were "twelve specimens of chalk taken from a boxcar" and a singular "crayon" submitted by the Detroit office "under letter of 12/4/63." Heiberger assigned these items both "Q" and "K" nmumbers, ranging from Q199 - Q206 and K45 - K48."

Between December 2 and December 4, 1963, several members of the Detroit FO followed up on this incident, conducting 15 different interviews, including an eventual day by day routing for the RR car in question that spanned a time frame from March 14, 1963 to it's opening on December 2, 1963 by the Kahlbaum Brothers Mill employees. It was discovered that on the date of the inscription, April 4, 1963, the RR car was "on the line of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railroad..." having been transferred to that particular railroad on March 27, 1963. On December 5, 1963, SA Horace P. Beckworth of the Detroit FO interviewed one Russell Norman Torrey, a receiving clerk with Super Foods Inc. Mr. Torrey confessed that on the afternoon of November 26, 1963, that while unloading a NYC "freight car filled with Quaker Oats cereal..." he "stopped work for a few minutes in the afternoon, before the car was completely unloaded, and wrote on the inside wall of the freight car with yellow chalk that he uses to normally mark freight boxes. He printed the name 'Lee Oswald, Dallas, Texas, future man of destiny, April 4, 1963.'" Torrey explained this "doodling" as a result of his constant listening to a radio during this work period and hearing "constantly" the name of Oswald and Dallas. The phrase "future man of destiny" Torrey believed to have been either uttered on the radio, or by one of his fellow co-workers involved in the unloading of the freight car. The date of April 4, 1963 was explained by Torrey; he was born on April 4, 1938. SA Beckwith bought the Torrey story, including the further Torrey statement that he "did not intend anything malicious by writing the above on the wall of the freight car." When shown a copy of the photograph taken by the Detroit FO, "Torrey advised that that was definitely his handwriting and written by him."

The Torrey "confession" information was immediately relayed by teletype to Bureau HQ in Washington and on January 9, 1964, Henry Heiberger sent a simplistic three sentence letter to the SAC Detroit, the last two sentences of which read: "The Laboratory examinations of the twelve specimens of chalk taken from a boxcar which were submitted by your office under letter dated 12/2/63, and the crayon submitted by your office under letter of 12/4/63, were disconinued on the receipt of your teletype of 12/5/63. These specimens are being returned to you under separate cover by registered mail." And with that the paper trail that I possess ends.

The entire incident can be found in the formal report issued by SA Lawrence W. Cooper, Jr., of the Detroit Field Office of the FBI, File Number DE: 100-31965. Other documents, including Hieberger's correspondence, is found in the Bureau's Lee Harvey Oswald HQ file at: 105-82555-1301 and 105-82555-1692. The HSCA were aware of this particular incident as a result of an inventory of the Detroit FO files conducted in January of 1977, the DE 100-31965 file being duly noted in a teletype of January 7, 1977 from the Detroit FO to the Director.

As I stated at the start of this narrative, I do not know if this is the "chalk" incident relayed to Tom Purvis by Henry Heiberger or not. I do know it is the only record involving Heiberger, a boxcar, "Oswald" insciprtions and chalk that I have been able to find, to date. I also can find, in the documentation I possess, no references to Heiberger being sent to Georgia to investigate the incident relayed by Heiberber to Tom. This, of course, does not mean that it actually did not happen. Henry Heiberger and John Gallagher did meet with Melvin Eisenberg of the Warren Commission in March of 1964, a meeting arranged by Eisenberg, in an apparent effort on his part to better understand both OES (Optical Emission Spectrography) and NAA. Of course as we know, Heiberger was never called to testify before the Commission, and Gallagher's last minute September 1964 deposition at the hands of Norman Redlich turned out to be a joke, and not a particularly funny one at that.

FWIW

Gary Murr

[Thomas H. Purvis]

In reading through a previous posting thread initiated by Tom Purvis - "A Few Miscellaneous Items" - an item mentioned by Tom regarding Henry Heiberger of the FBI lab, a chalk message regarding Oswald, and the mention of a "RR boxcar" sent me digging through my files as I was sure I had something squirreled away on a similar, if not the same, subject matter. Tom indicated in his previous thread that Henry Heiberger had indicated in an interview/converation with Tom, that he, Heiberger, had been "sent to Georgia to examine "Oswald was Here" found written on the inside of an abandoned RR boxcar, and was thereafter tasked to determine who manufactured the chalk which had been utilized to write this. Thus, he was unavailable for testimony before the WC." What follows is a brief outline of documentation that I possess which involves Heiberger, an alleged "Oswald" message and chalk. Because the location of this incident is not Georgia, but rather Detroit, Michigan, I do not know if it is the same episode that Tom Purvis indicates Heiberger relayed to him "long ago." What I do know is that I can find no reference to, or copies of, a travel/"pay voucher" issued to Heiberger to travel to Georgia to investigate the incident outlined by Tom in copies of FBI documentation I have acquired over the past forty plus years.

At approximately 9:30 am on the morning of December 2, 1963, four employees of the Kahlbaum Brothers, Inc., Mill Company,(3546 Mill Street, Newport, Michigan) manager Harold P. McCormick, and three men in his employ, Edward Van Washenova, Allen Bressler, and Gerald Masserant, opened NYC RR boxcar # 124475, parked on a RR spur siding beside the Kahlbaum Mill. This RR car had been put into this position on the siding on Friday evening, November 29, 1963. The boxcar in question was opened by these individuals in order that the car be "readied to accept" a load of grain. Upon opening the car, the following message, written in yellow chalk, was found on the facing wall. "Lee Oswald, Dallas Texas. Future Man of Destiny, Apr. 4, 1963." Harold McCormick notified the Detroit Field Office of the FBI and on December 3, 1963, SA J. Paul David Costello of the Detroit FO "examined New York Central Boxcar number 124475 at the siding next to the Kahlbaum Brothers" site. In his report SA Costello noted the following: "Inisde the car on the west side, printed in yellow chalk, slanting upwards, was "Lee Oswald, Dallas, Texas. There was a line under Dallas, Texas. The letter 'D' was found to be seven feet from the base of the car. Printed to the right, also in yellow chalk, 'future man of destiny, Apr. 4, 1963.' Apr. 4, 1963, was found to be 5', 8" from the floor of the car." The inscription was actually photographed by SA James E. Cullen of the Detroit FO lab on the evening of its discovery, December 2, 1963, a photograph that was eventually submitted to the main Bureau lab in Washington, D. C. On the same date as the Costello examination, December 3, 1963, a letter was sent to the Director of the FBI, attention FBI Laboratory, a letter that "requested the Laboratory to attempt to determine if certain chalk samples obtained from NYC railroad car # 124475 at Newport, Michigan, could have been made by chalk commonly used by railroads." On the following day, December 4, 1963, a follow up communique was issued from the Detroit office, enclosing with this same correspondence "a medium hard 'lumber crayon' on the type used by the NYC RR in Detroit to make various markings on freight cars..." in the area of the Kahlbaum Brothers Mill. This same second Detroit FO letter "requested" that the main Bureau lab "compare this 'lumber crayon' with samples submitted with relet to determine if the samples came from a similar crayon." The December 3 letter from the Detroit FO had transmitted "under separate cover...twelve specimens of chalk and crayon taken from the above railroad car..." submitted to see if any of these items could be identified with the "Oswald" chalk writing found in the empty boxcar.

As the surviving evidence sheet generated by "HBH" - Henry Heiberger - indicates, the Detroit FO communications were slightly misleading. What Heiberger had received from the Detroit office were "twelve specimens of chalk taken from a boxcar" and a singular "crayon" submitted by the Detroit office "under letter of 12/4/63." Heiberger assigned these items both "Q" and "K" nmumbers, ranging from Q199 - Q206 and K45 - K48."

Between December 2 and December 4, 1963, several members of the Detroit FO followed up on this incident, conducting 15 different interviews, including an eventual day by day routing for the RR car in question that spanned a time frame from March 14, 1963 to it's opening on December 2, 1963 by the Kahlbaum Brothers Mill employees. It was discovered that on the date of the inscription, April 4, 1963, the RR car was "on the line of the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railroad..." having been transferred to that particular railroad on March 27, 1963. On December 5, 1963, SA Horace P. Beckworth of the Detroit FO interviewed one Russell Norman Torrey, a receiving clerk with Super Foods Inc. Mr. Torrey confessed that on the afternoon of November 26, 1963, that while unloading a NYC "freight car filled with Quaker Oats cereal..." he "stopped work for a few minutes in the afternoon, before the car was completely unloaded, and wrote on the inside wall of the freight car with yellow chalk that he uses to normally mark freight boxes. He printed the name 'Lee Oswald, Dallas, Texas, future man of destiny, April 4, 1963.'" Torrey explained this "doodling" as a result of his constant listening to a radio during this work period and hearing "constantly" the name of Oswald and Dallas. The phrase "future man of destiny" Torrey believed to have been either uttered on the radio, or by one of his fellow co-workers involved in the unloading of the freight car. The date of April 4, 1963 was explained by Torrey; he was born on April 4, 1938. SA Beckwith bought the Torrey story, including the further Torrey statement that he "did not intend anything malicious by writing the above on the wall of the freight car." When shown a copy of the photograph taken by the Detroit FO, "Torrey advised that that was definitely his handwriting and written by him."

The Torrey "confession" information was immediately relayed by teletype to Bureau HQ in Washington and on January 9, 1964, Henry Heiberger sent a simplistic three sentence letter to the SAC Detroit, the last two sentences of which read: "The Laboratory examinations of the twelve specimens of chalk taken from a boxcar which were submitted by your office under letter dated 12/2/63, and the crayon submitted by your office under letter of 12/4/63, were disconinued on the receipt of your teletype of 12/5/63. These specimens are being returned to you under separate cover by registered mail." And with that the paper trail that I possess ends.

The entire incident can be found in the formal report issued by SA Lawrence W. Cooper, Jr., of the Detroit Field Office of the FBI, File Number DE: 100-31965. Other documents, including Hieberger's correspondence, is found in the Bureau's Lee Harvey Oswald HQ file at: 105-82555-1301 and 105-82555-1692. The HSCA were aware of this particular incident as a result of an inventory of the Detroit FO files conducted in January of 1977, the DE 100-31965 file being duly noted in a teletype of January 7, 1977 from the Detroit FO to the Director.

As I stated at the start of this narrative, I do not know if this is the "chalk" incident relayed to Tom Purvis by Henry Heiberger or not. I do know it is the only record involving Heiberger, a boxcar, "Oswald" insciprtions and chalk that I have been able to find, to date. I also can find, in the documentation I possess, no references to Heiberger being sent to Georgia to investigate the incident relayed by Heiberber to Tom. This, of course, does not mean that it actually did not happen. Henry Heiberger and John Gallagher did meet with Melvin Eisenberg of the Warren Commission in March of 1964, a meeting arranged by Eisenberg, in an apparent effort on his part to better understand both OES (Optical Emission Spectrography) and NAA. Of course as we know, Heiberger was never called to testify before the Commission, and Gallagher's last minute September 1964 deposition at the hands of Norman Redlich turned out to be a joke, and not a particularly funny one at that.

FWIW

Gary Murr

Thanks Gary!

Personally, since I was relying on this aging memory, as opposed to a futile attempt to hunt for old written notes that are some 15 or so years old.

Thusly, I have no doubt that what you have is the correct city, and somewhere in this progressively old brain that I for whatever reason came up with Georgia.

Now, my memory says Georgia!

However, I long ago found out just how poor that can/could be! IE:

Several years back I was discussing "War Story" events of the Vietnam conflict with Barbara, whom I wrote to while over there and who also kept each and every letter.

In one event, she contradicted what I had stated, and in my memory, the events seemed quite clear.

Nevertheless, she got out the old letters, and although both events had actually occurred, I had incorporated them (in my mind) into a single engagement with the NVA.

Thereafter, I went back and dug out a daily dairy which I also kept over there, and as certain as day, it was two separate events.

Yet, my mind had still combined these two events into a single happening, and in my mind it seemed to have happend that way.

Thusly, I learned much about how long term memory of anything is often questionable.

So, now, we have 'The Rest of the Story"!

Heiberger was not called to testify before the WC.

Heiberger evaluated some chalk from a RR Boxcar.

And, Tom has progressively deteoriating CRS (Can't Remember S**T) Syndrone.

P.S. In my mind, I am absolutely certain that Heiberger stated "Oswald was Here".

But, then again, I am also of the opinion that I know exactly how JFK was shot as well!

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Gary;

Always helps to keep one on their toes in regards to "memories".

Which, frequently send one into the "backpaddle" and/or "run for cover" mode.

Your work with Heiberger & the chalk, made me again question my own memory ability, and although I think that I know where my original notes are located, it would require a chainsaw to cut a new door in the back of a shed to even possibly get to them.

Nevertheless, to begin with, by November 1991, most of the issues of the three shots had been pretty well resolved and documented.

Thusly, it was either in 1990 or 1991 that I spoke with Heiberger (on multiple occassions over an extended period).

(In retrospect, I most certainly should have kept those relatively high dollar monthly telephone long distance bills).

Nevertheless, this, from the Ft. Stockton, TX newspaper should help to establish a "given point".

Tom

P.S. And yes, I am sneaky enough to have left a "paper trail", just as I have also left "my mark" on many items which I have allowed to become in the public domain.

One never knows exactly when some yahoo will publish it as if it were some new revelation which they uneartherd.

Edited March 17, 2008 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Next item up for bid!

Many years ago, when I worked in "Area Studies" and was involved in works which involved the posting of a variety of reports received from a variety of sources, which ultimately were utilized to develop an "intelligence analyst" report, we, not unlike JEH, developed our own system of identification.

With this, it became a common factor to always be able to go back and individually locate the "First Report" which one initially prepared.

In that, each individual who was so involved, usually developed his own separate and independent method of instantly identifying and locating a "First Information Received" Report.

Some used various "colored dots", some utilized colored paper.

Personally, I always preferred "Colored Paper" as it stood out relatively well, and one merley had to change "color code" for second generation; third generation; etc;. reports.

Thusly, anything found in the "teal blue" or whatever it is, is an absolute "First Generation" report, which was made/created shortly after receipt of the information, and from the notes taken from receipt and evaluation of that information.

In that regards, the "Teal Blue" copies of reports were made directly from those handwritten notes which are in a notebook/diary, and thus are not likely to be that different in scope; content; and/or context from what is actually written in the handwritten notes.

In that regards, my "ORIGINAL" report states that Heiberger was dispatched to Georgia on the "Oswald was Here" episode.

Therefore, my original notes would state the same thing.

And, since Henry Heiberger was quite forthwright and open in our discussions, and not unlike virtually every other FBI Agent, spoke highly of Melvin Purvis and wanted to know my relationship to same, I do not think that Henry Heiberger was making any attempt to intentionally decieve me in these regards.

[Gary Murr]

Next item up for bid!

Many years ago, when I worked in "Area Studies" and was involved in works which involved the posting of a variety of reports received from a variety of sources, which ultimately were utilized to develop an "intelligence analyst" report, we, not unlike JEH, developed our own system of identification.

With this, it became a common factor to always be able to go back and individually locate the "First Report" which one initially prepared.

In that, each individual who was so involved, usually developed his own separate and independent method of instantly identifying and locating a "First Information Received" Report.

Some used various "colored dots", some utilized colored paper.

Personally, I always preferred "Colored Paper" as it stood out relatively well, and one merley had to change "color code" for second generation; third generation; etc;. reports.

Thusly, anything found in the "teal blue" or whatever it is, is an absolute "First Generation" report, which was made/created shortly after receipt of the information, and from the notes taken from receipt and evaluation of that information.

In that regards, the "Teal Blue" copies of reports were made directly from those handwritten notes which are in a notebook/diary, and thus are not likely to be that different in scope; content; and/or context from what is actually written in the handwritten notes.

In that regards, my "ORIGINAL" report states that Heiberger was dispatched to Georgia on the "Oswald was Here" episode.

Therefore, my original notes would state the same thing.

And, since Henry Heiberger was quite forthwright and open in our discussions, and not unlike virtually every other FBI Agent, spoke highly of Melvin Purvis and wanted to know my relationship to same, I do not think that Henry Heiberger was making any attempt to intentionally decieve me in these regards.

Hey Tom:

Many thanks for taking the time to respond to my narrative ramblings; it is appreciated. I agree with you that I doubt Henry Heiberger intentionally intended to deceive you and, by the same token, you have to naturally rely on your particular method of tracking your accumulated documentation, an ongoing battle that I can readily sympathize with. As I stated in my post, until such time as one is able to uncover documentation in support of Henry Heiberger's revelations to you regarding "Oswald Was Here" one cannot state, to a certainty, that the Georgia incident did not occur. If the content of the Heiberger - chalk - Georgia incident is as stated by Heiberger - i.e. a suspicion that he was diverted, intentionally, away from the Warren Commission and matters ballistic etc. - then a suspicious individual might conclude that any documentation in support of Heiberger's relayed narrative would have been conveniently "lost." Regardless, I, for one, have enjoyed your various postings, but in particular your "take" on matters that relate to the various reconstructions that occurred in Dealey Plaza. As I think you will see, upon release of my book, the various exhibits you have shared with members of this forum that relate to survey plats et al have helped me to answer a myriad of previously vexing questions.

Regards,

Gary

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Next item up for bid!

Many years ago, when I worked in "Area Studies" and was involved in works which involved the posting of a variety of reports received from a variety of sources, which ultimately were utilized to develop an "intelligence analyst" report, we, not unlike JEH, developed our own system of identification.

With this, it became a common factor to always be able to go back and individually locate the "First Report" which one initially prepared.

In that, each individual who was so involved, usually developed his own separate and independent method of instantly identifying and locating a "First Information Received" Report.

Some used various "colored dots", some utilized colored paper.

Personally, I always preferred "Colored Paper" as it stood out relatively well, and one merley had to change "color code" for second generation; third generation; etc;. reports.

Thusly, anything found in the "teal blue" or whatever it is, is an absolute "First Generation" report, which was made/created shortly after receipt of the information, and from the notes taken from receipt and evaluation of that information.

In that regards, the "Teal Blue" copies of reports were made directly from those handwritten notes which are in a notebook/diary, and thus are not likely to be that different in scope; content; and/or context from what is actually written in the handwritten notes.

In that regards, my "ORIGINAL" report states that Heiberger was dispatched to Georgia on the "Oswald was Here" episode.

Therefore, my original notes would state the same thing.

And, since Henry Heiberger was quite forthwright and open in our discussions, and not unlike virtually every other FBI Agent, spoke highly of Melvin Purvis and wanted to know my relationship to same, I do not think that Henry Heiberger was making any attempt to intentionally decieve me in these regards.

Hey Tom:

Many thanks for taking the time to respond to my narrative ramblings; it is appreciated. I agree with you that I doubt Henry Heiberger intentionally intended to deceive you and, by the same token, you have to naturally rely on your particular method of tracking your accumulated documentation, an ongoing battle that I can readily sympathize with. As I stated in my post, until such time as one is able to uncover documentation in support of Henry Heiberger's revelations to you regarding "Oswald Was Here" one cannot state, to a certainty, that the Georgia incident did not occur. If the content of the Heiberger - chalk - Georgia incident is as stated by Heiberger - i.e. a suspicion that he was diverted, intentionally, away from the Warren Commission and matters ballistic etc. - then a suspicious individual might conclude that any documentation in support of Heiberger's relayed narrative would have been conveniently "lost." Regardless, I, for one, have enjoyed your various postings, but in particular your "take" on matters that relate to the various reconstructions that occurred in Dealey Plaza. As I think you will see, upon release of my book, the various exhibits you have shared with members of this forum that relate to survey plats et al have helped me to answer a myriad of previously vexing questions.

Regards,

Gary

At least we know that I did not just dream up the bit about the RR Boxcar; Oswald"; & chalk.

I was out of attachment space previously, but here are the two "original" drafts, as written from my notes, etc; when I spoke with Heiberger; Gallagher; Frazier; Heilman; etc; etc; attempting to resolve some of these issues.

That they are of the "teal blue" color tells me that they are the original, and I knew that I had taken them out some time back for another reason, which I will get into in the next post or so.

With this information, there is now absolutely no doubt that this is what Heiberger relayed to me. And, the only deletion here is I deleted the "the hell" in "I don't know what the hell that was all about" as I did not want to present Heiberger in some "bad" light.

Since we are back on the subject of the clothing, I will again share what little was determined.

Of specific note, one may want to pay special attention to that section as regards JFK's coat, since it has already come up in discussion.

Henry Heiberger and I had considerable discussions regarding each specific piece of clothing, and what he told me is a long way from what is presented in the WC testimonies.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The "note from Mom"!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm

Commander HUMES - That is approximately correct, sir. This defect, I might say, continues on through the material.

Attached to this garment is the memorandum which states that one half of the area around the hole which was presented had been removed by experts, I believe, at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and also that a control area was taken from under the collar,

Is now absent from the National Archives, and to anyone's knowledge, has never been seen.

[Gary Murr]

Next item up for bid!

Many years ago, when I worked in "Area Studies" and was involved in works which involved the posting of a variety of reports received from a variety of sources, which ultimately were utilized to develop an "intelligence analyst" report, we, not unlike JEH, developed our own system of identification.

With this, it became a common factor to always be able to go back and individually locate the "First Report" which one initially prepared.

In that, each individual who was so involved, usually developed his own separate and independent method of instantly identifying and locating a "First Information Received" Report.

Some used various "colored dots", some utilized colored paper.

Personally, I always preferred "Colored Paper" as it stood out relatively well, and one merley had to change "color code" for second generation; third generation; etc;. reports.

Thusly, anything found in the "teal blue" or whatever it is, is an absolute "First Generation" report, which was made/created shortly after receipt of the information, and from the notes taken from receipt and evaluation of that information.

In that regards, the "Teal Blue" copies of reports were made directly from those handwritten notes which are in a notebook/diary, and thus are not likely to be that different in scope; content; and/or context from what is actually written in the handwritten notes.

In that regards, my "ORIGINAL" report states that Heiberger was dispatched to Georgia on the "Oswald was Here" episode.

Therefore, my original notes would state the same thing.

And, since Henry Heiberger was quite forthwright and open in our discussions, and not unlike virtually every other FBI Agent, spoke highly of Melvin Purvis and wanted to know my relationship to same, I do not think that Henry Heiberger was making any attempt to intentionally decieve me in these regards.

Hey Tom:

Many thanks for taking the time to respond to my narrative ramblings; it is appreciated. I agree with you that I doubt Henry Heiberger intentionally intended to deceive you and, by the same token, you have to naturally rely on your particular method of tracking your accumulated documentation, an ongoing battle that I can readily sympathize with. As I stated in my post, until such time as one is able to uncover documentation in support of Henry Heiberger's revelations to you regarding "Oswald Was Here" one cannot state, to a certainty, that the Georgia incident did not occur. If the content of the Heiberger - chalk - Georgia incident is as stated by Heiberger - i.e. a suspicion that he was diverted, intentionally, away from the Warren Commission and matters ballistic etc. - then a suspicious individual might conclude that any documentation in support of Heiberger's relayed narrative would have been conveniently "lost." Regardless, I, for one, have enjoyed your various postings, but in particular your "take" on matters that relate to the various reconstructions that occurred in Dealey Plaza. As I think you will see, upon release of my book, the various exhibits you have shared with members of this forum that relate to survey plats et al have helped me to answer a myriad of previously vexing questions.

Regards,

Gary

At least we know that I did not just dream up the bit about the RR Boxcar; Oswald"; & chalk.

I was out of attachment space previously, but here are the two "original" drafts, as written from my notes, etc; when I spoke with Heiberger; Gallagher; Frazier; Heilman; etc; etc; attempting to resolve some of these issues.

That they are of the "teal blue" color tells me that they are the original, and I knew that I had taken them out some time back for another reason, which I will get into in the next post or so.

With this information, there is now absolutely no doubt that this is what Heiberger relayed to me. And, the only deletion here is I deleted the "the hell" in "I don't know what the hell that was all about" as I did not want to present Heiberger in some "bad" light.

Since we are back on the subject of the clothing, I will again share what little was determined.

Of specific note, one may want to pay special attention to that section as regards JFK's coat, since it has already come up in discussion.

Henry Heiberger and I had considerable discussions regarding each specific piece of clothing, and what he told me is a long way from what is presented in the WC testimonies.

Tom:

As before, many thanks for reproducing the copies of your notes regarding your interviews conducted with the various FBI agents mentioned in this posting. Am I to conclude from this material that a discussion regarding the clothing of John Connally did not come up during your various interview sessions? For reasons that are more than obvious, I would, quite naturally, be extremely interested in any statements offered by anyone in the employ of the FBI lab who may have been involved in examining the clothing of John Connally.

Gary

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Next item up for bid!

Many years ago, when I worked in "Area Studies" and was involved in works which involved the posting of a variety of reports received from a variety of sources, which ultimately were utilized to develop an "intelligence analyst" report, we, not unlike JEH, developed our own system of identification.

With this, it became a common factor to always be able to go back and individually locate the "First Report" which one initially prepared.

In that, each individual who was so involved, usually developed his own separate and independent method of instantly identifying and locating a "First Information Received" Report.

Some used various "colored dots", some utilized colored paper.

Personally, I always preferred "Colored Paper" as it stood out relatively well, and one merley had to change "color code" for second generation; third generation; etc;. reports.

Thusly, anything found in the "teal blue" or whatever it is, is an absolute "First Generation" report, which was made/created shortly after receipt of the information, and from the notes taken from receipt and evaluation of that information.

In that regards, the "Teal Blue" copies of reports were made directly from those handwritten notes which are in a notebook/diary, and thus are not likely to be that different in scope; content; and/or context from what is actually written in the handwritten notes.

In that regards, my "ORIGINAL" report states that Heiberger was dispatched to Georgia on the "Oswald was Here" episode.

Therefore, my original notes would state the same thing.

And, since Henry Heiberger was quite forthwright and open in our discussions, and not unlike virtually every other FBI Agent, spoke highly of Melvin Purvis and wanted to know my relationship to same, I do not think that Henry Heiberger was making any attempt to intentionally decieve me in these regards.

Hey Tom:

Many thanks for taking the time to respond to my narrative ramblings; it is appreciated. I agree with you that I doubt Henry Heiberger intentionally intended to deceive you and, by the same token, you have to naturally rely on your particular method of tracking your accumulated documentation, an ongoing battle that I can readily sympathize with. As I stated in my post, until such time as one is able to uncover documentation in support of Henry Heiberger's revelations to you regarding "Oswald Was Here" one cannot state, to a certainty, that the Georgia incident did not occur. If the content of the Heiberger - chalk - Georgia incident is as stated by Heiberger - i.e. a suspicion that he was diverted, intentionally, away from the Warren Commission and matters ballistic etc. - then a suspicious individual might conclude that any documentation in support of Heiberger's relayed narrative would have been conveniently "lost." Regardless, I, for one, have enjoyed your various postings, but in particular your "take" on matters that relate to the various reconstructions that occurred in Dealey Plaza. As I think you will see, upon release of my book, the various exhibits you have shared with members of this forum that relate to survey plats et al have helped me to answer a myriad of previously vexing questions.

Regards,

Gary

At least we know that I did not just dream up the bit about the RR Boxcar; Oswald"; & chalk.

I was out of attachment space previously, but here are the two "original" drafts, as written from my notes, etc; when I spoke with Heiberger; Gallagher; Frazier; Heilman; etc; etc; attempting to resolve some of these issues.

That they are of the "teal blue" color tells me that they are the original, and I knew that I had taken them out some time back for another reason, which I will get into in the next post or so.

With this information, there is now absolutely no doubt that this is what Heiberger relayed to me. And, the only deletion here is I deleted the "the hell" in "I don't know what the hell that was all about" as I did not want to present Heiberger in some "bad" light.

Since we are back on the subject of the clothing, I will again share what little was determined.

Of specific note, one may want to pay special attention to that section as regards JFK's coat, since it has already come up in discussion.

Henry Heiberger and I had considerable discussions regarding each specific piece of clothing, and what he told me is a long way from what is presented in the WC testimonies.

Tom:

As before, many thanks for reproducing the copies of your notes regarding your interviews conducted with the various FBI agents mentioned in this posting. Am I to conclude from this material that a discussion regarding the clothing of John Connally did not come up during your various interview sessions? For reasons that are more than obvious, I would, quite naturally, be extremely interested in any statements offered by anyone in the employ of the FBI lab who may have been involved in examining the clothing of John Connally.

Gary

I aked, and nothing in the way of spectrographic work was ever done on John Connally's clothing.

The clothing "disappeared" and ended up having been taken back to Nellie Connally who washed some and had the other cleaned.

Then, it came back to the FBI.

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Frazier, did you have occasion to examine the clothing which has heretofore been identified in prior Commission proceedings as that worn by Governor Connally on November 22, 1963?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I did.

Mr. SPECTER - Were you able to determine from your examination of the Governor's clothing whether or not they had been cleaned and pressed prior to the time you saw them?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; they had.

Mr. SPECTER - Is that different from or the same as the condition of the President's clothing which you have just described this morning?

Mr. FRAZIER - It is different in that the President's clothing had not been cleaned. It had only been dried. The blood was dried. However, the Governor's garments had been cleaned and pressed.

Kind of eliminates any possibilities of a valid spectrographic analysis, along with having removed all of that cerebral tissue off the back of the coat, which could not have gotten there at Z313 as the back of the jumpseat in which JBC was sitting would have prevented such occurance.

Of course, when one is leaning over well to the left, with their back and right shoulder exposed between the open area between the jump seats, then any number of things can happen.

And, not unlike in other areas, a "cross-angle" of penetration can just as easily be a "downward" angle as well.

Hope that helps.

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Gary;

Here is a photo of JFK's shirt AFTER completion of the spectrographic analysis by Henry Heiberger.

That portion at the top with the straight edge is where portions of the shirt were removed for testing.

Now, this shirt was fully examined by Henry Heiberger. He X-rayed the shirt and found indications of metallic residue in the threads around the edge of the hole, cut and removed a portion of these threads and ran spectrographic analysis tests, and found the metalic residue to be copper.

One should note: Absolutely no "comparison/control sample" was run on the shirt!

Heiberger stated to me that no comparison samples were needed. The X-ray showed that the metallic residue was only at the margins of the hole and that no other residue existed in the surrounding fabric, and that since copper is not a normal element found in the manufacture of clothing that no one would consider taking a "comparison/control sample".

Actually, he got a good laugh out of it when I told him about the purported "control" sample which Specter & Company got admitted into evidence when JFK's coat was entered into evidence during the questioning of Dr. Humes.

So, according to each and every person within the Spectrographic Analysis Section of the FBI lab, JFK's coat was never examined.

Now! Everyone who fell for Specter & Company's ever so "slight-sleight-of-hand" trick of admitting the coat into evidence during the questioning of Dr. Humes, with the "hearsay" note attached which established that the second bullet entrance hole up at the coat collar was where a "control" sample was taken, please raise their hand.

I would suppose that it just never dawned on anyone that this second hole also matches in alignment with the entry into the scalp of JFK at the edge of the hairline.

Lastly, unless someone has more questions regarding this subject, there are the several things which you may wish to take note of.

1. Being as stated, exactly why would someone purportedly take a "control" sample for the coat, and yet not also take one for the shirt as well.

2. Might want to check with a reliable FBI Agent as to exactly where a "control" sample would be taken, were it to actually be required.

The answer will be, directly adjacent to the area being tested, and the "control" sample area will be circled with chalk in order to fully identify it from the actual bullet penetration. And, if one ask "How about up at the collar", they should get the same "NO" answer which Henry Heiberger gave to me.

3. Specifically, you may wish to pay close attention to the fact that the backwound of JFK was found to have considerable fabric carried down into the wound of entry by the entering missile. Which by the way is a completely abnormal occurance.

However, in accordance with normal occurance, JBC had no fabric carried down into the wound of entry of his right rear shoulder entry.

So, exactly why would a purportedly full velocity bullet, for some strange reason, carry fabric down into the wound of entry, yet, after having supposedly lost velocity after penetration of the neck of JFK, and purportedly beginning to yaw/tumble, did not carry any fabric from JBC's clothing down into his back wound of entry.

2.

Edited March 19, 2008 by Thomas H. Purvis