David Josephs a question for you

[Mike Williams]

By the way, if you dont mind my asking, how long have you been researching the assassination, and what is your particular area of interest?

I've been interested in the events since I was 15 years old Mike. My Dad got me onto it when we had 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' aired for the first time in the U.K..

I got seriously into it, buying the books, hunting down old journals and the like when I was 18-19. I was obsessed with it till about the age of 25 and then kinda went onto other things. In my early 30's I picked the books and my notepads back up. For the last 3 years, outside of looking after my young daughters and being a husband, has been my number one interest and passion.

Lee Oswald, the real man behind the one dimensional WC portrait, is what I'm truly interested in. I know this guy was innocent Mike. Set up by JJ Angleton and a combination of Texas moneymen and the Military. He was moved around a chessboard thinking he was a knight when he was, unfortunately, just a pawn.

Lee

Lee,

Thanks for sharing that. I myself have been researching about 3 years only and much of that on other things. As you know I am mostly interested in the ballistics. As you might also know I own www.jfkballistics.com. If you are ever interested in writing an article on Oswald I would love to have it on my site.

I post all kinds of things from all sides of the debate. Not just ballistics. All I ask is that if it has ballistics in it that it be accurate.

So anyhow just thought I would offer.

Mike

[David Josephs]

You're a real curiousity of nature as well Mikey...

the fact that you can't see your hand in front of your own face proves how seriously blind you are to reality.

3 whole years of research...

and all on your own, well alittle DVP hand holding, you've figured out how to xxxxx, Insult, Bait, Switch,

and stay as far away from anything of substance in your posts...

Way to go.... DVP and your family must be proud

I'll ask one last time but know you have nothing...

Please post ANYTHING, in ANY VOLUME of EVIDENCE that someone in a court of law can use to place

Lee Harvey Oswald in that window firing that rifle.

The piece of real evidence that I posted proves he did not make an identification...

Brennan can claim he was the easter bunny and will "prove it later" - no one cares

I am still working on the first reply... takes a little time when you have to track down sources and evidence

but I haven't forgotten about you buddy....

and btw - the first words out of Chief of Police Curry and Sheriff Decker

12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.

12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by.

12:30 Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there.

12:30 Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it.

12:30 Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.

Believe whatever you want Mikey - the Church of Lone Nutters is always open for business

[Mike Williams]

You're a real curiousity of nature as well Mikey...

the fact that you can't see your hand in front of your own face proves how seriously blind you are to reality.

3 whole years of research...

and all on your own, well alittle DVP hand holding, you've figured out how to xxxxx, Insult, Bait, Switch,

and stay as far away from anything of substance in your posts...

Way to go.... DVP and your family must be proud

I'll ask one last time but know you have nothing...

Please post ANYTHING, in ANY VOLUME of EVIDENCE that someone in a court of law can use to place

Lee Harvey Oswald in that window firing that rifle.

The piece of real evidence that I posted proves he did not make an identification...

Brennan can claim he was the easter bunny and will "prove it later" - no one cares

I am still working on the first reply... takes a little time when you have to track down sources and evidence

but I haven't forgotten about you buddy....

and btw - the first words out of Chief of Police Curry and Sheriff Decker

12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.

12:30 1 (Chief of Police Jesse E. Curry) Have Parkland stand by.

12:30 Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) I am sure it's going to take some time to get your man in there. Pull every one of my men in there.

12:30 Dispatcher Dallas 1, repeat, I didn't get all of it. I didn't quite understand all of it.

12:30 Dallas 1 (Sheriff J.E. "Bill" Decker) Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.

Believe whatever you want Mikey - the Church of Lone Nutters is always open for business

See this is typical CT assumptions in action. I have known DVP, and been talking to him, for maybe, maybe 4 weeks. So you see, you make an errant assumption which seems to be your mainstay. It would be far easier to take you seriously if you researched more and assumed less.

Ok so

What relevance does your radio transmission have other than that they thought something happened there? This is more foolishness from you. I ask you for evidence and you give me a radio call.

I bet you have not forgotten about me, but I am sure you will soon wish you could.

So ill be waiting for your evidence when are you going to stop dodging and live up to your claims?

[David Josephs]

So that's it?

You have nothing that places Oswald in the window with that rifle?

And you have the gaul to copy and paste an entire post from DVP as your basis for yet another TROLLING ARGUMENT yet

you've only known of him for less than a month...?

You trust his analysis that much you are willing to associate yourself with him... good or bad... and discount the continuing work of

all those who are posting here...

Your real profile is coming more and more into focus.

One final note before I go back to the reply I've been working on

Even your Mr Brennan describes what he hears as a firecraker or backfire AT STREET LEVEL.

Yet thinks that it must have been someone 6 stories up throwing something out the window. Sure.

MANY other witnesses describe the gunshot sounds as a backfire or firecracker - these are STREET LEVEL sounds

since... wait for it... some shots were taken from street level - the GK, Dal-Tex, just not 65 feet up in the air and 120 feet behind the limo.

[Mike Williams]

So that's it?

You have nothing that places Oswald in the window with that rifle?

And you have the gaul to copy and paste an entire post from DVP as your basis for yet another TROLLING ARGUMENT yet

you've only known of him for less than a month...?

You trust his analysis that much you are willing to associate yourself with him... good or bad... and discount the continuing work of

all those who are posting here...

Your real profile is coming more and more into focus.

One final note before I go back to the reply I've been working on

Even your Mr Brennan describes what he hears as a firecraker or backfire AT STREET LEVEL.

Yet thinks that it must have been someone 6 stories up throwing something out the window. Sure.

MANY other witnesses describe the gunshot sounds as a backfire or firecracker - these are STREET LEVEL sounds

since... wait for it... some shots were taken from street level - the GK, Dal-Tex, just not 65 feet up in the air and 120 feet behind the limo.

Yawn....

Do you have any idea what the most common analogy is when talking to witnesses of a shooting? It sounded like a firecracker! No kidding huh? And why do you classify these as "street level" noises? Now I know this maybe a real shocker, but, the witnesses are standing at street level! Of course they may have sounded that way. Does not take much common sense to understand that, I hope I am not giving you to much credit.

SO

You once again make an assumption about a shot at street level, I sure hope your evidence of this will be forth coming. Apparently you have no ability to hold the testimony to the physical evidence and make an intelligent decision.

What exactly was my "trolling argument"? The fact that I posted something that shows the inept way Harris does research? Is that what has your undies in a bunch? I did not have to trust his analysis, I could see it for myself! What is so difficult for you to understand?

You really are a comical guy. Slap stick must be your forte, research obviously is not.

Now quite beating around the bush and get me some evidence already. How hard can it be, given all the wild assumptions you have made, one would think you would be ready to support them. Or do you yap first and then pray for support later?

Brennan's own words put Oswald in that window, as blind to that as you maybe.

So please by all means let see your evidence. Your beating around the bush is getting boring.

[Mike Williams]

I don't think it's irrelevant Mike. I don't think Brennan attended an actual line up and his name was added to Davis's card afterwards. Brennan claimed in his Warren Commission testimony that there were 7 (more or less 1) people in the line up he attended. Is there nothing wrong with this testimony in your opinion? Could the star witness not count to 4?

Lee

Mike,

I take it if you believe Brennan's testimony, then he must have had double vision, his memory was very poor or he just couldn't count during the line-up he attended?

In addition to an answer to the above question I'd also like to ask you something else. I believe all of the points we are discussing to be quite moot because the evidence has been so thoroughly tainted in so many areas that you can argue the case backwards and forwards forever.

There is, however, a much wider context to the assassination so with that in mind what is your reply to the following?

On October 6th 1963 Oswald's FLASH was taken off/removed from his security file at the FBI. This FLASH would have placed him on the security list for Kennedy's trip to Dallas and he, in all likelihood, would have been taken off the streets that day. It would also have triggered some major alarms regarding the information that was due to arrive from the CIA concerning Oswald's supposed trip to the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. The timing was impeccable and certainly not down to error or coincidence. Rifles, Tippit, and DP witness testimony aside, what are your thoughts on this incredible, and unbelievable, aspect to the story? Obviously Oswald didn't do this himself, did he?

Lee

Lee,

Quite simply if I had been asked to look at a line up, and I was looking for one single person, I may not recall how many people were in the line, just weather I saw the one I was looking for or not. Certainly years later I would not recall, and honestly I doubt you would either.

As for the removal of Oswald's FLASH. I would have to read more about it before commenting, otherwise I would just be speculating. If you care to send info on it I would be glad to read it. Frankly, I have issues believing anything that is set in front of me until I read it myself. As hard as this is to believe there are actually CT's out there who take things out of context and make mountains from mo hills. I am not saying you would, however your source might.

Let me ask you something while I am here.

How do you explain the fact that the weapon that fires the bullet into Tippit's head was found on Oswald at the time of his arrest, just a short time later?

Oh yes and dont buy into that defective pistol crap, that comes from people who have no idea what they are talking about.

I must say Lee you are one of the few I actually enjoy discussing things with. Your ideas are often well thought out and I certainly appreciate your honesty, its refreshing frankly. Thank You.

Mike

[Bernice Moore]

OLDER THREAD WITH INFORMATION ON BRENNAN......http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4311&pid=32288&st=0entry32288, http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5188

SORRY THE FIRST LINK WILL NOT ENABLE COPY AND PASTE IN SEARCH THE THREAD THEN COMES UP, MUST BE MY MOUSE..OR.THE GREMLIN AGAIN......???

Edited June 8, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Mike Williams]

By the way, if you dont mind my asking, how long have you been researching the assassination, and what is your particular area of interest?

I've been interested in the events since I was 15 years old Mike. My Dad got me onto it when we had 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' aired for the first time in the U.K..

I got seriously into it, buying the books, hunting down old journals and the like when I was 18-19. I was obsessed with it till about the age of 25 and then kinda went onto other things. In my early 30's I picked the books and my notepads back up. For the last 3 years, outside of looking after my young daughters and being a husband, has been my number one interest and passion.

Lee Oswald, the real man behind the one dimensional WC portrait, is what I'm truly interested in. I know this guy was innocent Mike. Set up by JJ Angleton and a combination of Texas moneymen and the Military. He was moved around a chessboard thinking he was a knight when he was, unfortunately, just a pawn.

Lee

Lee,

Thanks for sharing that. I myself have been researching about 3 years only and much of that on other things. As you know I am mostly interested in the ballistics. As you might also know I own www.jfkballistics.com. If you are ever interested in writing an article on Oswald I would love to have it on my site.

I post all kinds of things from all sides of the debate. Not just ballistics. All I ask is that if it has ballistics in it that it be accurate.

So anyhow just thought I would offer.

Mike

I'll have a think about it Mike. I already have lots of things in my notes, part essays, part dramatisations of what I think happened, I've written 2/3's of a script...but I'll let you know in the next few weeks when I get some real time to organise my thoughts. I'll be back in Dallas in July (going to Houston to visit the in-laws and will be traveling up there for a few days) so will take some reflection time on the knoll to think what I may want to forward to you.

Thanks for the offer

Lee

P.S. Thanks for sending me your article. I'll have a read through tonight...

Lee you are most welcome. Just bear in mind it is not complete as yet. I have some polishing to do and am certainly not an author!

Would love to have some of your work, just let me know.

Mike

[Mike Williams]

I don't think it's irrelevant Mike. I don't think Brennan attended an actual line up and his name was added to Davis's card afterwards. Brennan claimed in his Warren Commission testimony that there were 7 (more or less 1) people in the line up he attended. Is there nothing wrong with this testimony in your opinion? Could the star witness not count to 4?

Lee

Mike,

I take it if you believe Brennan's testimony, then he must have had double vision, his memory was very poor or he just couldn't count during the line-up he attended?

In addition to an answer to the above question I'd also like to ask you something else. I believe all of the points we are discussing to be quite moot because the evidence has been so thoroughly tainted in so many areas that you can argue the case backwards and forwards forever.

There is, however, a much wider context to the assassination so with that in mind what is your reply to the following?

On October 6th 1963 Oswald's FLASH was taken off/removed from his security file at the FBI. This FLASH would have placed him on the security list for Kennedy's trip to Dallas and he, in all likelihood, would have been taken off the streets that day. It would also have triggered some major alarms regarding the information that was due to arrive from the CIA concerning Oswald's supposed trip to the Cuban Consulate and Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. The timing was impeccable and certainly not down to error or coincidence. Rifles, Tippit, and DP witness testimony aside, what are your thoughts on this incredible, and unbelievable, aspect to the story? Obviously Oswald didn't do this himself, did he?

Lee

Lee,

Quite simply if I had been asked to look at a line up, and I was looking for one single person, I may not recall how many people were in the line, just weather I saw the one I was looking for or not. Certainly years later I would not recall, and honestly I doubt you would either.

As for the removal of Oswald's FLASH. I would have to read more about it before commenting, otherwise I would just be speculating. If you care to send info on it I would be glad to read it. Frankly, I have issues believing anything that is set in front of me until I read it myself. As hard as this is to believe there are actually CT's out there who take things out of context and make mountains from mo hills. I am not saying you would, however your source might.

Let me ask you something while I am here.

How do you explain the fact that the weapon that fires the bullet into Tippit's head was found on Oswald at the time of his arrest, just a short time later?

Oh yes and dont buy into that defective pistol crap, that comes from people who have no idea what they are talking about.

I must say Lee you are one of the few I actually enjoy discussing things with. Your ideas are often well thought out and I certainly appreciate your honesty, its refreshing frankly. Thank You.

Mike

Mike

You can't be serious? You wouldn't remember one of, if not the most, important thing that has ever happened to you? There were four people in that line-up Mike. Not seven, not six and not eight. Four. You go into a room. The people walk in. They are assigned numbers. You look them up and down. One after the other. You take your time. You pick the guy out using those numbers. So if there are four, you would say either "number one", "number two", "number three", or "number four." It's not complicated. And four is an easy number to count to...for most people. It's also an easy number to remember...for most people. I can't, don't and will not believe Brennan's story, testimony or memory. I also find it incredibly suspicious that it was an FBI agent who conducted this line up (or so we are told.) And I wouldn't believe Forrest Sorrells if he told me I had five toes on each of my feet...

The source for the removal of Oswald's FLASH is James P. Hosty's book "Assignment Oswald" p.166 and Newman's 'Oswald and the CIA' p.4. The FBI agent who removed the FLASH (Marvin Gheesling) was duly censured by Hoover.

The Tippit shooting is complicated one and I suggest you get up to speed by reading the thread "The Attempted Planting of the Revolver on Oswald" - if you can prove to me a tamper proof chain of evidence on that revolver Mike, I'll buy you a brand new AK-47...

Lee

If you'll make is a new Wilson's combat CQB Ill read it lol!

As for Brennan, I dont find it odd at all that he would not recall how many were in the line up. I think this is making a mountain from a mo hill. I certainly believe there was a line up, and in fact, believe much of what he had to say.

[Bernice Moore]

DELETED WRONG LINK...SORRY

Edited June 8, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

HOWARD BRENNAN

Edited June 8, 2010 by Bernice Moore

[David Josephs]

QUOTE (David Josephs @ Jun 7 2010, 02:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. No one saw him do it

Even Fritz is obviously disappointed when he says that they cannot place him (Oswald) in the window with a rifle at the time of the shots while the one witness, Brennan, in his book "Eyewitness to History" says:

I said brusquely, “He looks like the man, but I can’t say for sure!” I needed some time to think. I turned to Mr. Lish, who had detected my resentment and said, “Let’s go back to the office. We have some talking to do.” As we went, I commented that the man in the lineup wasn’t dressed the same way the man in the window had been.

Brennan was the one and only witness putting Oswald in that window and he refused to ID him... for a variety of reasons... but this left the DPD with no one to ID Oswald.

As I wrote... "No one saw him (LHO) do it" Unless you have something to add to the thread other that insulting attacks

Interesting how you put that "for a variety of reasons" I wonder if his reasons included the fact he felt betrayed by the DPD, or possibly was in fear? How about this from Brennan's own book:

"The officer walked over to me sticking out his hand to shake. He greeted me by name and I knew if he knew who I was and what my connection with the case was, then others must know. He asked me, “Does the second man from the left look most like the man you saw?” He was talking about Oswald and I knew what he wanted me to say.

I felt even more angry and betrayed. I hadn’t agreed to make an identification to the local authorities. I knew that there were ways my identity could become known though the leaks in the police department and I didn’t want any part of it. I knew that they had Oswald on enough charges that he wasn’t going anyplace. He had been charged with resisting arrest and carrying a firearm without a permit. There was overwhelming evidence that he had killed Officer Tippit and so my identification in that moment wasn’t absolutely necessary. If they needed me later, I knew I could identify him."

I knew I could identify him, if they needed me later! Sounds like Brennan saw Oswald in that window. Now I wonder why you did not elaborate on "for a variety of reasons"

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0085a.htm

Page 145/146 of the WCR – “Although the record indicates that Brennan was an accurate observer, he declined to make a positive ID of Oswald when he first saw him in the police line-up. The Commission, therefore, does NOT base its conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin on Brennan’s subsequent identification of LHO as the man he saw fire a rifle.”

While the Report admits that Brennan believes he saw someone who looked like Oswald, according to him, the only thing that can be taken as evidence is a witnesses’ positive or negative identification. Well what do you know... the DPD records HAS such a document!! {image already provided}

And instead of firing back with Fischer and Edwards – who also used the term “could” have been LHO, never positively identified Oswald. Or Euins who actually saw a black man at the window and was scared into changing his story – kind of like Dr. Perry, someone considerably less shaken than a 15 year old kid, who was hounded into changing what he KNEW to be a frontal entrance into a maybe....

Proof Mikey... Evidence.... Brennan’s words are all hearsay. He didn’t ID Oswald as the shooter

#1 proven – No one saw him (LHO) do it

QUOTE

2. He was seen elsewhere just before and just after.. with a woman who told a researcher she was giving him change when the shots were fired.

Do we really need to do the Oswald timeline again? He's seen as late as 12:15-12:20 on the first floor - and please try to remember if he was the lone assassin he has no way of knowing EXACTLY when the limo is passing... based on what the public knew JFK would pass by anytime between 11:55 and 12:25 (luncheon had public start times of both 12 and 12:30). Add to this that Williams is eating his lunch, at a 6th floor window until 12:15 or so. And then again LHO is seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:31 - maybe... the Baker/Truly/Oswald rememberance of this event is still very much at odds with each other.

I wish I could find the person who posted the comment about a woman coming forward claiming to have been giving Oswald change for the Coke machine on his trip from the 1st floor to the 2nd, before he buys the coke. Maybe someone can come to my aid while I continue to look for it.... Bottom line? Oswald was not on the 6th floor when witnesses saw numerous men with rifles moving about on that floor.

Mrs Reid definitely places a coke in his hand as he walks thru her office out towards the front, after the "Baker" encounter.

So where was he DURING the assassination. You readily admit you have him located just before, and just after. Rowland does in fact see a dark complected man in the window at about 12:15, as I recall. He also sees a gunman, which rather fits Oswald's description, but he never sees the both at the same time. So you have Oswald accounted for till say 12:20, and then again at 12:31. This does not rule him out at all.

As far as someone telling a researcher something, come on, you don’t really believe hearsay like that is going to fly do you? I am not a CT. I don’t bite that easily.

Yes Mikey... If someone is seen on the 1st/2nd floor at 12:15-12:20 and possibly even 12:25 and then again at 12:31 in the exact same area... it is reasonable to conclude he never went anywhere, NOT that he ran up 5 flights of steps, assembled a rifle, built a boxed-in sniper’s lair, fired and hit 2 of three shots while MANY witnesses: civilian, DPD, SS testify to a shot coming from the right front of the limo; lay the rifle down, make a clip and paper bag disappear until needed, run down 5 flights of steps, get change for a coke, buy the coke and casually walk into a gun pointed at his stomach. All in 6-12 minutes. I can see where you’d think this scenario does not rule him out...

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC482g/Spring1999/ExternalComm.html

Then, there is the mishandling of the Carolyn Arnold statements. Taken together, the two support her later claims that she saw LHO on the first floor at 12:25; making it unlikely that he went up five flights of stairs and ran over to the window to shoot JFK. In her hand written statement she told the FBI she saw LHO "at about 12:25 PM" (Weisberg Post Mortem, p. 333 citing Commission Document 706(d)). The FBI retyped her statement to read that she LHO "a few minutes before 12:15 PM" (Roffman, p. 185, citing CD 5:4l). On page 276 Roffman notes the dishonestly of the Warren Report which claimed "that it knew of no Book Depository employee who claimed to have seen Oswald between 11:55 and 12:30 on the day of the assassination."

British journalist and author Anthony Summers provides the following summary of his 1978 interview with Mrs. Arnold:

When I found Mrs. Arnold in 1978 to get a firsthand account, she was surprised to hear how she had been reported by the FBI. Her spontaneous reaction, that she had been misquoted, came before I explained to her the importance of Oswald's whereabouts at given moments. Mrs. Arnold's recollection of what she really observed was clear--spotting Oswald was after all her one personal contribution to the record of that memorable day. As secretary to the company vice- president she knew Oswald; he had been in the habit of coming to her for change. What Mrs. Arnold says she actually told the FBI is very different from the report of her comments and not vague at all. She said: "About a quarter of an hour before the assassination [12:15], I went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment. . . . Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly." Mrs. Arnold has reason to remember going into the lunchroom. She was pregnant at the time and had a craving for a glass of water.

Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald eating lunch on the second floor lunchroom. ”Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly.”

ref. Crossfire, p 49; Conspiracy - Who Killed Kennedy?, p 108

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/hasty.htm

A few minutes later, Bill Shelley and Charles Givens saw Oswald on the first floor, at around 11:50. Then, ten minutes later, Eddie Piper also saw Oswald on the first floor. Moreover, as mentioned, Williams began eating his lunch on the sixth floor at right around noon and didn't leave the floor until around 12:15 or 12:20. Since Oswald was seen by Piper on the first floor at noon, and since Williams was on the sixth floor at noon to eat his lunch, the only time Oswald could have gone up to the sniper's nest was after Williams came back downstairs at 12:15 or 12:20. The motorcade was scheduled to pass in front of the TSBD at 12:25. As it turned out, the motorcade was running five minutes late, but Oswald could not have known that. Arriving at the sniper's window at 12:16 at the earliest, Oswald would have been hard-pressed to build (or finish building) the sniper's nest, arrange the boxes next to the window as a gun rest, and then reassemble the rifle. One witness, Arnold Rowland, insisted he saw a man with a rifle--an assembled rifle--on the sixth floor at 12:15 or 12:16, and Rowland said nothing about seeing any boxes being moved in the sniper's nest.

Mr. BALL. Was that the last time you saw him?

Mr. PIPER. Just at 12 o’clock.

Mr. BALL. Where were you at 12 o’clock?

Mr. PIPER. Down on the first floor.

Mr. BALL. What was he doing?

Mr. PIPER. Well, I said to him-“It’s about

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp7.html

Jarman and Norman appeared together on the first floor again, about ten minutes after stepping outside. Because the crowds in front of the Depository were so large, the two men went up to the fifth floor at 12:20 or 12:25. To do this, they walked around to the back of the building, entering on the first floor through the rear door and taking the elevator up five stories (3H202).

Obviously, Oswald could not have told the police that "Junior" and a short Negro employee were together on the first floor unless he had seen this himself.[3] For Oswald to have witnessed Jarman and Norman in this manner, he had to have been on the first floor between either 12:10 and 12:15 or 12:20 and 12:25. The fact that Oswald was able to relate this incident is cogent evidence that he was in fact on the first floor at one or both of these times. If he was on the sixth floor, as the Commission believes, then it was indeed a remarkable coincidence that out of all the employees, Oswald picked the two who were on the first floor at the time he said, and together as he described. Since this is a remote possibility that warrants little serious consideration, I am persuaded to conclude that Oswald was on the first floor at some time between 12:10 and 12:25, which is consistent with the previously cited testimony of Eddie Piper.[4]

Now, let us revisit the statements made by Bonnie Ray Williams. First of all, when the WC asked Williams about his FBI statement, he denied telling the FBI that he left the sixth floor at 12:05 (4:103). And, when the Commission asked Williams to give an approximate time for his departure from the sixth floor, he said he left at around 12:20 (4:103). Former WC member Gerald Ford said Williams left the sixth floor "just minutes before the Presidential motorcade reached the corner of Houston and Elm"

Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was.

Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.

Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.

And the testimony of Mrs. Reid

Mr. BELIN. Now, Mrs. Reid, you left lunch about what time?

Mrs. REID. Well, I left, I ate my lunch hurriedly, I wasn't watching the time but I wanted to be sure of getting out on the streets in time for the parade before he got there, and I called my husband, who works at the records building, and they had a radio in their office and they were listening as the parade progressed and he told me they were running about 10 minutes late.

But I went down rather soon and stood on the steps.

Mr. DULLES. Where was your husband working?

Mrs. REID. He works for the records building.

Mr. BELIN. Where is that located?

Mrs. REID. Well, it is off the left-hand side, kind of cater-cornered across from our building.

Mr. BELIN. The records building has one side of it on Elm Street running from Houston to Record Street?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. And I believe it is on, it would run on, the south side of Elm?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Is that correct?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. All right. Do you know about what time it was that you left the lunchroom, was it 12, 12:15?

Mrs. REID. I think around 12:30 somewhere along in there.

Mr. BELIN. All right. When you left the lunchroom, did you leave with the other girls?

Mrs. REID. No; I didn't. The younger girls had gone and I left alone.

Mr. BELIN. Were you the last person in the lunchroom?

Mrs. REID. No; I could not say that because I don't remember that part of it because I was going out of the building by myself, I wasn't even, you know, connected with anyone at all.

Mr. BELIN. Were there any men in the lunchroom when you left there?

Mrs. REID. I can't, I don't, remember that.

Mr. BELIN. All right. You went up through the stairs and then what did you do?

Mrs. REID. I went into the office.

Mr. BELIN. You went into your office?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do?

Mrs. REID. Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn't hit him."

He mumbled something to me, I kept walking, he did, too. I didn't pay any attention to what he said because I had no thoughts of anything of him having any connection with it at all because he was very calm. He had gotten a coke and was holding it in his hands and I guess the reason it impressed me seeing him in there I thought it was a little strange that one of -the warehouse boys would be up in the office at the time, not that he had done anything wrong. The only time I had seen him in the office was to come and get change and he already had his coke in his hand so he didn't come for change and I dismissed him. I didn't think anything else.

How does Oswald know that Williams is eating his lunch not 15 feet from the corner from 12- 12:15 so he cannot go up... and finally have you read Jack Dougherty’s testimony? http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/doughert.htm you might find it interesting.

#2 Proven – he was elsewhere immediately before and after the shots were fired, no one saw him go up to the floors that were occupied until 12:20 by Williams or even later by Dougherty... and no on e saw him come down.

If you can prove, with evidence, that Fritz was wrong when he said they could not put that man in the window at the time of the shots... please do. Please don’t just argue and offer nothing in support.

QUOTE

3. He didn't fire a rifle that day

Google the parafin tests please... 2 positives on his hands and a negative on his cheek... the hands can lead to many different interpretations, the most damaging that he fired a pistol yet the results should have been positive on the shooting hand and negative on the other unless he was incontact with substances that could cause both positives - which he was during his normal day at work.

Nothing on his cheek is the most telling as to why he didn't fire a rifle that day... the fact that nobody fired THAT rifle THAT day is a whole other story...

Paraffin eh? Your kidding me right? You do of course know of the unreliability of this test. Let me refresh for you by asking you to read what Cunningham had to say in WCH3p487.

"And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands."

And then Further:

CUNNINGHAM:

Yes.

We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.

EISENBERG:

So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?

CUNNINGHAM:

That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn’t pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.

Cunningham had explained earlier why a false negative could arise with the rifle (3H492):

EISENBERG:

A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.

CUNNINGHAM:

Yes.

EISENBERG:

Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?

CUNNINGHAM:

No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.

I find it interesting that you would try to use something that is inconclusive, as an indication of exoneration. Note I said interesting, not surprising.

And Mikey... It’s interesting you simply stop with the above and not look into the more complete examination of the paraffin casts which show higher levels on the palms of his hands as opposed to the back of his hands where the residue would be left if he ONLY fired a gun or rifle as opposed to interacting with all the elements found in the TSBD... same story with the cheeks.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gallagher.htm

Mr. REDLICH. Getting back to the hand casts, did you use the outside surface of the hand casts as a control surface?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes; I did, sir.

Mr. REDLICH. Could you tell us how the inside or the outside surface of the hand cast compared with regard to the elements barium and antimony?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Much more barium and antimony were found on the inside of the hand casts than were found on the control specimens taken from the outside of the hand casts of the subject.

Mr. REDLICH. All right. Now let us turn to the cheek casts, Mr. Gallagher. Could you tell us the results of your examination of the cheek casts with reference to the presence of the elements barium and antimony?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Barium and antimony were found on the cheek casts. However, when the cheek cast was analyzed, both surfaces of the cheek cast were studied. That is, the surface adjacent to the skin of the subject and the surface away from the skin of the subject, or the outside surface of the cast.

Mr. REDLICH. For our record, let us call the surface adjacent to the skin the inside surface, and the other surface the outside surface.

Mr. GALLAGHER. The outside surface of this cast was found to contain--barium and antimony--actually more barium was found on the outside surface of the cast than on the inside surface.

Mr. REDLICH. And as far as antimony is concerned, was there more on the outside than on the inside ?

Mr. GALLAGHER. There was slightly less antimony on the outside of the cast than on the inside of the cast.

Mr. REDLICH. Do you have any explanation for the presence of barium and antimony on the outside of the cast, and as part of the same question, do you have any explanation for their being more barium on the outside than the inside ?

Mr. GALLAGHER. I have no explanation for this difference.

And please try to remember that there was not a single fingerprint found on the rifle, nor were there the multiple fingerprints one would expect to find on all the boxes around the SL. Either he was practicing with the rifle and left prints or he never touched the rifle to begin with... there was nothing done to determine whether the rifle was fired that day...

And if he did indeed clean and oil the rifle – you of all people should know that looking down the barrel or smelling the barrel would indicate whether it was fired recently.

QUOTE

4. The rifle was the worst POS imaginable for a number of reasons

Really Mike? If I remember correctly you are knowledgeable about weapons yes? You think a 20+ year old rifle, with 20+ year old ammo, a rickety scope, a badly damaged firing pin and a partially filled "non existent" clip shooting a round with a bent hull was a RELIABLE weapon, was not a POS that repeatedly jammed, was hard to shoot by experts and appeared as if it hadn't been fired or oiled in who knows how long?

Really?

Yes I have read these claims before. Pure rubbish, and spewed by people who have no idea what they are talking about in regard to firearms. To answer your question, yes, I do think a 20 year old firearm with a partially loaded clip (which is irrelevant) could have done the deed.

Now I don’t know exactly what you mean by "non-existent" clip. There is documented proof the clip was in the TSBD.

so why not photograph it with ALL the other stuff found up there... like the paper bag in the location it was found – NOT. There were no photos of the clip because there was no clip to photograph.

I also assume in talking about the firing pin, you are referring to it showing signs of much use? Imagine that a war rifle showing signs of use. I also suppose you are going to quote that they were afraid to dry fire it because they feared breaking the firing pin.

I hear this often, and it is comical. You are aware of the fact that you never dry fire a weapon with this type of pin design aren't you? The reason is, that even if the pin is BRAND NEW, you run the risk of breaking it. They were not afraid to dry fire it because it was defective, they were afraid to because that is standard firearms knowledge. Its also the reason these were made to allow gunsmiths, like myself, to test fire weapons and have a striking surface for the pin:

Now a word about the scope. You do realize that it was in very good firing order on 11/27/63 when the FBI tested it? In fact they fired six rounds that made a keyhole in the target!:

Of course these rounds were fired at 15 yards. Someone with no knowledge would jump all over that, but what they fail to realize is this is a strong indication that the scope was in fact zeroed in at 400 yards. More about this to come.

Yet another completely useless comment by you Mikey...

The FBI tests of the Carcano's accuracy showed:

1) FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier testified that "It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that."[59] From 15 yards (14 m), all three bullets in a test firing landed approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1-inch (25 mm) to the right, in the area about the size of a dime.[60] At 100 yards (91 m), the test shots landed 2 1/2 to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle. Frazier testified that the scope's high variation would actually work in the shooter's favor: with a target moving away from the shooter, no "lead" correction would have been necessary to follow the target. "At that range, at that distance, 175 feet (53 m) to 265 feet (81 m),[61] with this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead — I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size."

{so either LHO knows the scope is off - there is no evidence for this at all - and proceeds not to correct it for his killing of the president, OR he does not know its off and would us a lead. If you fired a rifle that was off 2.5-5” would you leave it that way? If you didn’t know it was off would you fire it as if it was... Mr. gunsmith??}

2) The rifle was unable to be "sighted-in", using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims (small metal plates) which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, and were never found.[62]

{what do you have for this Mikey?}

Frazier testified that there was "a rather severe scrape" on the scope tube, and that the sight could have been bent or damaged. He was unable to determine when the defect occurred before the FBI received the rifle and scope on November 27, 1963.

59. ^ Warren Commission Hearings, Testimony of Robert A. Frazier.

60. ^ Warren Commission Exhibit CE-549.

61. ^ The Warren Commission estimated that President Kennedy was 176.9 feet (53.9 m) to 190.8 feet (58.2 m) from the sixth floor corner window of the Depository when he was shot in the neck, and 265.3 feet (80.9 m) when he was shot in the head.

62. ^ Warren Commission Hearings: 3 WCH 440-5.

As for the ridiculousness of the dented shell. Of course it could not have been fired dented, but it sure could have been dented after. Its called a short cycle. I have done it many times, and have seen it done by others. It is simply, not pulling the bolt far enough back to eject the shell, then when you run the bolt forward it hits the chamber lip.

So this would have to have been the LAST shot fired since what you describe would not have ejected the shell the first time – the shooter double works the bolt AFTER he sees JFK’s head blow up, and then leaves a live round in the rifle. If the Clip was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD why wasn’t it by the window and other shells since chambering the last round ejects the clip? Why wasn’t it photographed? Who shoved it back into the weapon and why would anyone do that?

Try answering a few questions instead of asking for once...

QUOTE

4. His .38 did not fire automatic rounds - he did not kill Tippit either

1:34 221 (Ptm. H.W. Summers) *Channel 1 Message*

Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand.

1:34pm 550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) *Channel 1 Message*

The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.

What you would fail to realize is that in the day pistols were automatics, and revolvers were well revolvers. Another epic case of someone not knowing what they are talking about. People who murder with revolvers generally don’t hang around long enough to eject the shells. It is perfectly logical for the officer to assume they were autos, just because they were laying around on the ground. There is no indication that he picked them up and examined them before making the statement. I dare say, can you find the auto and the special in this illustration?

I’m not as ballistics expert Mikey... but I’d venture to say an 8 year veteran, now a sergeant of the DPD is better qualified than I am...

Mr. HILL. Right. And Poe showed me a Winston cigarette package that contained three spent jackets from shells that he said a citizen had pointed out to him where the suspect had reloaded his gun and dropped these in the grass, and that the citizen had picked them up and put them in the Winston package.

Once again – there is nothing that states he simply assumed anything as you try to point out without an ounce of proof – whereas we now have Hill stating specifically he was shown the shells...

1:34pm 550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) *Channel 1 Message*

The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.

And what a surprise HW Summers was never called to testify

Mr. POE. There were two in an empty Winston cigarette package.

Mr. BALL. Did you save the Winston cigarette package?

Mr. POE. I turned it in with the two cartridges.

Mr. BALL. To the crime lab?

Mr. POE. Yes, sir.

Wonder where that third shell went.....

So you see David, once you apply a little common sense, and actually know what you are talking about things become far more clear. So I would have to give you some advice, based on the advise you gave me. I do my research, thats why is it so easy to debunk foolish theories like to ones you propose. Stop parroting someone elses work, your obviously not an idiot, stop being lazy, and do your own work. Things will become clear for you as well.

and you know better than what you post or at least you should. You haven’t “debunked” anything other than the fact you’re to be taken seriously.

You know full well the problems with the bullets “that were entered into evidence” don’t even match the ones pulled from Tippit’s body...

http://scribblguy.50megs.com/tippit.htm

On the very day of Officer Tippit's murder, Dallas homicide had made a summary of all the evidence it had in the case, a most important standard police procedure. Although a number of witnesses mentioned that they had seen cartridges strewn around after the shooting and the early recorded radio messages had described the murder weapon as an automatic because of the ejector marks on cartridges found at the scene, this summary did not include cartridges of any kind.

It was not until six days after it had sent the single bullet to the F.B.I. Iab in Washington that the Dallas homicide division finally added four cartridges allegedly found at the scene to the Tippit evidence summary. The cartridges were then sent off to Washington, and the Bureau lab promptly reported back that they indeed had been fired by the same revolver that Oswald allegedly purchased through the mail under the alias of A. Hidell.

The Dallas police force may have been relieved to hear this result, but to me the late appearance of the cartridges only focused more attention on the Dallas homicide unit's unconscionable manipulation of evidence. I knew that if the cartridges had actually been fired by Oswald before his arrest, they routinely would have been included in the summary of evidence and sent off to the F.B.I. Lab on the evening of the murder. But these cartridges were not sent until well *after* Dallas homicide had learned that the lab could not find positive markings from Oswald's gun on the single bullet. (This evaluation would have come from the Washington lab to the Dallas Bureau office by telex within 24 hours.)

It seemed clear to me what had happened. Having failed to get a positive identification with Oswald's revolver from the bullet, Dallas homicide was not about to send off cartridges with an automatic hand gun's ejector marks on them, even if these were the actual cartridges found at the scene. Instead, someone in the homicide division or cooperating with it had fired the confiscated revolver *after* Oswald's arrest, thereby obtaining the needed cartridges bearing its imprint. Then those cartridges were sent to Washington.

However, competence was not the Dallas homicide unit's strong suit, even in fabricating evidence. The F.B.I. Lab found that *two* of the cartridge cases had been manufactured by Western and *two* by Remington. Since the lab had already concluded that *three* of the bullets found in Tippit's body were copper-coated Westerns and *one* was a lead Remington, these numbers simply did not add up.

Worse yet, at the Warren Commission hearings it became embarrassingly apparent that the used cartridges that the Dallas homicide team had sent to the F.B.I. Lab were not the cartridges actually found at the scene of Tippit's murder. One witness, Domingo Benavides, found two used cartridge shells not far from the shooting and handed them to Officer J.M. Poe. Dallas Police Sergeant Gerald Hill instructed Poe to mark them i.e., to scratch his initials on them in order to maintain the chain of evidence. This is standard operating procedure for all homicide officers everywhere.

Poe informed the Warren Commission that he believed he had marked them, but he could not swear to it. At the Commission hearing Poe examined four cartridges that were shown to him but was unable to identify his marks on them. Sergeant W.E. Barnes informed the Commission that he had received two cartridges from Officer Poe back at police headquarters and had added his own initials to them. However, he too was unable to positively identify the two shells.

I can go thru the exercise of providing proof for all these statements but you’re simply not worth the time. And from what I’ve read on so many other threads on this site... I am not alone in these feelings...

Good bye and good luck Mikey....

[John Dolva]

Has anyone ever read or heard of Brennan as being named Branum?

What was Brennans WWII record?

What was his occupation?

[Mike Williams]

QUOTE (David Josephs @ Jun 7 2010, 02:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. No one saw him do it

Even Fritz is obviously disappointed when he says that they cannot place him (Oswald) in the window with a rifle at the time of the shots while the one witness, Brennan, in his book "Eyewitness to History" says:

I said brusquely, “He looks like the man, but I can’t say for sure!” I needed some time to think. I turned to Mr. Lish, who had detected my resentment and said, “Let’s go back to the office. We have some talking to do.” As we went, I commented that the man in the lineup wasn’t dressed the same way the man in the window had been.

Brennan was the one and only witness putting Oswald in that window and he refused to ID him... for a variety of reasons... but this left the DPD with no one to ID Oswald.

As I wrote... "No one saw him (LHO) do it" Unless you have something to add to the thread other that insulting attacks

Interesting how you put that "for a variety of reasons" I wonder if his reasons included the fact he felt betrayed by the DPD, or possibly was in fear? How about this from Brennan's own book:

"The officer walked over to me sticking out his hand to shake. He greeted me by name and I knew if he knew who I was and what my connection with the case was, then others must know. He asked me, “Does the second man from the left look most like the man you saw?” He was talking about Oswald and I knew what he wanted me to say.

I felt even more angry and betrayed. I hadn’t agreed to make an identification to the local authorities. I knew that there were ways my identity could become known though the leaks in the police department and I didn’t want any part of it. I knew that they had Oswald on enough charges that he wasn’t going anyplace. He had been charged with resisting arrest and carrying a firearm without a permit. There was overwhelming evidence that he had killed Officer Tippit and so my identification in that moment wasn’t absolutely necessary. If they needed me later, I knew I could identify him."

I knew I could identify him, if they needed me later! Sounds like Brennan saw Oswald in that window. Now I wonder why you did not elaborate on "for a variety of reasons"

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0085a.htm

Page 145/146 of the WCR – “Although the record indicates that Brennan was an accurate observer, he declined to make a positive ID of Oswald when he first saw him in the police line-up. The Commission, therefore, does NOT base its conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin on Brennan’s subsequent identification of LHO as the man he saw fire a rifle.”

While the Report admits that Brennan believes he saw someone who looked like Oswald, according to him, the only thing that can be taken as evidence is a witnesses’ positive or negative identification. Well what do you know... the DPD records HAS such a document!! {image already provided}

And instead of firing back with Fischer and Edwards – who also used the term “could” have been LHO, never positively identified Oswald. Or Euins who actually saw a black man at the window and was scared into changing his story – kind of like Dr. Perry, someone considerably less shaken than a 15 year old kid, who was hounded into changing what he KNEW to be a frontal entrance into a maybe....

Proof Mikey... Evidence.... Brennan’s words are all hearsay. He didn’t ID Oswald as the shooter

#1 proven – No one saw him (LHO) do it

QUOTE

2. He was seen elsewhere just before and just after.. with a woman who told a researcher she was giving him change when the shots were fired.

Do we really need to do the Oswald timeline again? He's seen as late as 12:15-12:20 on the first floor - and please try to remember if he was the lone assassin he has no way of knowing EXACTLY when the limo is passing... based on what the public knew JFK would pass by anytime between 11:55 and 12:25 (luncheon had public start times of both 12 and 12:30). Add to this that Williams is eating his lunch, at a 6th floor window until 12:15 or so. And then again LHO is seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom at 12:31 - maybe... the Baker/Truly/Oswald rememberance of this event is still very much at odds with each other.

I wish I could find the person who posted the comment about a woman coming forward claiming to have been giving Oswald change for the Coke machine on his trip from the 1st floor to the 2nd, before he buys the coke. Maybe someone can come to my aid while I continue to look for it.... Bottom line? Oswald was not on the 6th floor when witnesses saw numerous men with rifles moving about on that floor.

Mrs Reid definitely places a coke in his hand as he walks thru her office out towards the front, after the "Baker" encounter.

So where was he DURING the assassination. You readily admit you have him located just before, and just after. Rowland does in fact see a dark complected man in the window at about 12:15, as I recall. He also sees a gunman, which rather fits Oswald's description, but he never sees the both at the same time. So you have Oswald accounted for till say 12:20, and then again at 12:31. This does not rule him out at all.

As far as someone telling a researcher something, come on, you don’t really believe hearsay like that is going to fly do you? I am not a CT. I don’t bite that easily.

Yes Mikey... If someone is seen on the 1st/2nd floor at 12:15-12:20 and possibly even 12:25 and then again at 12:31 in the exact same area... it is reasonable to conclude he never went anywhere, NOT that he ran up 5 flights of steps, assembled a rifle, built a boxed-in sniper’s lair, fired and hit 2 of three shots while MANY witnesses: civilian, DPD, SS testify to a shot coming from the right front of the limo; lay the rifle down, make a clip and paper bag disappear until needed, run down 5 flights of steps, get change for a coke, buy the coke and casually walk into a gun pointed at his stomach. All in 6-12 minutes. I can see where you’d think this scenario does not rule him out...

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC482g/Spring1999/ExternalComm.html

Then, there is the mishandling of the Carolyn Arnold statements. Taken together, the two support her later claims that she saw LHO on the first floor at 12:25; making it unlikely that he went up five flights of stairs and ran over to the window to shoot JFK. In her hand written statement she told the FBI she saw LHO "at about 12:25 PM" (Weisberg Post Mortem, p. 333 citing Commission Document 706(d)). The FBI retyped her statement to read that she LHO "a few minutes before 12:15 PM" (Roffman, p. 185, citing CD 5:4l). On page 276 Roffman notes the dishonestly of the Warren Report which claimed "that it knew of no Book Depository employee who claimed to have seen Oswald between 11:55 and 12:30 on the day of the assassination."

British journalist and author Anthony Summers provides the following summary of his 1978 interview with Mrs. Arnold:

When I found Mrs. Arnold in 1978 to get a firsthand account, she was surprised to hear how she had been reported by the FBI. Her spontaneous reaction, that she had been misquoted, came before I explained to her the importance of Oswald's whereabouts at given moments. Mrs. Arnold's recollection of what she really observed was clear--spotting Oswald was after all her one personal contribution to the record of that memorable day. As secretary to the company vice- president she knew Oswald; he had been in the habit of coming to her for change. What Mrs. Arnold says she actually told the FBI is very different from the report of her comments and not vague at all. She said: "About a quarter of an hour before the assassination [12:15], I went into the lunchroom on the second floor for a moment. . . . Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right-hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly." Mrs. Arnold has reason to remember going into the lunchroom. She was pregnant at the time and had a craving for a glass of water.

Carolyn Arnold sees Oswald eating lunch on the second floor lunchroom. ”Oswald was sitting in one of the booth seats on the right hand side of the room as you go in. He was alone as usual and appeared to be having lunch. I did not speak to him but I recognized him clearly.”

ref. Crossfire, p 49; Conspiracy - Who Killed Kennedy?, p 108

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/hasty.htm

A few minutes later, Bill Shelley and Charles Givens saw Oswald on the first floor, at around 11:50. Then, ten minutes later, Eddie Piper also saw Oswald on the first floor. Moreover, as mentioned, Williams began eating his lunch on the sixth floor at right around noon and didn't leave the floor until around 12:15 or 12:20. Since Oswald was seen by Piper on the first floor at noon, and since Williams was on the sixth floor at noon to eat his lunch, the only time Oswald could have gone up to the sniper's nest was after Williams came back downstairs at 12:15 or 12:20. The motorcade was scheduled to pass in front of the TSBD at 12:25. As it turned out, the motorcade was running five minutes late, but Oswald could not have known that. Arriving at the sniper's window at 12:16 at the earliest, Oswald would have been hard-pressed to build (or finish building) the sniper's nest, arrange the boxes next to the window as a gun rest, and then reassemble the rifle. One witness, Arnold Rowland, insisted he saw a man with a rifle--an assembled rifle--on the sixth floor at 12:15 or 12:16, and Rowland said nothing about seeing any boxes being moved in the sniper's nest.

Mr. BALL. Was that the last time you saw him?

Mr. PIPER. Just at 12 o’clock.

Mr. BALL. Where were you at 12 o’clock?

Mr. PIPER. Down on the first floor.

Mr. BALL. What was he doing?

Mr. PIPER. Well, I said to him-“It’s about

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp7.html

Jarman and Norman appeared together on the first floor again, about ten minutes after stepping outside. Because the crowds in front of the Depository were so large, the two men went up to the fifth floor at 12:20 or 12:25. To do this, they walked around to the back of the building, entering on the first floor through the rear door and taking the elevator up five stories (3H202).

Obviously, Oswald could not have told the police that "Junior" and a short Negro employee were together on the first floor unless he had seen this himself.[3] For Oswald to have witnessed Jarman and Norman in this manner, he had to have been on the first floor between either 12:10 and 12:15 or 12:20 and 12:25. The fact that Oswald was able to relate this incident is cogent evidence that he was in fact on the first floor at one or both of these times. If he was on the sixth floor, as the Commission believes, then it was indeed a remarkable coincidence that out of all the employees, Oswald picked the two who were on the first floor at the time he said, and together as he described. Since this is a remote possibility that warrants little serious consideration, I am persuaded to conclude that Oswald was on the first floor at some time between 12:10 and 12:25, which is consistent with the previously cited testimony of Eddie Piper.[4]

Now, let us revisit the statements made by Bonnie Ray Williams. First of all, when the WC asked Williams about his FBI statement, he denied telling the FBI that he left the sixth floor at 12:05 (4:103). And, when the Commission asked Williams to give an approximate time for his departure from the sixth floor, he said he left at around 12:20 (4:103). Former WC member Gerald Ford said Williams left the sixth floor "just minutes before the Presidential motorcade reached the corner of Houston and Elm"

Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was.

Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.

Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.

And the testimony of Mrs. Reid

Mr. BELIN. Now, Mrs. Reid, you left lunch about what time?

Mrs. REID. Well, I left, I ate my lunch hurriedly, I wasn't watching the time but I wanted to be sure of getting out on the streets in time for the parade before he got there, and I called my husband, who works at the records building, and they had a radio in their office and they were listening as the parade progressed and he told me they were running about 10 minutes late.

But I went down rather soon and stood on the steps.

Mr. DULLES. Where was your husband working?

Mrs. REID. He works for the records building.

Mr. BELIN. Where is that located?

Mrs. REID. Well, it is off the left-hand side, kind of cater-cornered across from our building.

Mr. BELIN. The records building has one side of it on Elm Street running from Houston to Record Street?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. And I believe it is on, it would run on, the south side of Elm?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. Is that correct?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. All right. Do you know about what time it was that you left the lunchroom, was it 12, 12:15?

Mrs. REID. I think around 12:30 somewhere along in there.

Mr. BELIN. All right. When you left the lunchroom, did you leave with the other girls?

Mrs. REID. No; I didn't. The younger girls had gone and I left alone.

Mr. BELIN. Were you the last person in the lunchroom?

Mrs. REID. No; I could not say that because I don't remember that part of it because I was going out of the building by myself, I wasn't even, you know, connected with anyone at all.

Mr. BELIN. Were there any men in the lunchroom when you left there?

Mrs. REID. I can't, I don't, remember that.

Mr. BELIN. All right. You went up through the stairs and then what did you do?

Mrs. REID. I went into the office.

Mr. BELIN. You went into your office?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do?

Mrs. REID. Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn't hit him."

He mumbled something to me, I kept walking, he did, too. I didn't pay any attention to what he said because I had no thoughts of anything of him having any connection with it at all because he was very calm. He had gotten a coke and was holding it in his hands and I guess the reason it impressed me seeing him in there I thought it was a little strange that one of -the warehouse boys would be up in the office at the time, not that he had done anything wrong. The only time I had seen him in the office was to come and get change and he already had his coke in his hand so he didn't come for change and I dismissed him. I didn't think anything else.

How does Oswald know that Williams is eating his lunch not 15 feet from the corner from 12- 12:15 so he cannot go up... and finally have you read Jack Dougherty’s testimony? http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/doughert.htm you might find it interesting.

#2 Proven – he was elsewhere immediately before and after the shots were fired, no one saw him go up to the floors that were occupied until 12:20 by Williams or even later by Dougherty... and no on e saw him come down.

If you can prove, with evidence, that Fritz was wrong when he said they could not put that man in the window at the time of the shots... please do. Please don’t just argue and offer nothing in support.

QUOTE

3. He didn't fire a rifle that day

Google the parafin tests please... 2 positives on his hands and a negative on his cheek... the hands can lead to many different interpretations, the most damaging that he fired a pistol yet the results should have been positive on the shooting hand and negative on the other unless he was incontact with substances that could cause both positives - which he was during his normal day at work.

Nothing on his cheek is the most telling as to why he didn't fire a rifle that day... the fact that nobody fired THAT rifle THAT day is a whole other story...

Paraffin eh? Your kidding me right? You do of course know of the unreliability of this test. Let me refresh for you by asking you to read what Cunningham had to say in WCH3p487.

"And 17 men were involved in this test. Each man fired five shots from a .38 caliber revolver. Both the firing hand and the hand that was not involved in the firing were treated with paraffin casts, and then those casts treated with diphenylamine. A total of eight men showed negative or essentially negative results on both hands. A total of three men showed positive results on the idle hand, but negative on the firing hand. Two men showed positive results on their firing hand and negative results on their idle hands. And four men showed positive on both hands, after having fired only with their right hands."

And then Further:

CUNNINGHAM:

Yes.

We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts.

EISENBERG:

So to recapitulate, after firing the rifle rapid-fire no residues of any nitrate were picked off Mr. Killion's cheek?

CUNNINGHAM:

That is correct, and there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber—in other words, so he wouldn’t pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.

Cunningham had explained earlier why a false negative could arise with the rifle (3H492):

EISENBERG:

A paraffin test was also run of Oswald's cheek and it produced a negative result.

CUNNINGHAM:

Yes.

EISENBERG:

Do your tests, or do the tests which you ran, or your experience with revolvers and rifles, cast any light on the significance of a negative result being obtained on the right cheek?

CUNNINGHAM:

No, sir; I personally wouldn’t expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter.

I find it interesting that you would try to use something that is inconclusive, as an indication of exoneration. Note I said interesting, not surprising.

And Mikey... It’s interesting you simply stop with the above and not look into the more complete examination of the paraffin casts which show higher levels on the palms of his hands as opposed to the back of his hands where the residue would be left if he ONLY fired a gun or rifle as opposed to interacting with all the elements found in the TSBD... same story with the cheeks.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/gallagher.htm

Mr. REDLICH. Getting back to the hand casts, did you use the outside surface of the hand casts as a control surface?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes; I did, sir.

Mr. REDLICH. Could you tell us how the inside or the outside surface of the hand cast compared with regard to the elements barium and antimony?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Much more barium and antimony were found on the inside of the hand casts than were found on the control specimens taken from the outside of the hand casts of the subject.

Mr. REDLICH. All right. Now let us turn to the cheek casts, Mr. Gallagher. Could you tell us the results of your examination of the cheek casts with reference to the presence of the elements barium and antimony?

Mr. GALLAGHER. Barium and antimony were found on the cheek casts. However, when the cheek cast was analyzed, both surfaces of the cheek cast were studied. That is, the surface adjacent to the skin of the subject and the surface away from the skin of the subject, or the outside surface of the cast.

Mr. REDLICH. For our record, let us call the surface adjacent to the skin the inside surface, and the other surface the outside surface.

Mr. GALLAGHER. The outside surface of this cast was found to contain--barium and antimony--actually more barium was found on the outside surface of the cast than on the inside surface.

Mr. REDLICH. And as far as antimony is concerned, was there more on the outside than on the inside ?

Mr. GALLAGHER. There was slightly less antimony on the outside of the cast than on the inside of the cast.

Mr. REDLICH. Do you have any explanation for the presence of barium and antimony on the outside of the cast, and as part of the same question, do you have any explanation for their being more barium on the outside than the inside ?

Mr. GALLAGHER. I have no explanation for this difference.

And please try to remember that there was not a single fingerprint found on the rifle, nor were there the multiple fingerprints one would expect to find on all the boxes around the SL. Either he was practicing with the rifle and left prints or he never touched the rifle to begin with... there was nothing done to determine whether the rifle was fired that day...

And if he did indeed clean and oil the rifle – you of all people should know that looking down the barrel or smelling the barrel would indicate whether it was fired recently.

QUOTE

4. The rifle was the worst POS imaginable for a number of reasons

Really Mike? If I remember correctly you are knowledgeable about weapons yes? You think a 20+ year old rifle, with 20+ year old ammo, a rickety scope, a badly damaged firing pin and a partially filled "non existent" clip shooting a round with a bent hull was a RELIABLE weapon, was not a POS that repeatedly jammed, was hard to shoot by experts and appeared as if it hadn't been fired or oiled in who knows how long?

Really?

Yes I have read these claims before. Pure rubbish, and spewed by people who have no idea what they are talking about in regard to firearms. To answer your question, yes, I do think a 20 year old firearm with a partially loaded clip (which is irrelevant) could have done the deed.

Now I don’t know exactly what you mean by "non-existent" clip. There is documented proof the clip was in the TSBD.

so why not photograph it with ALL the other stuff found up there... like the paper bag in the location it was found – NOT. There were no photos of the clip because there was no clip to photograph.

I also assume in talking about the firing pin, you are referring to it showing signs of much use? Imagine that a war rifle showing signs of use. I also suppose you are going to quote that they were afraid to dry fire it because they feared breaking the firing pin.

I hear this often, and it is comical. You are aware of the fact that you never dry fire a weapon with this type of pin design aren't you? The reason is, that even if the pin is BRAND NEW, you run the risk of breaking it. They were not afraid to dry fire it because it was defective, they were afraid to because that is standard firearms knowledge. Its also the reason these were made to allow gunsmiths, like myself, to test fire weapons and have a striking surface for the pin:

Now a word about the scope. You do realize that it was in very good firing order on 11/27/63 when the FBI tested it? In fact they fired six rounds that made a keyhole in the target!:

Of course these rounds were fired at 15 yards. Someone with no knowledge would jump all over that, but what they fail to realize is this is a strong indication that the scope was in fact zeroed in at 400 yards. More about this to come.

Yet another completely useless comment by you Mikey...

The FBI tests of the Carcano's accuracy showed:

1) FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier testified that "It is a very accurate weapon. The targets we fired show that."[59] From 15 yards (14 m), all three bullets in a test firing landed approximately 2 1/2 inches high, and 1-inch (25 mm) to the right, in the area about the size of a dime.[60] At 100 yards (91 m), the test shots landed 2 1/2 to 5 inches (130 mm) high, within a 3 to 5-inch (130 mm) circle. Frazier testified that the scope's high variation would actually work in the shooter's favor: with a target moving away from the shooter, no "lead" correction would have been necessary to follow the target. "At that range, at that distance, 175 feet (53 m) to 265 feet (81 m),[61] with this rifle and that telescopic sight, I would not have allowed any lead — I would not have made any correction for lead merely to hit a target of that size."

{so either LHO knows the scope is off - there is no evidence for this at all - and proceeds not to correct it for his killing of the president, OR he does not know its off and would us a lead. If you fired a rifle that was off 2.5-5” would you leave it that way? If you didn’t know it was off would you fire it as if it was... Mr. gunsmith??}

2) The rifle was unable to be "sighted-in", using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims (small metal plates) which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, and were never found.[62]

{what do you have for this Mikey?}

Frazier testified that there was "a rather severe scrape" on the scope tube, and that the sight could have been bent or damaged. He was unable to determine when the defect occurred before the FBI received the rifle and scope on November 27, 1963.

59. ^ Warren Commission Hearings, Testimony of Robert A. Frazier.

60. ^ Warren Commission Exhibit CE-549.

61. ^ The Warren Commission estimated that President Kennedy was 176.9 feet (53.9 m) to 190.8 feet (58.2 m) from the sixth floor corner window of the Depository when he was shot in the neck, and 265.3 feet (80.9 m) when he was shot in the head.

62. ^ Warren Commission Hearings: 3 WCH 440-5.

As for the ridiculousness of the dented shell. Of course it could not have been fired dented, but it sure could have been dented after. Its called a short cycle. I have done it many times, and have seen it done by others. It is simply, not pulling the bolt far enough back to eject the shell, then when you run the bolt forward it hits the chamber lip.

So this would have to have been the LAST shot fired since what you describe would not have ejected the shell the first time – the shooter double works the bolt AFTER he sees JFK’s head blow up, and then leaves a live round in the rifle. If the Clip was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD why wasn’t it by the window and other shells since chambering the last round ejects the clip? Why wasn’t it photographed? Who shoved it back into the weapon and why would anyone do that?

Try answering a few questions instead of asking for once...

QUOTE

4. His .38 did not fire automatic rounds - he did not kill Tippit either

1:34 221 (Ptm. H.W. Summers) *Channel 1 Message*

Might can give you some additional information. I got an eye-ball witness to the get-away man. That suspect in this shooting is a white male, twenty-seven, five feet eleven, a hundred sixty-five, black wavy hair, fair complected, wearing a light grey Eisenhower-type jacket, dark trousers and a white shirt, and (. . . ?). Last seen running on the north side of the street from Patton, on Jefferson, on East Jefferson. And he was apparently armed with a 32 dark-finish automatic pistol which he had in his right hand.

1:34pm 550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) *Channel 1 Message*

The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.

What you would fail to realize is that in the day pistols were automatics, and revolvers were well revolvers. Another epic case of someone not knowing what they are talking about. People who murder with revolvers generally don’t hang around long enough to eject the shells. It is perfectly logical for the officer to assume they were autos, just because they were laying around on the ground. There is no indication that he picked them up and examined them before making the statement. I dare say, can you find the auto and the special in this illustration?

I’m not as ballistics expert Mikey... but I’d venture to say an 8 year veteran, now a sergeant of the DPD is better qualified than I am...

Mr. HILL. Right. And Poe showed me a Winston cigarette package that contained three spent jackets from shells that he said a citizen had pointed out to him where the suspect had reloaded his gun and dropped these in the grass, and that the citizen had picked them up and put them in the Winston package.

Once again – there is nothing that states he simply assumed anything as you try to point out without an ounce of proof – whereas we now have Hill stating specifically he was shown the shells...

1:34pm 550/2 (Sgt. G.L. Hill) *Channel 1 Message*

The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic 38, rather than a pistol.

And what a surprise HW Summers was never called to testify

Mr. POE. There were two in an empty Winston cigarette package.

Mr. BALL. Did you save the Winston cigarette package?

Mr. POE. I turned it in with the two cartridges.

Mr. BALL. To the crime lab?

Mr. POE. Yes, sir.

Wonder where that third shell went.....

So you see David, once you apply a little common sense, and actually know what you are talking about things become far more clear. So I would have to give you some advice, based on the advise you gave me. I do my research, thats why is it so easy to debunk foolish theories like to ones you propose. Stop parroting someone elses work, your obviously not an idiot, stop being lazy, and do your own work. Things will become clear for you as well.

and you know better than what you post or at least you should. You haven’t “debunked” anything other than the fact you’re to be taken seriously.

You know full well the problems with the bullets “that were entered into evidence” don’t even match the ones pulled from Tippit’s body...

http://scribblguy.50megs.com/tippit.htm

On the very day of Officer Tippit's murder, Dallas homicide had made a summary of all the evidence it had in the case, a most important standard police procedure. Although a number of witnesses mentioned that they had seen cartridges strewn around after the shooting and the early recorded radio messages had described the murder weapon as an automatic because of the ejector marks on cartridges found at the scene, this summary did not include cartridges of any kind.

It was not until six days after it had sent the single bullet to the F.B.I. Iab in Washington that the Dallas homicide division finally added four cartridges allegedly found at the scene to the Tippit evidence summary. The cartridges were then sent off to Washington, and the Bureau lab promptly reported back that they indeed had been fired by the same revolver that Oswald allegedly purchased through the mail under the alias of A. Hidell.

The Dallas police force may have been relieved to hear this result, but to me the late appearance of the cartridges only focused more attention on the Dallas homicide unit's unconscionable manipulation of evidence. I knew that if the cartridges had actually been fired by Oswald before his arrest, they routinely would have been included in the summary of evidence and sent off to the F.B.I. Lab on the evening of the murder. But these cartridges were not sent until well *after* Dallas homicide had learned that the lab could not find positive markings from Oswald's gun on the single bullet. (This evaluation would have come from the Washington lab to the Dallas Bureau office by telex within 24 hours.)

It seemed clear to me what had happened. Having failed to get a positive identification with Oswald's revolver from the bullet, Dallas homicide was not about to send off cartridges with an automatic hand gun's ejector marks on them, even if these were the actual cartridges found at the scene. Instead, someone in the homicide division or cooperating with it had fired the confiscated revolver *after* Oswald's arrest, thereby obtaining the needed cartridges bearing its imprint. Then those cartridges were sent to Washington.

However, competence was not the Dallas homicide unit's strong suit, even in fabricating evidence. The F.B.I. Lab found that *two* of the cartridge cases had been manufactured by Western and *two* by Remington. Since the lab had already concluded that *three* of the bullets found in Tippit's body were copper-coated Westerns and *one* was a lead Remington, these numbers simply did not add up.

Worse yet, at the Warren Commission hearings it became embarrassingly apparent that the used cartridges that the Dallas homicide team had sent to the F.B.I. Lab were not the cartridges actually found at the scene of Tippit's murder. One witness, Domingo Benavides, found two used cartridge shells not far from the shooting and handed them to Officer J.M. Poe. Dallas Police Sergeant Gerald Hill instructed Poe to mark them i.e., to scratch his initials on them in order to maintain the chain of evidence. This is standard operating procedure for all homicide officers everywhere.

Poe informed the Warren Commission that he believed he had marked them, but he could not swear to it. At the Commission hearing Poe examined four cartridges that were shown to him but was unable to identify his marks on them. Sergeant W.E. Barnes informed the Commission that he had received two cartridges from Officer Poe back at police headquarters and had added his own initials to them. However, he too was unable to positively identify the two shells.

I can go thru the exercise of providing proof for all these statements but you’re simply not worth the time. And from what I’ve read on so many other threads on this site... I am not alone in these feelings...

Good bye and good luck Mikey....

I expected you to scamper off. I would to if I were in your position. Brennan clearly ID's Oswald in his book. Mishandling of statements, planted evidence forged material, you guys never cease to amaze me with your bluster, but when the chips are down you fold, just like you happened to just do.

Your dismissed.

[Bernice Moore]

http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/the_critics/sauvage/WC_Case/WC_case_against_Oswald.html

b