CIA Chief Says Oswald Was Soviet Agent

[Greg Doudna]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Greg--

Ok, I have now read through Speer's chapter 4.

Excellent work by Speer. 

Speer makes a solid case that anyone shooting a Mannlicher-Carcano should have telltale residue (chemical or metallic traces) on their cheek afterwards, for at least several hours.

There is the problem of washing the face. It seems unlikely Oswald washed his face, but then there are times his whereabouts are unknown, after the shooting. Though unlikely, Oswald might have washed his face with a garden hose, or inside the Texas Theater before taking a seat. There is some confusion about Oswald going upstairs or not at the theater. I wonder where the bathrooms are. 

Possibly Oswald even washed his face at his rooming house, through not mentioned by the landlady. But if he made a quick jag to the bathroom before or after entering his room, would she have noticed? As I recall, she was watching TV or reading a book. 

Also, are we certain Oswald was never even allowed a bathroom break while being detained? The DPD has been lambasted for poor police procedures. 

It is little surprising that something such as which way the breeze is blowing can affect cheek-test result. Sure, the breeze was blowing towards Oswald, which should enhance the amount of traces left on Oswald's cheek. But, we all know breezes can swirl.  

Lastly, the casts of Oswald's cheek, which admittedly were negative, were done many hours after the event. The longer one waits, the higher the chances for a false negative.

All in all, I think the negative result of the cheek test in Oswalds case is suggestive, but not conclusive. And yes, the FBI and the WC lied their teeth out about the whole matter, and they framed Oswald in many other ways. I am amazed they didn't just rig the cheek test too--ala CE 399.   

I am being a bit whimsical when I say Oswald might have used saran-wrap on his face before shooting. Since I contend LOH was part of a false-flag but phony assassination attempt, there would be no need for that. But maybe he planned on a little insurance in case he was caught. 

 

You are probably right that the 8 hours delay in taking the paraffin cast of Oswald is just enough that, if someone believes on other grounds that it is airtight that Oswald was the shooter of JFK, the NAA on the cheek paraffin cast could be considered uncertain as opposed to exculpatory. Maybe more accurately put would be that the NAA on the cheek cast is "strong" stand-alone indication that Oswald did not fire that rifle that day, slightly less than "decisive". 

Oswald was reported by Earlene Roberts to have rushed in and out of his rooming house in Oak Cliff in a hurry without a bathroom stop to wash up. Following his arrest, at the Dallas Police Station, on Saturday Oswald told reporters police were denying his human rights to a shower. Police Chief Curry in response to reporters' questions about this did not say "he did take a shower!" but rather, "if he wants to take a shower, he can". That says Oswald had not had a shower. The nitrates found on his hands do not establish that he fired a pistol but do argue against Oswald having washed his hands thoroughly prior to the paraffin test. This leaves only the 8 hour time delay itself as the basis for impeaching what otherwise would be an exculpatory finding that Oswald did not fire the Carcano.

I see from a Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety website that "after four to eight hours it is unlikely that residues will be found on a live and mobile individual's hands ... the residue can persist for longer periods of time on some areas of interest such as on the deceased, on clothing or other stationary objects". A Los Angeles Forensic Toxicology Expert Witness website (for defense attorneys defending accused clients) says "residue collected after more than six hours of the gun being fired could be considered unreliable", citing handwashing removing nitrates from the hands. A Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab site says, "As time passes after discharge, GSR [gunshot residue] particles can be removed from the hands by contact with other objects or by hand washing. After 6-8 hours, analysts would not expect to detect GSR on an active person." But of course Oswald did have GSR on his hands 8 hours later. As Pat Speer points out, why should Oswald's cheek not have GSR, if his hands did, at the time that paraffin test was done, if there had been gunshot residue from firing a rifle on his cheek? (For, contrary to expert opinion testimony set forth in the Warren Report not based on any test data, Vincent Guinn actually tested rifles like the TSBD Carcano, and gunshot residue was found on the cheeks of the shooters of those rifles in 8 out of 8 such tests.) The chief concern with the time delay of paraffin testing of hands in all of the sources that I have seen is the GSR coming off by either handwashing or by the hands rubbing the GSR off against other things. I could find no published data or studies on how long GSR remains on cheeks but simply reasoning logically: unless the face is washed thoroughly, there would be less occasion for GSR to be lost from the face compared to hands since face skin comes in less contact with things than do hands. And Oswald's hands did have GSR at 8 hours. Therefore the absence of GSR as expected from a shooter of a Mannlicher-Carcano from the Oswald cheek paraffin cast taken at the same 8 hours, not only from the finding of the less-reliable chemical test done that evening but more importantly and separately the finding of the highly accurate NAA analysis done later under high secrecy, appears much stronger in weight toward exculpation than the Warren Commission wished for the public to realize. It seems likely that if the NAA aspect of that paraffin cheek test had been brought out in court properly in a hypothetical trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, that unless the prosecutors showed the jury an absolutely airtight case against Oswald on other grounds, a jury would consider the NAA paraffin cheek analysis more than sufficient to establish "reasonable doubt" that Oswald fired the Carcano that day.

And as Pat Speer brings out, the way the NAA followup testing of the paraffin casts was done and reported just smells to high heaven. It was essential, if the Oswald-alone case was to be presented in a tight, neat package, to dispense with the paraffin test analysis which failed to find gunshot residue on Oswald's cheek as a rifle of the kind of the Carcano did leave when fired. The way not just the chemical test, but the NAA analysis, was dispensed with was not by claiming the 8 hour time delay made the test unreliable, but rather by claiming the cheek paraffin cast had been contaminated and therefore was useless for delivering useful information. As Pat Speer brings out, that was a sidestep. That there was some kind of contamination of the outer side of that cast does not detract from the essential point that the inside surface in contact with Oswald's cheek did not show evidence that he had fired the Carcano, that would be expected if he had fired it. 

And most stunning of all to me was this: the NAA data of that paraffin cheek test not only was not published in the Warren Report but it was considered classified and secret, forbidden to be seen by the public. Harold Weisburg and Jim Lesar filed Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against the FBI and Atomic Energy Commission to get the test results of the NAA paraffin cast analyses. The Justice Department opposed this in court, saying in 1970 that "the Attorney General of the United States [John MItchell] has determined that it is not in the national interest" to disclose those NAA test results.

How could disclosing scientific test results obtained through a method with state-of-the-art accuracy (NAA), of the paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek, "not [be] in the national interest"?

It sounds as if the reasoning was: if this data were to become public, it might call into question whether Oswald shot at Kennedy that day. That was not in "the national interest". 

It is a sad day when pursuit of truth, of establishing true innocence or guilt of an accused person in the eyes of history, becomes regarded by state authority as "not in the national interest".

The sniper's nest, the linkage of the Carcano to Oswald, and Oswald's actions that day do call for explanation. It is also the case that all of the TSBD employees were questioned and not one reported seeing anyone unusual or who did not belong in the building that day, increasing the focus on Oswald who was in the building as connected to the extraordinary events involving the TSBD that day. But in light of the NAA analysis of the Oswald cheek paraffin cast, it might be asked whether (a) some form of a false flag or phony assassination attempt--so in keeping with known "Northwoods" Joint Chiefs' intentions both before and after the assassination--is correct, as you suggest, but also (b) no one fired a rifle from the 6th floor window, or from the TSBD, at all that day.  

[Benjamin Cole]

59 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

You are probably right that the 8 hours delay in taking the paraffin cast of Oswald is just enough that, if someone believes on other grounds that it is airtight that Oswald was the shooter of JFK, the NAA on the cheek paraffin cast could be considered uncertain as opposed to exculpatory. Maybe more accurately put would be that the NAA on the cheek cast is "strong" stand-alone indication that Oswald did not fire that rifle that day, slightly less than "decisive". 

Oswald was reported by Earlene Roberts to have rushed in and out of his rooming house in Oak Cliff in a hurry without a bathroom stop to wash up. Following his arrest, at the Dallas Police Station, on Saturday Oswald told reporters police were denying his human rights to a shower. Police Chief Curry in response to reporters' questions about this did not say "he did take a shower!" but rather, "if he wants to take a shower, he can". That says Oswald had not had a shower. The nitrates found on his hands do not establish that he fired a pistol but do argue against Oswald having washed his hands thoroughly prior to the paraffin test. This leaves only the 8 hour time delay itself as the basis for impeaching what otherwise would be an exculpatory finding that Oswald did not fire the Carcano.

I see from a Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety website that "after four to eight hours it is unlikely that residues will be found on a live and mobile individual's hands ... the residue can persist for longer periods of time on some areas of interest such as on the deceased, on clothing or other stationary objects". A Los Angeles Forensic Toxicology Expert Witness website (for defense attorneys defending accused clients) says "residue collected after more than six hours of the gun being fired could be considered unreliable", citing handwashing removing nitrates from the hands. A Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab site says, "As time passes after discharge, GSR [gunshot residue] particles can be removed from the hands by contact with other objects or by hand washing. After 6-8 hours, analysts would not expect to detect GSR on an active person." But of course Oswald did have GSR on his hands 8 hours later. As Pat Speer points out, why should Oswald's cheek not have GSR, if his hands did, at the time that paraffin test was done, if there had been gunshot residue from firing a rifle on his cheek? (For, contrary to expert opinion testimony set forth in the Warren Report not based on any test data, Vincent Guinn actually tested rifles like the TSBD Carcano, and gunshot residue was found on the cheeks of the shooters of those rifles in 8 out of 8 such tests.) The chief concern with the time delay of paraffin testing of hands in all of the sources that I have seen is the GSR coming off by either handwashing or by the hands rubbing the GSR off against other things. I could find no published data or studies on how long GSR remains on cheeks but simply reasoning logically: unless the face is washed thoroughly, there would be less occasion for GSR to be lost from the face compared to hands since face skin comes in less contact with things than do hands. And Oswald's hands did have GSR at 8 hours. Therefore the absence of GSR as expected from a shooter of a Mannlicher-Carcano from the Oswald cheek paraffin cast taken at the same 8 hours, not only from the finding of the less-reliable chemical test done that evening but more importantly and separately the finding of the highly accurate NAA analysis done later under high secrecy, appears much stronger in weight toward exculpation than the Warren Commission wished for the public to realize. It seems likely that if the NAA aspect of that paraffin cheek test had been brought out in court properly in a hypothetical trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, that unless the prosecutors showed the jury an absolutely airtight case against Oswald on other grounds, a jury would consider the NAA paraffin cheek analysis more than sufficient to establish "reasonable doubt" that Oswald fired the Carcano that day.

And as Pat Speer brings out, the way the NAA followup testing of the paraffin casts was done and reported just smells to high heaven. It was essential, if the Oswald-alone case was to be presented in a tight, neat package, to dispense with the paraffin test analysis which failed to find gunshot residue on Oswald's cheek as a rifle of the kind of the Carcano did leave when fired. The way not just the chemical test, but the NAA analysis, was dispensed with was not by claiming the 8 hour time delay made the test unreliable, but rather by claiming the cheek paraffin cast had been contaminated and therefore was useless for delivering useful information. As Pat Speer brings out, that was a sidestep. That there was some kind of contamination of the outer side of that cast does not detract from the essential point that the inside surface in contact with Oswald's cheek did not show evidence that he had fired the Carcano, that would be expected if he had fired it. 

And most stunning of all to me was this: the NAA data of that paraffin cheek test not only was not published in the Warren Report but it was considered classified and secret, forbidden to be seen by the public. Harold Weisburg and Jim Lesar filed Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against the FBI and Atomic Energy Commission to get the test results of the NAA paraffin cast analyses. The Justice Department opposed this in court, saying in 1970 that "the Attorney General of the United States [John MItchell] has determined that it is not in the national interest" to disclose those NAA test results.

How could disclosing scientific test results obtained through a method with state-of-the-art accuracy (NAA), of the paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek, "not [be] in the national interest"?

It sounds as if the reasoning was: if this data were to become public, it might call into question whether Oswald shot at Kennedy that day. That was not in "the national interest". 

It is a sad day when pursuit of truth, of establishing true innocence or guilt of an accused person in the eyes of history, becomes regarded by state authority as "not in the national interest".

The sniper's nest, the linkage of the Carcano to Oswald, and Oswald's actions that day do call for explanation. It is also the case that all of the TSBD employees were questioned and not one reported seeing anyone unusual or who did not belong in the building that day, increasing the focus on Oswald who was in the building as connected to the extraordinary events involving the TSBD that day. But in light of the NAA analysis of the Oswald cheek paraffin cast, it might be asked whether (a) some form of a false flag or phony assassination attempt--so in keeping with known "Northwoods" Joint Chiefs' intentions both before and after the assassination--is correct, as you suggest, but also (b) no one fired a rifle from the 6th floor window, or from the TSBD, at all that day.  

Greg--

I do not believe LOH shot JFK. I think he took one or couple of wide misses, on purpose. The Tague shot, for example. 

Still, you and Speer raise excellent points---why no telltale traces on LOH's cheek? 

That is a weakness in my version of events, which I will post after a couple more edits. 

Nevertheless, there is a possible mix of explanations for LOH's "clean" cheek.

1. A false negative due to time delay. And it may be LOH only fired once, not three times. The Guinn tests followed WC gospel of three shots.  We do not take WC as gospel---except when we do? 

2. Perhaps Oswald did wash his face, maybe with a garden hose en route to the Texas Theater, maybe in the Texas Theater, or maybe even when taking a bathroom break at the DPD. He did not take a shower in DPD custody---but really, he never used the john either? Are you sure?

Earlene Roberts testimony is clear, as you say---but really, if LOH had ducked into the bathroom quietly, would she have noticed? She was never asked directly about this possibility 

3. It sounds whimsical, but LOH could have put saran wrap, or possibly a sheet of paper, on his cheek when firing. 

4. The circular sniper's nest may have created a swirl of air outwards, which blew out when LOH fired his one shot (not three shots). 

Any mix of the above explanations might result in a false negative. 

So why did Oswald's hands test positive, but not his face? Many answers for this one. Perhaps his  hands came into contact with (common) items that test positive, after the assassination. False positives, in other words.  Perhaps LOH really did shoot Tippit, many times, and with a revolver, and that left a strong "dose" on his hands.

I am open to the idea that LOH, realizing he had been framed, and thinking he had been done in by powerful figures, was in a desperate frame of mind when he met Tippit. The timelines do not add up, but maybe. 

Anyways, that is what I can think up today. 

 

 

 

 

[Richard Booth]

On 3/2/2021 at 4:51 AM, Ron Ecker said:

What I remember about Woolsey is with regard to the Oklahoma City Bombing, specifically his promoting the idea of Iraqi involvement. Evidence for this involvement was presented by Jayna Davis in her book The Third Terrorist, and I remember Woolsey endorsing the book in a TV interview and calling Davis a "hero" for writing it.

The last I heard (I never looked much into it) is that the evidence for an Iraqi connection in the bombing wasn't that convincing. About like the evidence for Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction" that gave us the invasion of Iraq.

 

 

Woolsey is a bit of a nut, a real crackpot. Look at the things he espouses: says JFK was assassinated by the KGB. Says that the OKC bombing was carried out by Saddam Hussein, in 2010 he supported a bizarre piece of legislation designed to "forbid Sharia law" from being utilized in court-rooms, as if we have a big problem with Muslim fundamentalist judges imposing unfair sentences in the court.

Less than a day after 9/11, before any evidence is in, he's blaming it on Iraq.

He supported the spy Jonathan Pollard (guilty of treason) meanwhile he simultaneously says that Edward Snowden is guilty of treason and should be hanged.

The guy is a crackpot...