Is there or is there not a Minox camera in this DPD evidence photo?

[Eddy Bainbridge]

On 4/11/2022 at 11:09 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Because an officer's identification is subject to human fallibility. But the photograph tells the story. The weights given to the conflicting claims of evidence are not equal, provided there is no issue of photo alteration, which in this case there isn't.

Its like why consider a tape recording of a conversation as definitive and a witness's testimony saying something different was said not? Because the weight given the conflict claims of evidence are not equal, provided there is no issue of alteration of the tape recording.

In the present case there is not one anomaly in the DPD police report, but two. One is why did the FBI lab say they could not find a Minox camera in the DPD evidence, when DPD's records said they sent one. But the other, which receives less attention, is: why did the FBI lab say they DID receive a Minox light meter (similar shape and appearance) from DPD, when DPD's records showed no light METER found or conveyed?

Two, not one, anomalies. And the FBI lab has a much stronger record of accuracy, compared to the Dallas Police Department, just in terms of error rates.

And--most of all--the very two items that the FBI lab reported disagreed with the DPD inventory lists--both of them--agree EXACTLY with the DPD's own evidence photo taken before that evidence was sent.

How about that for a coincidence! Some coincidence! The DPD's own evidence photograph, of which the FBI lab had no knowledge, says the FBI lab was right! 

Right there in the photograph: No Minox camera to be found. But a Minox light meter is there. Two out of two, independent of one another, in favor of the FBI and against the DPD.

All the debates over this, the DPD vs. FBI, he-says/she-says kind of argument, all the elaborate theories of Ruth Paine fabricating a camera among her many, many other alleged sins not one of which is proven any more than this one . . . all those debates overlooked the tie-breaker, the decider, the DPD evidence photograph which tells the story. They simply did not address the DPD evidence photograph. Simply did not address the DPD evidence photograph. The gold standard of evidence here.

It is a debate which can be settled, and need not go on for another fifty years.

The photograph says the FBI lab was right, not the DPD identification and evidence list which were mistaken. The photograph decides and settles the issue. All the Minox camera equipment, and the Minox camera itself which the Dallas police did not find that weekend, were Michael Paine's. Nothing Minox was Oswald's. There never was any Oswald Minox camera. 

Thank you for Replying Greg. I am unconvinced by your arguments. The photo appears cropped at the left and the bottom. We don't know the chain of custody of the photo. Why is there a Minox camera case in the photo? Is that not indicative Oswald had a camera. What is the thing above the camera case? Its roughly the right size, could be the back of a camera showing the marking added by the Officer. If you are to successfully impugn the officer stating he found a loaded camera, it would assist if you provide a possible explanation as to why the officer was dissembling.

[David G. Healy]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Anyone following this, note carefully: neither DiEugenio nor the Lisa Pease article address the DPD evidence photo. When asked in the conversation in the past to which he refers where is the Minox camera in that DPD evidence photo, DiEugenio became abusive and said he was refusing to talk to me further. That was his response to the question the last time I asked. But never mind the style issue, look at the substance: no addressing the Dallas Police Department evidence photo.

The Dallas Police Department Crime Lab's evidence photo of Rusty Livingston published in 1993, taken before that evidence was given to the FBI, tells what was there. To talk all that smoke and mirrors without addressing this central point and the central question of the title of this topic is just deflection and distraction.

Sorry James DiEugenio. You cannot address this issue without addressing the issue.

 

Now why would anyone want to give old Ruth the benefit of an ounce of breathing room here? According to you, I see Ruth put in a tough spot here. Now she's got to come up with a camera! And she knows it. And, with that result you wouldn't be jumping through hoops here... wallah -- she delivers. (but, back on topic)

I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that a person, or person(s) unknown, of the DPD, removed the camera for a **souvenir.**

Not to mention a little get back at the Washington boy's expense. --Ya took JFK's body away from our jurisdiction, okay, we'll yank your chain, because WE can...

Contrary to broadcast/film media images, SS/FBI were NOT loved everywhere... nor, so the rumor goes, were the other alphabet agencies especially, especially amongst law enforcement units within the USofA's continental boundaries.

This camera nonsense is part of testy PR issue, was Oswald an agent of the US government? After all, ALL Marine grunt losers own 4 cameras, defected to the USSR, married a Ruskie girl whose old man had KGB ties.... wanted to promote Fidel, took solo bus trips to Mexico, did a radio gig, was familiar with US embassies, stayed in upscale hotels when abroad, visited Japanese pillow houses, charged with nothing after promoting possible treason, had his very own FBI contact person -- not bad for a guy making less than a $100 bucks a week, a real grunt Marine who had a SECRET security clearance.... and shot and killed by a Dallas pimp, bar owner with organized crime connections, probable gun runner... 

Think Ruth might get a lick of the Hades treatment? Who might be in-charge of finding ice water? Is there's justice?

Oh, here's another tid-bit, I bet the USMarine Corps wishes, WISHES LHO had been a honorably discharged member of the USCoast Guard... take that Vinnie Bugliosi...

[Denny Zartman]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Denny Zartman

[James DiEugenio]

After all, ALL Marine grunt losers own 4 cameras, defected to the USSR, married a Ruskie girl whose old man had KGB ties.... wanted to promote Fidel, took solo bus trips to Mexico, did a radio gig, was familiar with US embassies, stayed in upscale hotels when abroad, visited Japanese pillow houses, charged with nothing after promoting possible treason, had his very own FBI contact person -- not bad for a guy making less than a $100 bucks a week, a real grunt Marine who had a SECRET security clearance.... and shot and killed by a Dallas pimp, bar owner with organized crime connections, probable gun runner... 

 

👏

Btw the article was by Carol Hewitt. 

Edited April 14, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

"Missing Minox or Major Mistakes?" https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/minox.htm

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

"Missing Minox or Major Mistakes?" https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/minox.htm

 

Greg,

Are you an LNer / WC apologist?

I certainly wouldn't trust an article posted on John McAdams' website to try and make my case.

[Greg Doudna]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Greg,

Are you an LNer / WC apologist?

I certainly wouldn't trust an article posted on John McAdams' website to try and make my case.

No.

This is not me making "my" case. This is a matter of the Dallas Police Department's evidence photo showing the physical evidence, matters of fact and evidence. Your question and reaction is like cult-think, in which written material is not to be read because of its source, rather than read and evaluated in terms of its substance and the merits of its evidence and argument. That article is sound and substantive its argument and content. I could care less what website posts it, or who authored it (I do not know who authored it). I saw only that the content is gold-standard quality on the issues under discussion.

Don't make the issue the source of that article, as if ad hominem is a substitute for reason. Did you read it? Are you certain without reading it that it is wrong? If so, cult-think. All I can say. 

 

[Greg Doudna]

Also, the issue of interpretation of the Minox camera issue has nothing--nothing--to do with defending the Warren Commission, or lone-nut versus criminal conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy. Just to make that clear. 

I would prefer to keep secondary articles out of this and have the focus be on the primary evidence. If my citation of a link of an article which discussed that primary evidence with what I considered of high-quality analysis in that link becomes a flash point, that is regrettable. I urge that discussion not be taken in that direction (it is not productive). Keep the focus on citation of and assessment of the primary evidence, the Dallas Police evidence photograph, the documents, the written reporting, the witness testimonies, and analysis of such, please.

[David Butler]

There is another version of the photo here. You can click expand and then zoom in further on this one - 

https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/22024/black-and-white-police-photograph-of-objects-belonging-to-os;jsessionid=A8F628FB2F1B217F1B464EB94872E27F?ctx=5cd98fcc-465a-499e-901b-c2ed38f9b74e&idx=0#

[Richard Price]

Are there other available pictures of this DPD evidence?  I really was only looking at the items being questioned initially.  However upon looking at the whole picture, it is a little strange.  Both the left side and bottom are cut off and considering the closely laid out items, there is a unique open area with no items displayed in the middle/center left of the photo.  Why?  Are there any other variations of this photo, or other photos of the DPD evidence as laid out in this one?

This picture seems to be cut off on the left side and possibly the bottom.  I am not a photographer, but do take pictures on occasion.  There seems to be plenty of spacing on the right edge, but then the bottom and left are cut off.  Depending on the lens used and the space available to back away from the items (It appears to be taken from a standing position looking downward) this could be why the bottom and left side are cropped.  You would see this through the lens when taking the picture and know that you either needed to take multiple pictures or get another lens which would encompass the entire evidence items.  Even if you did not recognize that everything was not in this single picture, I would think that you would make multiple pictures (maybe even from different angles) in order to create a definitive record of the items.  When I trained as an accident investigator for USPS I was told to always take plenty of pictures (you can't ever have too many pictures - only TOO FEW).  I would think that police detectives would receive much the same instruction, particularly if you might have to testify about the items afterward.

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Greg,

I certainly wouldn't trust an article posted on John McAdams' website to try and make my case.

 

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Did you read it? Are you certain without reading it that it is wrong? If so, cult-think. All I can say.

 

No I didn't read it. Neither did I read the full WC Report. If I did in either case, I'd have to check carefully every single it said because I know that the author has a anti-conspiracy bias. And I know that LNers aren't the most honest and logically thinking of people. My time is better spent reading something written by a person I do trust.

You referenced that article without saying a word about what you did to verify it's content. I'll bet most CTers ignored it. (Unless they didn't notice that the website belonged to McAdams.)

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Also, the issue of interpretation of the Minox camera issue has nothing--nothing--to do with defending the Warren Commission, or lone-nut versus criminal conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy. Just to make that clear.

 

That's not true. If Oswald owned a Minox camera, this supports the idea that he might have been a CIA agent.

 

[David G. Healy]

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Also, the issue of interpretation of the Minox camera issue has nothing--nothing--to do with defending the Warren Commission, or lone-nut versus criminal conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy. Just to make that clear. 

I would prefer to keep secondary articles out of this and have the focus be on the primary evidence. If my citation of a link of an article which discussed that primary evidence with what I considered of high-quality analysis in that link becomes a flash point, that is regrettable. I urge that discussion not be taken in that direction (it is not productive). Keep the focus on citation of and assessment of the primary evidence, the Dallas Police evidence photograph, the documents, the written reporting, the witness testimonies, and analysis of such, please.

Based on the past 58 years the 1964 WCR and "analysis" of same has proven least productive.

They did get Kennedy's name correct and spelled Dealey Plaza with the 'e', I'll give you that concession. Just to make that clear.

Edited April 14, 2022 by David G. Healy

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

No I didn't read it. Neither did I read the full WC Report. If I did in either case, I'd have to check carefully every single it said because I know that the author has a anti-conspiracy bias. And I know that LNers aren't the most honest and logically thinking of people. My time is better spent reading something written by a person I do trust.

You referenced that article without saying a word about what you did to verify it's content. I'll bet most CTers ignored it. (Unless they didn't notice that the website belonged to McAdams.)

 

Everything you said here is very unfair Sandy. You have not read the WR and you are one of its biggest critics? That doesn't seem right. The junior lawyers that essentially created the report had no bias as many of them have explained (see Willens' book). Not logically thinking? two of the best books were by lawyers (Bugliosi and Posner) and they certainly think logically.

As far as the article mentioned by Greg, it has hyperlink citations and anyone can check them out to see if they back up what the author is claiming. I just wrote a book rebutting the Maurice Bishop matter and the book that was based on (Fonzi) has no citations whatsoever. I don't see anyone complaining about that.

[John Butler]

As I posted earlier, some types of Minox were featureless.  There is a black object, not a shadow since nothing else casts a shadow, underneath the Minox case.  Definitely an object there, but what is it?