The Simple, Simple Explanation of Two Gunman on 11/22

[Norman T. Field]

On 11/22/2022 at 7:58 AM, Denny Zartman said:

The fact that Oswald was seen on the second floor five minutes before the assassination and then seen again on the second floor two minutes after the assassination not sweaty or breathing hard is what exonerates him.

To say NOTHING about the negative GSR test on his face and neck. LHO did not fire a rifle that day. Period. 

[Benjamin Cole]

8 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

Or a large bullet fragment accompanied by smaller bullet fragments tore the shirt and the smaller fragments were held by the shirt while the large fragment exited the coat. After pulverizing 4 inches of rib bone, it likely that the bullet fragmented to some degree, and that it suffered visible deformity.

In connection with this, I should note that Dale Myers and many other WC defenders consistently misrepresent the size of Connally's back wound as 3 x 0.8 cm, when in fact its original size was 1.5 x 0.8 cm. The 3 cm size was its size after it was surgically altered, as the surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw, explained. 1.5 x 0.8 cm is virtually the same size as JFK's rear head entry wound, which was 1.5 x 0.6 cm. This fact refutes the theory that the bullet that struck Connally's back was tumbling. The bullet entered at a right angle or at a tangent, and this is by far the most plausible explanation for the dimensions of Connally's back wound. 

Yes, you are correct---Shaw has testified he "debrided" the wound on JBC's back, that is removing dead flesh, and thus enlarging it. Why Blakey and Baden could not fathom this, or realize there was a small round bullet hole in the JBC's shirt back....well, is inexplicable. 

Shaw had treated 700+ bullet wounds in wartime service, a true hero. He thought JBC has been struck with a separate shot and, moreover, was puzzled by the wound to the front side (wristwatch side) of JBC's wrist. Shaw thought another missile might have struck JBC's wrist. If you are wearing a wristwatch, try placing the face of the watch to your chest...you'll see what Shaw was saying. 

[Denny Zartman]

8 hours ago, Norman T. Field said:

To say NOTHING about the negative GSR test on his face and neck. LHO did not fire a rifle that day. Period. 

Exactly. According to Mark Lane, the negative gunpowder residue tests done on his skin would have been court admissible evidence that Oswald had not fired a rifle that day. But some people repeatedly reject this and other exculpatory evidence in favor of their own set theories.

[Pat Speer]

17 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Exactly. According to Mark Lane, the negative gunpowder residue tests done on his skin would have been court admissible evidence that Oswald had not fired a rifle that day. But some people repeatedly reject this and other exculpatory evidence in favor of their own set theories.

FWIW, I delved into this some time back and found the evidence is not as clear cut as one would like.

But what is clear is that the WC and FBI conspired to conceal and misrepresent the NAA tests of the paraffin casts. The WC and FBI said the tests were inconclusive because there was too much barium on the back side (control side) of the paraffin cast of the cheek. But they said nothing of the other element: antimony. You need both for a positive result--if one is too low it is considered a negative result. But they did not publish the data for antimony.

Fortunately, the great Harold Weisberg sued the AEC and FBI etc and was ultimately rewarded with a big box of documents, including the handwritten notes on the tests performed on the casts. And I was able to access these through the Hood Library. 

And my oh my the antimony result was suspiciously low, and would have resulted in a negative result but for one thing.

Today's standards hold that the test should be performed within a certain amount of time, and the tests were performed a bit late to be considered conclusive. 

BUT... There was plentiful gsr on Oswald's hands, so the presumption gsr was wiped from Oswald's face really has no foundation.

My suspicion then is that a judge would allow the tests to be presented in court, along with expert witnesses from both sides, who could disagree about the validity of the tests.

As for myself...well...I consider these tests to be a (non) smoking gun... 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, I delved into this some time back and found the evidence is not as clear cut as one would like.

But what is clear is that the WC and FBI conspired to conceal and misrepresent the NAA tests of the paraffin casts. The WC and FBI said the tests were inconclusive because there was too much barium on the back side (control side) of the paraffin cast of the cheek. But they said nothing of the other element: antimony. You need both for a positive result--if one is too low it is considered a negative result. But they did not publish the data for antimony.

Fortunately, the great Harold Weisberg sued the AEC and FBI etc and was ultimately rewarded with a big box of documents, including the handwritten notes on the tests performed on the casts. And I was able to access these through the Hood Library. 

And my oh my the antimony result was suspiciously low, and would have resulted in a negative result but for one thing.

Today's standards hold that the test should be performed within a certain amount of time, and the tests were performed a bit late to be considered conclusive. 

BUT... There was plentiful gsr on Oswald's hands, so the presumption gsr was wiped from Oswald's face really has no foundation.

My suspicion then is that a judge would allow the tests to be presented in court, along with expert witnesses from both sides, who could disagree about the validity of the tests.

As for myself...well...I consider these tests to be a (non) smoking gun... 

 

Yes, too much time elapsed for GSR tests to be dispositive. 

The simple washing of a face or perspiring can reduce GSR deposits. We do not know if LHO washed his face when he went to his rooming house, or in the Texas Theater. 

Evidently, even something so minor a wind direction can effect how much GSR is deposited. If the TSBD was "exhaling" through the sniper window, then LHO would have received a smaller dose on his cheek. I suspect LHPO only fired once. 

Moreover, LHO was a smart guy.  Suppose he put some Saran wrap on his face when he fired? Saran wrap was introduced in 1949. 

Then see this: 

"(Philippine) National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) forensic chemist Leonora Vallado testified that excessive perspiration or washing of hands with the use of warm water or vinegar may remove gunpowder nitrates on the skin."

https://crimephilippines.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/gunshot-residue-analysis/

LHO may have been running around before he went into the Texas Theater...sweating. We don't know if LHO took any bathroom breaks between 12:30 pm and the GSR test, in which he might have washed his face. 

In short, the GSR tests are not dispositive. I wish they were.

I wish we could absolutely rule out LHO firing a rifle that day, and we could be certain of being one step closer to the truth. 

As it is...open question. Just IMHO. 

PS The putative accuracy of GSR tests was perhaps something the law enforcement and judicial systems wanted, in aiding in convictions. Usually, the accused perps had GSR deposits, although we now know such putative deposits can have many sources, including even police-car backseats. 

My conclusion is GSR tests are not conclusive. 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Benjamin Cole

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

Exactly. According to Mark Lane, the negative gunpowder residue tests done on his skin would have been court admissible evidence that Oswald had not fired a rifle that day. But some people repeatedly reject this and other exculpatory evidence in favor of their own set theories.

The evidence may have been court admissible in 1963. But not highly regarded any longer. See my answer to Pat Speer. 

Beyond that, I am interested in what LHO did that day in fact, and if he had a role, unwitting or otherwise, in larger plot. What would stand up in court in interesting, but not the whole story. 

To be sure, there are several crappy chains of evidence in the LHO case, that might exonerate LHO legally in a fair court trial. Is that the same as true innocence---or just legal innocence? 

Was LHO an entirely innocent patsy, or a participant in a plot, or an unwitting participant in a plot? 

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, I delved into this some time back and found the evidence is not as clear cut as one would like.

But what is clear is that the WC and FBI conspired to conceal and misrepresent the NAA tests of the paraffin casts. The WC and FBI said the tests were inconclusive because there was too much barium on the back side (control side) of the paraffin cast of the cheek. But they said nothing of the other element: antimony. You need both for a positive result--if one is too low it is considered a negative result. But they did not publish the data for antimony.

Fortunately, the great Harold Weisberg sued the AEC and FBI etc and was ultimately rewarded with a big box of documents, including the handwritten notes on the tests performed on the casts. And I was able to access these through the Hood Library. 

And my oh my the antimony result was suspiciously low, and would have resulted in a negative result but for one thing.

Today's standards hold that the test should be performed within a certain amount of time, and the tests were performed a bit late to be considered conclusive. 

BUT... There was plentiful gsr on Oswald's hands, so the presumption gsr was wiped from Oswald's face really has no foundation.

My suspicion then is that a judge would allow the tests to be presented in court, along with expert witnesses from both sides, who could disagree about the validity of the tests.

As for myself...well...I consider these tests to be a (non) smoking gun... 

 

Thanks for the information, very informative. It seems clear that if these test results were in fact any way incriminating, they wouldn't have been misrepresented and suppressed.

[Matthew Koch]

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Exactly. According to Mark Lane, the negative gunpowder residue tests done on his skin would have been court admissible evidence that Oswald had not fired a rifle that day. But some people repeatedly reject this and other exculpatory evidence in favor of their own set theories.

They also did the nitrate test after Oswald had been fingerprinted, ink contains nitrates.. 

[Benjamin Cole]

"Determining the shooter is an important element during investigation of firearm related offences, particularly through the detection of gunshot residue (GSR) as forensic evidence on shooter’s hand. However, such detection could be restrained if it is obstructed by the wearing of gloves by a shooter."---Malaysian Journal of Analytical Sciences

https://mjas.analis.com.my/mjas/v23_n2/pdf/Azyanti_23_2_7.pdf

In short, if a shooter wears gloves, or a mask, the GSR is limited (though is present on the gloves and masks). 

So LHO, or anyone, could foil GSR test by wearing a mask, homemade or otherwise, out of paper or Saran wrap. There was plenty of paper and tape around for LHO, and likely he was an intel asset trained in spy-craft. 

Or maybe LHO sweated out the GSR. Or washed his face. 

Or maybe he never fired a rifle that day. 

Divine the truth from afar? 

 

 

 

 

[Ron Ege]

10 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

"Determining the shooter is an important element during investigation of firearm related offences, particularly through the detection of gunshot residue (GSR) as forensic evidence on shooter’s hand. However, such detection could be restrained if it is obstructed by the wearing of gloves by a shooter."---Malaysian Journal of Analytical Sciences

https://mjas.analis.com.my/mjas/v23_n2/pdf/Azyanti_23_2_7.pdf

In short, if a shooter wears gloves, or a mask, the GSR is limited (though is present on the gloves and masks). 

So LHO, or anyone, could foil GSR test by wearing a mask, homemade or otherwise, out of paper or Saran wrap. There was plenty of paper and tape around for LHO, and likely he was an intel asset trained in spy-craft. 

Or maybe LHO sweated out the GSR. Or washed his face. 

Or maybe he never fired a rifle that day. 

Divine the truth from afar? 

 

 

 

 

Ben, thanks.

Or maybe?

Gun Shot Residue Evidence - Not Always A Smoking Gun! (ohiocrimelaw.com)

From the article:

" . . .Studies in major metropolitan areas around the country have determined that there are an alarmingly high number of GSR particles on handcuffs, the back seats of police cars, holding cells, interrogation tables and chairs, as well as on police officers themselves. See BALTIMORE SUN TIMES SPECIAL REPORT , STEPHANIE HANES, EVIDENCE UNDER SUSPICION , Jan. 23, 2005 (noting Baltimore testing of police departments revealed GSR in interview rooms, on tables, on chairs, and in the air and also that an internal Los Angeles Police Department test found that police cruisers were contaminated by GSR and that the particles transferred onto people who hadn’t fired anything); Berk et al, GUNSHOT RESIDUE IN CHICAGO POLICE VEHICLES AND FACILITIES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY (2007), 52 J. Forensic Sci. 838); Thompson & Nethercott, “Forensics”, The Champion(June 2005), at 50; FBI Symposium (Report of Dr. Jon Nordby). These studies determined that defendants may easily be contaminated with GSR residue when held in police custody prior to testing. . . ."

Probably old news to the more enlightened here, but "new news" for me.

[Pat Speer]

13 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Yes, too much time elapsed for GSR tests to be dispositive. 

The simple washing of a face or perspiring can reduce GSR deposits. We do not know if LHO washed his face when he went to his rooming house, or in the Texas Theater. 

Evidently, even something so minor a wind direction can effect how much GSR is deposited. If the TSBD was "exhaling" through the sniper window, then LHO would have received a smaller dose on his cheek. I suspect LHPO only fired once. 

Moreover, LHO was a smart guy.  Suppose he put some Saran wrap on his face when he fired? Saran wrap was introduced in 1949. 

Then see this: 

"(Philippine) National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) forensic chemist Leonora Vallado testified that excessive perspiration or washing of hands with the use of warm water or vinegar may remove gunpowder nitrates on the skin."

https://crimephilippines.wordpress.com/2009/04/19/gunshot-residue-analysis/

LHO may have been running around before he went into the Texas Theater...sweating. We don't know if LHO took any bathroom breaks between 12:30 pm and the GSR test, in which he might have washed his face. 

In short, the GSR tests are not dispositive. I wish they were.

I wish we could absolutely rule out LHO firing a rifle that day, and we could be certain of being one step closer to the truth. 

As it is...open question. Just IMHO. 

PS The putative accuracy of GSR tests was perhaps something the law enforcement and judicial systems wanted, in aiding in convictions. Usually, the accused perps had GSR deposits, although we now know such putative deposits can have many sources, including even police-car backseats. 

My conclusion is GSR tests are not conclusive. 

 

 

His hands had plenty of gsr, which indicates he did not wash his hands or face after the Tippit shooting. So realistically the only place he could have washed his hands was at the rooming house. Well, the housekeeper said he did no such thing.

So the NAA tests of the paraffin cheek cast are suggestive of Oswald's innocence regarding Kennedy, but not conclusive. 

[Pat Speer]

13 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:

They also did the nitrate test after Oswald had been fingerprinted, ink contains nitrates.. 

Someone wrote this years ago, but there's no evidence it's true. The DPD, at least officially, first fingerprinted Oswald after they'd performed the paraffin test. 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Ron Ege said:

Ben, thanks.

Or maybe?

Gun Shot Residue Evidence - Not Always A Smoking Gun! (ohiocrimelaw.com)

From the article:

" . . .Studies in major metropolitan areas around the country have determined that there are an alarmingly high number of GSR particles on handcuffs, the back seats of police cars, holding cells, interrogation tables and chairs, as well as on police officers themselves. See BALTIMORE SUN TIMES SPECIAL REPORT , STEPHANIE HANES, EVIDENCE UNDER SUSPICION , Jan. 23, 2005 (noting Baltimore testing of police departments revealed GSR in interview rooms, on tables, on chairs, and in the air and also that an internal Los Angeles Police Department test found that police cruisers were contaminated by GSR and that the particles transferred onto people who hadn’t fired anything); Berk et al, GUNSHOT RESIDUE IN CHICAGO POLICE VEHICLES AND FACILITIES: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY (2007), 52 J. Forensic Sci. 838); Thompson & Nethercott, “Forensics”, The Champion(June 2005), at 50; FBI Symposium (Report of Dr. Jon Nordby). These studies determined that defendants may easily be contaminated with GSR residue when held in police custody prior to testing. . . ."

Probably old news to the more enlightened here, but "new news" for me.

The presence of GSR in itself is not always suggestive of firing a weapon. GSR tests usually focus on the back of the suspect's hand, since GSR can be picked up on the palm by handling a weapon. The DPD's drawings of the nitrates found on Oswald's hands suggest the GSR found on his hands was found primarily on the palm side of his hands. Tests performed by Vincent Guinn revealed moreover that the trigger finger is the main source of GSR in those who've recently fired a handgun. No specks were found on Oswald's trigger finger. So the paraffin tests not only suggested Oswald's innocence in killing Kennedy, they raised questions about his killing Tippit. 

(I pretty much wrote a book on this--which can be found at Chapter 4f at patspeer.com) 

[Norman T. Field]

I also recall that the audio recording of LHO's statement "I'm just a patsy" was run thru PSE software, which indicated it was a truthful statement. 

No, I don't have any cites, I read this decades ago. 

 

[Bob Ness]

On 11/22/2022 at 11:41 AM, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

I still need to go study the Zapruder film, I know I already have some questions.

Apparently the recording/exposing speed of 18.3 fps is agreed to by most (?).  It's supposed to be 16 fps, but H&B had set it to the latest standard of 18 (and a bit) ? 

Also, most believe the speed reached by the spring-load is pretty constant, the H&B had a tech novelty to accomplish that, but was it really that good ? 

HS recording/exposing was possible (at 48 fps) and normally it would be used when filming moving objects, here it was not... (HS exposing = better slow motion).    I don't know why Zapruder choose the standard while he was filming a moving object, has anyone asked him ?  This could be of course because he had not much film left, so how much was left unexposed ?  

The above are only some of the questions, but the answers (cq. a number of frames more or less ps) can have a huge importance in timing of course.

 

18 FPS was standard non-sound speed then. The 8mm film would have spun off rapidly and that's why most people filmed at 18 fps - to conserve film and processing costs. I believe four frames were destroyed by a "lab tech" when the film was processed originally and that accounts for the missing frames after the turn. Something like that.