Steve Roe: Please Reveal Your Mystery Witness!

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Ben and Gil on the case. What can possibly go wrong?

Maybe the Dynamic Duo of Gil and Ben can unmask Steve Roe's Mystery Witness! 

Stay tuned, to same Bat Channels , same Bat stations! 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Frazier was an employee of the FBI whose director concluded while JFK's body was enroute to DC and before the autopsy was started that Oswald was the lone assassin. Any FBI agent concerned about their career (and pension) knew what testimony was required. and once Oswald was killed so that there would be no trial, no cross-examination and no motions to exclude evidence, quality-control measures were no longer in effect. None of the FBI testimony can be trusted. NONE. 

[Allen Lowe]

truthfully, I am reading Roe's chapter in Gayle Nix's book, and it is sloppily written, contradicts itself, and poorly argued. So I would not be too worried about anything he says (and it is interesting how the LN'ers write so badly and seem to deflect criticism of their work; at one point I read Gus Russo's book, Live By the Sword, and I was similarly shocked by the weakness of his arguments and the obvious distortions; at least Von Pein knows how to do fake his documentation and cover up the gaping holes in his arguments).

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Frazier was an employee of the FBI whose director concluded while JFK's body was enroute to DC and before the autopsy was started that Oswald was the lone assassin. Any FBI agent concerned about their career (and pension) knew what testimony was required. and once Oswald was killed so that there would be no trial, no cross-examination and no motions to exclude evidence, quality-control measures were no longer in effect. None of the FBI testimony can be trusted. NONE. 

Frazier’s testimony on the steel jacket thing is also totally worthless without corroboration from Norvell, Tucker, McElroy, or Van Cleave. The FBI avoided Van Cleave like the plague, plus they (allegedly) didn’t ask any of the other three officers about the steel jacket description, despite crystal clear instructions from Rankin to investigate ”conflicting stories concerning the nature of the bullet which was recovered from Gen. Walker’s home”.  

 

[Mark Ulrik]

When asked why someone might have called CE 573 steel-jacketed, Frazier told the WC that the only reason he could think of was that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed. The same idea (that the term "steel-jacket" is a misnomer commonly applied to jacketed bullets) was expressed in the 1938 firearms identification book that I posted a page from earlier. It would be refreshing to see at least one of you guys show a bit of class and admit that Frazier's comment wasn't entirely made out of thin air to (say) appease the FBI director.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Mark Ulrik

[Benjamin Cole]

30 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

When asked why someone might have called CE 573 steel-jacketed, Frazier told the WC that the only reason he could think of was that some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed. The same idea (that the term "steel-jacket" is a misnomer commonly applied to jacketed bullets) was expressed in the 1938 firearms identification book that I posted a page from earlier. It would be refreshing to see at least one of you guys show a bit of class and admit that Frazier's comment wasn't entirely made out of thin air to appease the FBI director.

No, the outdated 1938 book, published in an era when there almost no steel-jacketed bullets for sale in the US, said the term "steel jacket" is common misnomer for copper-jacketed bullets. 

It mentioned nothing along the lines some people "refer to all rifle bullets as steel jacketed." Why not "some individuals refer to all handgun bullets as steel-jacketed." 

The 1938 book is not referring to police detectives collecting evidence at the scene of an attempted murder. It refers to the lay public, particularly those with little or no experience with ammo. 

Moreover, the 1938 book became outdated with the advent of WWII and the production of steel bullets due to wartime copper shortages. 

There were in fact steel-jacketed bullets on US markets after WWII, military surplus, and that included steel-jacketed 30.06 bullets. 

After WWII, it would become necessary for detectives to distinguish between the common copper-jacketed bullet, and the relatively uncommon but nevertheless on-the-market steel jacketed bullets. 

The 1938 book was badly outdated by 1945, and even so does not refer to knowledgeable officials conducting police or investigative work, but rather the lay public.  

SR/MU: Find one other example of a big-city police detective who collected an obviously copper-jacketed slug at the scene of an attempted murder or murder, but then described the bullet in official reports as "steel jacketed."  

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Mark Ulrik i dont trust a single word that Frazier or any other FBI agent said about the evidence or what witnesses said. They were under horrible pressure from Hoover to develop evidence to support the director's conclusion around 4 pm on 11/22/63 while JFK's body was in the air that Oswald was the lone gunman. Hoover rushed out the December 5th report in the hopes of cutting off the WC and as well as a Texas court of inquiry. He wanted the WC to basically accept the FBI report without doing any further investigation. Any FBI agent that did not go along with Hoover's directive would have jeoparadized their career. Indeed, several were disciplined by being re-assigned to FBI outposts. Hosty was banished to KC.  I'm not saying that Frazier or the others were bad people. they simply had no choice- a decision made easy knowing there would not be a trial where they would be subject to cross-examination and their evidence would not be challened.  

[David Von Pein]

26 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

I don't trust a single word that Frazier or any other FBI agent said about the evidence or what witnesses said.

Which is the typical silly approach that many (or most) conspiracy theorists have adopted over the years. And it's the thing that enables many CTers to just make up any assassination scenario they want to -- despite their complete lack of actual evidence to support any of their beliefs.

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@David Von Pein  Virtually all of the important evidence in this case has serious provenance or chain of custory cases. Hoover announced while JFK's body was in the air (i.e., before any autopsy and before the FBI had ANY of the forensic evidence in the case) that Oswald was the lone gunman. The agents had to find evidence to support their director's decision if they cared about their careers. So evidence was manufactured or planted knowing there would not be a trial so there would not be subject to cross-examination or their evidence subject to scrutiny.  

so yes-  Marina was intimidated during 46 interviews held without benefit of counsel to throw her dead husband unde the bus if she wanted to stay in this country and not lose her babies. Even then, she denied Oswald had any role with the Walker shooting until she was confronted with the last discovered Walker Note after Sullivan had directed his agents to "bear down on her".

You think this case has been solved so why do you spend so much time on it? Are you one of those guys who think they're defending America's honor by supporting the Lone gunman theory? Just curious 

 

[Tom Gram]

I think Frazier probably just gave the best answer he could think of, which was actually true for some people. That is not however evidence that all four of McElroy, Van Cleave, Norvell, and Tucker fell into the category of “some people”.

Larry is totally right though that there was zero chance Frazier was going to rock the boat and say something like “have you asked the officers who wrote the reports?” 

I say again, not one out of Norvell, Tucker, McElroy, Van Cleave, Brown, Day, Alexander, or Anderson was asked about the steel jacket description on the record; and Norvell, the 6-month DPD rookie drop-out, was allegedly the only one asked to describe the bullet at all, and his FBI report mentions nothing about the color, jacketing, or caliber. 

I could maybe buy incompetence or laziness if it weren’t for Rankin’s 5/20/64 letter requesting additional investigation into the Walker shooting. Reading that letter followed by CE1953 is like a trip to the Twilight Zone. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Tom Gram

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@David Von Pein i dont know about other CTers as you call them. I'm a lawyer who follows the evidence. There have been 7 mock trials held by law schools or bar associations since 1967. Six of them resulted in acquittals or hung juries because of the problems with the evidence. 

No one was stupid enough to write down instructions how to manufacture the case against Oswald. But we have plenty of examples of how the FBI intimidated witnesses to change their testimony, altered the 302s to put witnesses in perjury traps, pressured the doctors, and they distorted the meaning of the evidence in their testimony.   The innocent project has demonstrated how often law enforcement manufactures cases against defendants and those cases did not involve a murder of a president. but you are smart enough to read the signals from Hoover if you were so incllned and understand how this happened.

What is silly is believing in the Lone Gunman. You might has well  believe in Santa Claus.   

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

You think this case has been solved, so why do you spend so much time on it? Are you one of those guys who think they're defending America's honor by supporting the Lone gunman theory? Just curious.

I spend so much time on it because I like to add little bits and pieces to my own JFK Archives website, in order to keep increasing the number of assassination sub-topics covered. (But, to be clear, and in keeping with the new rule that Mr. Gordon forced upon us in August of 2019, I haven't copied the text of anyone's EF posts to my site since I rejoined this forum in late June of 2022.)

As far as "defending America's honor" ..... I have never thought about my "LNer" status in quite those terms before. I'm not sure it really applies anyway.

But I support the Lone Gunman scenario mainly because virtually all the evidence supports such a scenario. Certainly ALL of the PHYSICAL evidence does at any rate.

And I get annoyed at CTers who keep insisting that there's not a shred of evidence supporting Oswald's guilt. Incredibly, I've actually had discussions with CTers who have said that very thing to me.

Vince hit the nail squarely on the head when he said....

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Benjamin Cole]

51 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I think Frazier probably just gave the best answer he could think of, which was actually true for some people. That is not however evidence that all four of McElroy, Van Cleave, Norvell, and Tucker fell into the category of “some people”.

Larry is totally right though that there was zero chance Frazier was going to rock the boat and say something like “have you asked the officers who wrote the reports?” 

I say again, not one out of Norvell, Tucker, McElroy, Van Cleave, Brown, Day, Alexander, or Anderson was asked about the steel jacket description on the record; and Norvell, the 6-month DPD rookie drop-out, was allegedly the only one asked to describe the bullet at all, and his FBI report mentions nothing about the color, jacketing, or caliber. 

I could maybe buy incompetence or laziness if it weren’t for Rankin’s 5/20/64 letter requesting additional investigation into the Walker shooting. Reading that letter followed by CE1953 is like a trip to the Twilight Zone. 

I think a defense counsel would have asked Van Cleave and McElroy to the stand.

They also would have asked Frazier, "In your 20-odd years with the FBI, has a major city police department ever submitted an obviously copper-jacketed bullet to the FBI, but identified the bullet as "steel jacketed," in reports authored and signed by detectives?" 

"If so can you provide that police report to us?" 

Also, "Does anyone in the FBI, in an official capacity, commonly conflate steel-jacketed and copper-jacketed bullets in official reports?" 

Of course, the answer would be "no." 

Frazier's answer is true, I suppose. "Some people" in 1963 considered all rifle bullets to be steel jacketed. There must have also been some people who considered all "handgun bullets to be steel-jacketed." This is nearly a meaningless statement.  

But even game wardens and target-range operators, let alone police and federal agencies, were distinguishing between steel- and copper-jacketed bullets in the post-war era, due to the introductions to the US marketplace of steel-jacketed US military surplus. 

This is the problem with so many, and maybe all, government "investigations." The WC and other government investigations are really kangaroo courts. Defense counsel is not present, and any event or information or witness can be presented as "evidence" without objection by defense counsel. Exculpatory evidence or witnesses are not brought into the investigation. 

Needless to say, governments are political. Government investigations come to politically expedient conclusions, often after what are essentially show trials for public consumption. 

The WC is one example of that. 

 

 

 

[Gil Jesus]

23 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Ben and Gil on the case. What can possibly go wrong?

For your side, everything.

 

The names of six witnesses who either saw, handled or in whose care the bullet was ( McElroy, Norvell, Tucker, B.G. Brown, Alexander and Anderson ) do not appear on the list of 552 witnesses who were called to give testimony. ( Report, Appendix V, pgs. 483-500 )

General Walker saw the bullet the night it was recovered and was called to testify, but was never shown CE 573 during his testimony and asked to identify it.

An eighth witness, McElroy’s partner Ira Van Cleve, also saw the bullet and described it in his report on the crime. He also was never called to give testimony and identify CE 573.

Omitting eight witnesses is not a simple oversight.

It’s unconscionable that the same Commission that called witnesses who had no inforamtion about the assassination, like Jack Ruby’s brother and the emcee at Jack Ruby’s strip club, omitted eight witnesses who either saw, handled or in whose possession the Walker bullet was.

Why is that ? Why didn't the Commission's counsel establish that CE 573 was the bullet removed from Walker's home by having the eight people who saw it identify it under oath ?

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Mark Ulrik]

I think we all knew that, Gil. The WC already had Norvell (via the FBI) and Day identify the bullet, of course, but showing it to Walker would have been a nice touch.