Oswald and the Issue of Neutron Activation Analyses

[Martin Nee]

On 3/14/2024 at 11:33 PM, Pat Speer said:

Greetings, Doug. I purchased digitized copies of the papers sent to Weisberg years before any of this stuff was available online. I present my take on these and other pertinent materials, some of which I had to purchase from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, in Chapter 4f of my website, available here https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4fcastsofcontention

Now, this is essentially a short book. So at one point a scientist from Europe--whose name has slipped through the cracks--shortened and simplified this material and my discussion of this material and tried to create a page for this on wikipedia. But the McAdams devotees then in charge of all stuff JFK on wikipedia wouldn't allow it because...because...essentially two reasons. The first was that these test results were not discussed by (what they called) a credible source, namely Bugliosi. And the second was that the materials sent Weisberg had no NARA numbers because...because...these materials were never sent to NARA. In short, these cowards refused to allow any mention of these results on wikipedia, even when I offered to put them in contact with the Hood Library which could confirm these were materials provided Weisberg as a result of a lawsuit. 

This is fascinating. Thank you @Pat Speer and @Stu Wexler for your insight. I’m very new to this forum and one of the reasons I joined was to engage with experts and researchers who’ve done a high level of work and analysis on key aspects of the case like this. 
Is there currently any ongoing attempts to get other independent experts to weigh in on the NAA cheek cast material Weisberg obtained? I reached out to the British Academy of Forensics hoping to get in touch with an expert who could help me understand the current scientific standing of NAA gunshot residue analysis. They sent me on the contact details of an expert they recommended whom I haven’t contacted yet. I am happy to send on their details if you’d like to contact them Mr Speer if you’re interested and think it would be worthwhile? Seeing as you have copies of the material and  definitely know more than I would regarding what  the best questions are to ask etc. 

[Pat Speer]

32 minutes ago, Martin Nee said:

This is fascinating. Thank you @Pat Speer and @Stu Wexler for your insight. I’m very new to this forum and one of the reasons I joined was to engage with experts and researchers who’ve done a high level of work and analysis on key aspects of the case like this. 
Is there currently any ongoing attempts to get other independent experts to weigh in on the NAA cheek cast material Weisberg obtained? I reached out to the British Academy of Forensics hoping to get in touch with an expert who could help me understand the current scientific standing of NAA gunshot residue analysis. They sent me on the contact details of an expert they recommended whom I haven’t contacted yet. I am happy to send on their details if you’d like to contact them Mr Speer if you’re interested and think it would be worthwhile? Seeing as you have copies of the material and  definitely know more than I would regarding what  the best questions are to ask etc. 

Greetings, Martin. Stu has been encouraging me to reach out to the scientific community for awhile now. But I have been busy battling cancer and apathy. In any event, if you find any scientists with an interest in any aspect of the case, I will gladly explain my conclusions and share materials with them.

[Charles Blackmon]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Greetings, Martin. Stu has been encouraging me to reach out to the scientific community for awhile now. But I have been busy battling cancer and apathy. In any event, if you find any scientists with an interest in any aspect of the case, I will gladly explain my conclusions and share materials with them.

Cancer is such a tough battle. I hate that for you Pat. Wishing your treatments are effective and that yours goes into remission and you can get back to doing the things you most enjoy. 

[Pat Speer]

2 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Cancer is such a tough battle. I hate that for you Pat. Wishing your treatments are effective and that yours goes into remission and you can get back to doing the things you most enjoy. 

Thanks, Charles. 

[Greg Doudna]

(...)

Edited March 21 by Greg Doudna

[Martin Nee]

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Greetings, Martin. Stu has been encouraging me to reach out to the scientific community for awhile now. But I have been busy battling cancer and apathy. In any event, if you find any scientists with an interest in any aspect of the case, I will gladly explain my conclusions and share materials with them.

Appreciate it, thanks again for the work you’ve done and wishing you the best in regards to your health. 

[Greg Doudna]

Pat S., I echo the sentiments of Charles Blackmon. 

Your chapter on the INAA testing; the appearance of coverup in the reporting/disclosure of it or rather lack thereof; the fact that firing the Mannlicher-Carcano would leave GSR (gunshot residue) on Oswald’s face if he had done so and yet there was no GSR on Oswald’s face; your work on the little-noticed but apparent coverup of GSR testing on clothing of Oswald with likely unreported results … comes close to stand-alone exoneration of Oswald as a rifle shooter on Nov 22. 

Added to that: the absence of any evidence he was a good shot and a lot of indication he wasn’t (including the underappreciated force of a physical coordination aptitude test of Oswald at the TEC undertaken in 1962 and again in 1963 as told by Laura Kittrell with the 1962 results a matter of record in the WC exhibits but unremarked); the total lack of ammo or rifle cleaning supplies in Oswald’s belongings; the total lack of any practice shooting with the rifle in the weeks, days, and hours leading up to the assassination; and the absolutely inexplicable failure of a supposed lone nut fanatic on the 6th floor to shoot JFK in the perfect-shot approach on Houston (indirectly but powerfully suggestive of an ambush planned on the presidential limousine at a later position on Elm) … how could a jury presented by those considerations by a competent defense counsel fail to have reasonable doubt that Oswald personally killed JFK, and on the basis of clear reasonable doubt, acquittal? 

And the palm print on the barrel was said by Day to be an old print (therefore of no use in proving Oswald fired on Nov 22), and the years-later belated claim of a trigger guard print match to Oswald is just not credible in terms of convincing. 

A jury would be convinced the rifle had been Oswald’s. And Oswald’s behavior and seemingly gratuitously false answers to some questions in interrogation are strange, but fall short of establishing Oswald fired that rifle. From the known information, it could well have been contested, if Oswald and his counsel chose to contest it in court, whether Oswald was aware of the presence of his rifle in the TSBD on the 6th floor that day. 

Here is where what I believe to be a development in the case of my own contribution enters, the fact (as I believe it to be and believe I have shown to be the case sufficient to convince most reasonable informed readers who read the argument and think about it) that Lee and Marina removed the rifle from where it had been with other of Lee’s belongings in Ruth Paine’s garage, on Nov 11, 1963, following which there is a total black hole absence of information on where that rifle was, and in whose custody, for the next 11 days until it turned up where it did on Nov 22. 

As DPD Chief Curry put it, he did not deny the rifle was (or had been up to Nov 11) Oswald’s. But Curry said no one could put that rifle in Oswald’s hands at the moments the shots were fired, on Nov 22. 

And the resisting arrest, the apparent false answers after his arrest under interrogation, the fact the rifle had been his … I understand many states today do not allow even an overt confession alone as a basis for conviction of a capital crime unless there is independent corroborating evidence. (And of course Oswald never confessed; strenuously denied he had killed anyone and claimed he was being framed… then shot dead before he could come to trial.)

Arguments of a suspect’s guilt from confession alone, or the even weaker “consciousness of guilt” genre of argument, I understand are today considered insufficient in many jurisdictions due to high incidences of false confessions and misinterpretation based on subjective interpretations of how suspects look and behave. 

And then your separate section on the threads reported found on the rifle butt matching to the arrest shirt which Oswald first put on that day at 1 pm (!) in Oak Cliff, after the shots were fired that killed JFK, is classic. And you obtained and published the first color photo of the button-down light maroon dress shirt Oswald actually wore that morning, and you have made all of your work open-access, on your website. 

I recently spent some time rereading Bugliosi and in particular what he claimed in conclusion were 53 evidences for Oswald’s guilt. I was surprised at how insubstantial about 3/4 of the points were, and the dozen or so I found of some prosecutorial force had reasonable alternative explanations with ambiguity, not certainty, as the correct conclusion, such that Bugliosi overstated the case against Oswald.

Sadly, it looks like America had its own banana republic event in 1963 in which some faction shot a rival out of political office, and too many in power either didn’t know or didn’t want to know what had happened and did not have the will to find out. 

I was in a fourth grade public school classroom in Akron, Ohio, the day President Kennedy was shot. And then it happened again in 1968 with MLK, Jr. who was bringing about structural change in America, and then a month later again with Robert Kennedy, with Robert slain just as he was poised for likely electoral success and election as President in 1968 if he had not been slain. 

Edited March 20 by Greg Doudna

[Douglas Caddy]

Pat: Ever since you and Sandy exchanged information about each other's health problems in the Water Cooler section a few months ago, I have added both of you to my daily prayers that the Prime Intelligence will bless you for a return to good health. You and Sandy, along with others, some of whom have passed on, are the primary reason the Forum has been an outstanding source of credible historical information over the years.

[Bill Fite]

I wonder why the FBI did not do a follow-up on the NAA tests on the 7 test shooters to test for false negatives.

Have 7 other marksmen shoot, then wash their faces, then take a paraffin test to see whether the NAA would be positive or negative.

I guess the FBI did not have a statistician or probability modeller take a look at the experimental set up or maybe they just didn't want to know the answer.

 

[Charles Blackmon]

I watched JFK:X last night on Prime. I want my 90 minutes back. JFK faked his death using.. a squib? lol

[Pat Speer]

9 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

Pat: Ever since you and Sandy exchanged information about each other's health problems in the Water Cooler section a few months ago, I have added both of you to my daily prayers that the Prime Intelligence will bless you for a return to good health. You and Sandy, along with others, some of whom have passed on, are the primary reason the Forum has been an outstanding source of credible historical information over the years.

Thanks, Doug. 

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Bill Fite said:

I wonder why the FBI did not do a follow-up on the NAA tests on the 7 test shooters to test for false negatives.

Have 7 other marksmen shoot, then wash their faces, then take a paraffin test to see whether the NAA would be positive or negative.

I guess the FBI did not have a statistician or probability modeller take a look at the experimental set up or maybe they just didn't want to know the answer.

 

I make the argument on my website that they knew the answer but didn't want to deal with its repercussions.

1. They decided from the get-go that the FBI would perform the tests on the cheek cast to see if it contained gsr, and that the tests performed to see if M/C rifles leaked residue which should be found on the cheek of a shooter would be out-sourced.

2. They out-sourced these tests, the controls, to Vincent Guinn, the top scientist in the field. By outsourcing these tests, they could deny they'd hired Guinn, and Guin could deny he'd worked for them, which he did when subsequently testifying before the HSCA on the NAA he'd conducted at their request on the bullet fragments. (I found a letter from Guinn in Weisberg's files which indicated he was supposed to write a report for the HSCA on his gsr studies as well as his bullet lead studies. But, if such a report was written, it was never released. To me, this is suspicious as heck. I mean, they had Guinn perform new tests on the bullet lead--tests the FBI had performed back in '64 but had found inconclusive--but failed to have him even submit a report on the tests he himself had performed in '64, which he'd claimed were conclusive, but which had been buried by the FBI and WC. Now I've thought about this and the only thing I can come up with is that a decision was made to elevate Guinn's NAA tests for bullet lead--which Guinn now claimed supported Oswald's guilt--and conceal Guinn's tests for gsr--which had suggested Oswald's possible innocence.)

3. The FBI failed to tell the WC about their tests until a scientist who'd been spurned by the FBI told the WC such tests should be performed. The WC then asked such tests be performed and the FBI then told them they'd already performed such tests.

4. The FBI's tests were negative--as Oswald's cheek cast had sufficient barium on its surface to suggest he'd fired a rifle, but insufficient antimony, when both elements needed to be present in sufficient quantities. They said these tests were inconclusive, however, because there was more barium on the back side of the cheek cast than on the cheek side. This should have led them to investigate, IMO, as this may have come as a result of a deliberate tainting of the evidence by the Dallas PD. But they failed to do so.

5. The FBI did perform one control of their own, while using the assassination rifle. This gave them positive results. The name RF was written by these results, suggesting that the shooter was Robert Frazier, who performed the ballistic tests on the rifle. 

6. Guinn's control tests gave a positive result for gsr on the cheek even when the subject was not tested for hours after firing the rifle. Guinn reported his results to the FBI, informally, in a phone call, which then recorded his results in an internal memo, and not a report that was handed over to the WC.

7. Guinn did wish to get paid for his tests, of course, and so he created a report on these tests and submitted it to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, which was exploring the commercial applications for NAA. (I was, I thought, the first researcher to find this report, and then report on it. But I later found a copy in Weisberg's papers.)

8. The FBI never told the WC about Guinn's tests, nor his results. Instead they had Cortlandt Cunningham, Frazier's partner, testify that his "personal expectation" was that no residue would leak from Oswald's rifle onto a cheek cast, and that the negative result on the nitrate test (the chemical test on the cast performed by the  DPD) was therefore as expected. This concealed that his partner had participated in the FBI's tests of the cheek cast and had established that the rifle could leak residue onto the cheek. 

9. A few weeks before the publication of the WR, however, Guinn, who was a bit of a showboat, bragged about his tests at an international conference. An article on his comments at this conference was then published in the states. An internal FBI memo reflects that the FBI was displeased.

10. As a result of this article, the WC asked the FBI's John Gallagher, who'd supervised their tests, to testify. Working off a script, which I found in the FBI's files, he said there was sufficient barium and antimony on the hand casts to conclude Oswald had fired a weapon, and sufficient barium on the cheek cast to conclude he'd fired a rifle, but that there was an excess of barium on the control side of the cast that made the result for the cheek cast inconclusive. His statements dodged the question--which I thought to be pertinent--of whether or not the numbers for antimony were sufficient to claim a positive result for gsr irrespective of the unusual numbers for barium. 

11. Thus began a years-long quest on my part, which led to my acquisition of the materials received by Weisberg as a result of his FOIA case and my finding and studying numerous papers by Guinn, which led me to suspect his zeal for self-promotion had led him to both mis-represent the significance of the tests he performed for the HSCA, and flat-out lie about his results afterwards. 

12. The NAA results for antimony on the cheek cast, to my understanding (from reading numerous articles on NAA) are negative, as there was insufficient gsr (composed of both barium and antimony) to support Oswald's guilt. While these results can not be considered conclusive, due to the delay in the tests being performed, the positive results on Oswald's hands cut into the possibility gsr had been removed from his cheek via the washing of his face and hands, or time.

13. I think we can suspect then that the test results would be presentable in a court of law, as evidence for his innocence in killing Kennedy. While the submission of these results into evidence would simultaneously support Oswald's guilt re the death of Tippit, the value of a positive result on the hands could be questioned, due to the inordinate amount of barium on the backs of the casts. (The nitrate tests gave positive results for a number of elements including barium and antimony without differentiating between them. Someone familiar with the nitrate tests, but unfamiliar with NAA protocols, then, may have thought that by sprinkling barium--which would presumably have been present in the DPD lab at Parkland Hospital, where the nitrate tests were performed--onto the casts, they were assuring a positive result when the casts were later tested by the FBI.)

 

Edited March 20 by Pat Speer

[Bill Fite]

19 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I make the argument on my website that they knew the answer but didn't want to deal with its repercussions.

Thanks much for the detailed answer and the amount of time that had to be put into gathering all the info.  It's very interesting.

[Bill Fite]

22 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

8. The FBI never told the WC about Guinn's tests, nor his results. Instead they had Cortlandt Cunningham, Frazier's partner, testify that his "personal expectation" was that no residue would leak from Oswald's rifle onto a cheek cast, and that the negative result on the nitrate test (the chemical test on the cast performed by the  DPD) was thereby as expected. This concealed that his partner had participated in the FBI's tests of the cheek cast and had established that the rifle would leak residue onto the cheek. 

Incredible that they would do this.

[Denise Hazelwood]

On 3/14/2024 at 11:41 AM, Douglas Caddy said:

As might be expected, given the authorities’ unwillingness to release the documents, the control tests appear to prove that neutron activation analysis can be expected to show substantial quantities of barium and antimony on the cheek of anyone who had fired a rifle of the same type as that found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. The absence of such quantities on Oswald’s cheek implies that he almost certainly did not fire a rifle on the day of the assassination.

Well, there might have been a different reason for not releasing the NAA test results—not so much because of Oswald’s cheek but because of the (separate) test related to bullet metal content. I am thinking of Dr. Guinn’s (spelling doesn’t look right, but I am too lazy to look it up at the moment—you probably know who I mean) HSCA testimony on NAA tests done on bullet fragments, wherein it was clear that a substitution of the bullet fragments had occurred. I have no doubt that a lot of evidence against Oswald was manufactured, but I am also of the opinion that he was the shooter in the TSBD window. I could be convinced otherwise, but the reason for NAA tests suppression may have been because they showed that the Oswald gun didn’t match the “stretcher” (AR-15 “pointed” bullet) and if they released PARTS of the NAA results, then the rest would have been easier to interpret. My understanding is that Weisberg eventually got a “release” of the NAA results, but that they were presented in such a way as to be indecipherable.