Pat Speer Chats with Francois Carlier

[Sandy Larsen]

8 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Here is just another example of Hosty either lying or purposely misstating facts when questioned under oath:

"Oswald’s interrogation on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, was attended by two FBI special agents, James Hosty and James Bookhout, both of whom recorded handwritten notes.

Bookhout told the Warren Commission that he destroyed his notes later, after writing a formal report, as was the FBI’s custom. 1 Hosty told the Warren Commission much the same story, adding that he specifically recalled placing his notes in a wastebasket.

2 Thirty-two years later, however, Hosty’s book Assignment Oswald appeared with a photographic reproduction of the notes, >>>> which turned out to have not been destroyed after all. <<<<

Hosty explained that he had truthfully testified to the Warren Commission,

>>>>> in that at the time of his testimony he sincerely believed that he had destroyed the notes but subsequently he had discovered them in papers on his desk." <<<<<

 

Okay.

But what was Hosty's motive for lying, when he wrote that Oswald claimed to have been out watching the Presidential Parade?

 

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

But it doesn't matter how long it took if Oswald had access to the sixth floor prior to 12:25. What allows you to rule that out? When do you think the "sniper's nest" was constructed?

But Zahm was talking about sighting in the rifle for the first time, not about needing to do it after each reassembly. It would probably have been ideal, but don't forget that the scope was directly attached to the receiver/barrel and wasn't among the parts that needed to be removed. It can't even be known if Oswald ever had the opportunity to properly sight in the rifle, or how much it would have helped, but it most certainly wasn't an option on 11/22. It's likely, however, that he switched to the iron sights upon realizing that the first shot was a complete miss. Which would tend to somewhat moot the argument that sighting in the rifle was an absolute requirement for success, don't you think?

PS: I hadn't noticed DVP's reply to Greg where he makes similar observations, so apologies for the redundancy.

Ian Griggs bought a rifle like the one found in the building, and wrote an article and gave a number of presentations on the disassembly and re-assembly of the rifle. 

As I recall, Mark, among his findings was that the WC image showing the scope attached to the barrel was deceptive, as the scope would have to be removed from the barrel during disassembly, and added back on during assembly. 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Oswald had no gunshot residue on his cheeks. Which proves that he didn't fire a rifle that day.

Your theory, therefore, is kaput.

 LHO may have washed his face at his rooming house, in a bathroom at the TSBD before leaving the building, or at the Texas Theater.

 

I wonder how Oswald washed his face without also washing his hands. Or why he would keep his face clean but allow his hands to have residue on them.

Makes no sense.

But then, neither does it make sense for Oswald to purposely fake shoot at a president, in particular with live ammo.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Here is just another example of Hosty either lying or purposely misstating facts when questioned under oath:

"Oswald’s interrogation on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, was attended by two FBI special agents, James Hosty and James Bookhout, both of whom recorded handwritten notes.

Bookhout told the Warren Commission that he destroyed his notes later, after writing a formal report, as was the FBI’s custom. 1 Hosty told the Warren Commission much the same story, adding that he specifically recalled placing his notes in a wastebasket.

2 Thirty-two years later, however, Hosty’s book Assignment Oswald appeared with a photographic reproduction of the notes, >>>> which turned out to have not been destroyed after all. <<<<

Hosty explained that he had truthfully testified to the Warren Commission,

>>>>> in that at the time of his testimony he sincerely believed that he had destroyed the notes but subsequently he had discovered them in papers on his desk." <<<<<

 

 

 

Minor point, Joe. The problematic Hosty notes are clearly a draft for a report, and not notes taken down during the interrogation itself. As this draft would have to have been written within a day or two of the assassination, it still carries some weight. It raises a secondary question, moreover. Bookhout wrote a solo report and a joint report with Hosty, but Hosty wrote no solo report. The notes/draft may very well have been the draft of a report which Hosty wrote, but was destroyed.

Just spit-balling here. But the thought occurs that Hosty did in fact believe Oswald had said he'd been outside, and had put this in a report. And that his superiors noticed this, and said well this isn't what Bookhout remembers! And tossed his report. 

Now, we can recall here that Hosty was severely reprimanded after the WR was out and about, and shipped out of town/basically demoted. And I'm wondering if there's a paper trail within the FBI's records spelling out exactly what he'd done that was so embarrassing to Lord Hoover. We know, for one, that he wasn't supposed to mention Mexico City to Oswald. And we know, for two, that he went behind the backs of his superiors at times. But I'm curious if there's any mention of his writing an inaccurate report or some such thing in his records. 

Now, I think Hosty actually confronted this issue in his book, and said he tried to get access to his file, but that they'd refused to give it to him, or said it had been destroyed. I don't recall. But the thought remains that there could be some evidence somewhere that he did in fact write a report and that it was then thrown in the trash. 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Minor point, Joe. The problematic Hosty notes are clearly a draft for a report, and not notes taken down during the interrogation itself. As this draft would have to have been written within a day or two of the assassination, it still carries some weight. It raises a secondary question, moreover. Bookhout wrote a solo report and a joint report with Hosty, but Hosty wrote no solo report. The notes/draft may very well have been the draft of a report which Hosty wrote, but was destroyed.

 

This is not hard.

Many of the participants likely took notes during the interrogation, or shortly thereafter.

Reports were then written up from the notes. Later, any report that mentioned Oswald watching the P. Parade was altered so that it didn't contradicted the official narrative.

Finally, all the notes and draft reports mentioning Oswald watching the P. Parade were deep-sixed. Somehow Hosty's notes survived.

REMEMBER, THIS WAS A COVERUP. This sort of thing that happens in coverups. All this talk about one person lying and another being honest is nonsense.

 

[Mark Ulrik]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Ian Griggs bought a rifle like the one found in the building, and wrote an article and gave a number of presentations on the disassembly and re-assembly of the rifle. 

As I recall, Mark, among his findings was that the WC image showing the scope attached to the barrel was deceptive, as the scope would have to be removed from the barrel during disassembly, and added back on during assembly. 

I was actually relying on Griggs. From an article in the Dallas '63 newsletter (V1N3, 8/89) found on hood.edu:

Quote

The main metal component consists of the barrel and the firing mechanism. The latter includes the chamber, firing pin, bolt and trigger. For the purposes of this exercise, the telescopic sight, permanently screwed to the top of this metal section, can be described as being part of it. It is not necessary to remove the scope when disassembling the weapon.

 

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I wonder how Oswald washed his face without also washing his hands. Or why he would keep his face clean but allow his hands to have residue on them.

Makes no sense.

But then, neither does it make sense for Oswald to purposely fake shoot at a president, in particular with live ammo.

 

Thanks for your question. 

There were two possible sources for what registers as gunshot residue (GSR).

Firing guns, but also working with print materials. 

In addition, in general, the GSR tests not the palms, but the outside of hands for GSR.

LHO may have had what registers as GSR on his hands from working in the TSBD, or possibly from firing a handgun at Tippit. 

If LHO washed his face with his palms (more of a rinsing of the face to freshen up) then the GSR would have been left on the outside of his hands. 

In addition, if he covered his cheek with paper while firing a rifle, then his hands might have been exposed, but not his face. 

If LHO was a CIA asset, as many of us suspect, he was likely aware that GSR on his hands was explainable by his work at the TSBD. But less explainable on his face. 

LHO taking an intentional missed shot at the President makes sense, if he was part of a false flag op to be blamed on Castro. 

Just IMHO.

(Some assert it was not LHO who confronted Tippit. It sure is a cloudy situation, with the usual muddled witness statements. The strange shells at the scene add to the confusion, as does the initial ID of the shells as "auto" when LHO carried a revolver.

In addition, it sure looks like LHO's wallet was planted at the scene. 

I keep an open mind, and wonder if LHO, having deduced he had been framed for JFK's murder, was approached by Tippit, and then shot Tippit. That would result on GSR on his hands.)

Add on:

 

GSR tests results are considered reliable, and should be admitted into evidence. Gunshot residue can be removed by actions such as washing hands, wiping clothing, or brushing it off, so the absence of residue does not prove that the person did not recently fire a gun.

https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/611-1#:~:text=GSR tests results are considered,not recently fire a gun.

Jeez, by wiping his face with a cloth, LHO might have removed GSR from his face. I have provided you with the source. 

I would say the GSR test on LHO's cheek is not conclusive of anything. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

17 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Whether or not the rifle's scope had to be "sighted in" after being reassembled is something that I don't think has been proven one way or the other. And it's largely a moot point when we consider that Oswald might very well have utilized the rifle's iron sights instead of using the scope on November 22nd.

I doubt very much your first sentence is correct--expert testimony I have read says the least bump on a scoped rifle, as inevitable in a breaking-down and reassembly, would throw that sighted-in scope out of whack. So the response from your position (LN Oswald shooter) must be that he fired through the iron sights, which was the HSCA firearms panel position, because firing the JFK assassination shots using the scope was considered just not reasonable to those HSCA experts. 

But to stay with this point a moment: I have just reread Pat Speer's chapter 4g recommended by Tom Gram, https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4g-thoughts-on-shots-and-the-curtain-rod-story. After all of the sniper experts, gun experts, failed attempts at replication, etc. cited up and down by Speer saying that Oswald from logistics and expertise considerations could not realistically have landed those shots accurately on JFK from the 6th floor window as the Warren Commission concluded, given the specifics of the weapon and Oswald's degree of skill and lack of practice, to say there is "reasonable doubt" that Oswald was the gunman who killed Kennedy is an understatement. Can you truthfully say you have read Pat Speer's 4g and what is brought out there does not cause any cognitive dissonance, any reasonable doubt, to you, on this point? 

Surely the JFK assassination was done by professionals whoever did it, and LHO was not a professional, nor is there any indication he was other than a mediocre and inexperienced shot, nor is there any indication he practiced at all in the weeks prior to the assassination (the Sports Drome sightings are not since it can be excluded that that was Oswald), and the best interpretation of the gunshot residue test on his cheeks is that Oswald did not fire his rifle that day. Do these things not call for reasonable doubt, despite the things that look incriminating? Not over the rifle found on the 6th floor having been his. But over Oswald having fired that rifle that day. 

Here I have to go back to my two studies which I believe have brought a new fact to the table--namely that Oswald with Marina's assistance on Nov 11 removed the rifle from Oswald's belongings in Ruth Paine's garage, took that rifle to a gun shop in Irving, and had the scope base repaired and the original scope put back on and the rifle sighted-in.

After which there is an 11-day gap in which nothing presently is known with certainty of where that rifle was or who had it, until its presence becomes known again on Nov 22 on the 6th floor of the TSBD.

My two studies on this are the Furniture Mart study (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/JFK-Furniture-Mart-mystery-105-pdf2.pdf) and Irving Sport Shop study (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf).

I don't even know what the correct interpretation of this Nov 11 finding and the 11-day gap is or should be. All I know is that the Nov 11 scope reinstallation on that rifle by Oswald that day is a fact, and there is an absence of evidence concerning where that rifle next went and in whose custody or possession it was for the next 11 days after Oswald had that scope put back on and the rifle sighted-in on Nov 11.

That heretofore-unrecognized FACT (as I believe a fair reading of my two studies should make clear to a fair reader that that is what it is) raises several questions related to the scope vs iron sights issue on Nov 22.

First, the scope that came with that rifle from Klein's of Chicago was crap, everybody agrees on that. The rifle itself was serviceable and not crap, but the scope was crap, such that it is no surprise that Oswald (or somebody) would simply in frustration with it just unscrew it and take it off. We know that happened with Oswald's rifle, the evidence being that it did not have the scope on it when it came out of the garage on Nov 11, even though it had been shipped to Oswald in March 1963 with the scope installed. 

The question that follows is, why would Oswald on Nov 11 go to expense and effort to get a crappy scope put back on, that was really worthless and unusable by Oswald?

And next, why would Oswald not only have the scope put back on, but have the rifle sighted-in, if he was going to break it down again to put it back into the garage, which would destroy the boresighting for which he was charged and paid $1.50 that morning of Nov 11?

But this last point is not quite unequivocal. For Dial Ryder at the Irving Sport Shop, alone in the shop that day, Veterans Day, was doing that job for cash for a walk-in stranger, not a recognized or familiar customer of the shop. And it is possible that Ryder overcharged Oswald because he could (incentivized because the cash from Oswald was going into Ryder's pocket, bypassing the cash register in that transaction). I believe either Ryder or owner Greener testified that commonly when scope installations were done at that shop the boresighting would be done as an additional courtesy without charge, although the shop would be within its rights to charge $1.50, the posted price if someone came in just to get a boresighting. Ryder quoted to Oswald for the scope installation AND additional for the boresighting, instead of doing the boresighting for free on that job as, apparently, was commonly done with other customer scope installations.

This could raise a slight uncertainty whether the boresighting was what Oswald wanted done, or whether Ryder told him it had to be done, required as policy by the shop or something. We do not know exactly how that worked with that cash transaction.

But if that boresighting was done because Oswald wanted it done, then it could be said as a further fact that logically follows, that Oswald did not return the rifle broken-down back into the garage, for that would make no sense (it would mean wasted money just spent on the boresighting). But, there is that slight uncertainty over whether the boresighting was Oswald's idea or whether Ryder sort of took advantage of a cash-paying one-time customer who did not know any better.

But leaving that detail aside, one has to ask why Oswald goes to all that trouble and expense to get a known crappy scope repaired and reinstalled on Nov 11, and the rifle sighted-in, when Oswald was not using the rifle at that point, had no known cleaning supplies, no ammunition for it was found in his belongings, and he never did a speck of target practice with it after Nov 11 ... yet he fixed it up on Nov 11 as if readying it for some reason.

What reason? A sale? A trade? A "sting" (as in a government sting of some kind)? For use as a prop himself? Who knows!

But whatever the purpose was, one purpose it seems not to have been: a plan to assassinate someone with it (because in that case he would target practice, have cleaning supplies, have ammo, etc.). And it seems Oswald's purpose was not so that he could go hunting with it either (when? how?).

On the sale idea (if so), I have a pretty strong hunch that if Oswald was prepping it for a sale, Oswald would have had the buyer already lined up, because the effort and expense Oswald put into that scope repair and reinstallation does not ring plausibly for Oswald fixing it up with the idea of "maybe" finding a buyer afterward, or to maybe take it to some nearby pawn shop the same day where he would be lucky to recover the amount he paid to repair the scope on it, etc.

And so taking out the uncertainties, the FACTS are that the rifle is last known in Oswald's possession, on Nov 11, in Irving, out of the garage, in fully intact form, scoped and sighted-in. And is next known on Nov 22, in fully intact form, on the 6th floor TSBD, claimed by FBI lab findings to have fired bullets at JFK.

So it was Oswald's rifle, and the rifle by some means 11 days later had been infiltrated into the TSBD and was on the 6th floor involved in the assassination.

But while it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that was or had been Oswald's rifle, and, according to the FBI that rifle was fired at the president, it is not quite so clear that Oswald was the one who infiltrated that rifle into the TSBD, and fired it at President Kennedy on Nov 22, as opposed to that rifle having been planted there and Oswald thereby framed, not necessarily as the shooter, but as the owner of the rifle which did the shooting.

If the above considerations were brought out in a trial of Oswald by competent defense counsel, I can imagine it resulting in a series of hung juries, juries capable of neither finding that he did or didn't do it. From our perspective, sixty years later, we are interested not in whether there was legal basis to convict, but the historical factual question of did he do it, on preponderance of evidence criteria not necessarily the higher threshold of beyond reasonable doubt. 

The gunshot residue test on Oswald's face, and Pat Speer's argument that some of Oswald's clothing showed signs of gunshot residue testing which was done but not reported (because no gunshot residue was found on Oswald's clothing as would be expected, the logical suspicion!), alone could tip the preponderance of evidence criterion in favor of Oswald's exoneration as shooter of the rifle which was or had been his.  

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-952.html

 

Edited March 28 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

52 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

I wonder how Oswald washed his face without also washing his hands. Or why he would keep his face clean but allow his hands to have residue on them.

Makes no sense.

But then, neither does it make sense for Oswald to purposely fake shoot at a president, in particular with live ammo.

 

The possibility exists that Oswald washed his face at the rooming house, and that the gsr on his hands came from the Tippit shooting.

BUT... the housekeeper insisted he was in and out and had not visited the bathroom.

AND...despite constant claims of as much, it's clear the rifle was not wiped down for fingerprints.

Well...it makes little sense for Oswald--assuming he was the shooter--to not wipe down the rifle--when the study of fingerprints at crime scenes was common knowledge--and then turn around and wash his face to remove gsr--when the testing of cheeks for gsr was not nearly as commonplace or well-known--and he had no intentions of getting captured. 

So, perhaps he got "lucky" on two counts--he washed his face without realizing it might help him claim his innocence--AND no one noticed. 

 

[Pat Speer]

12 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

I was actually relying on Griggs. From an article in the Dallas '63 newsletter (V1N3, 8/89) found on hood.edu:

 

Upon double-checking it is clear you are correct in that Griggs didn't say the scope had to be removed. He did say, however, that one couldn't remove the scope and barrel without mis-aligning the scope.

"The main metal component consists of the barrel and the firing mechanism. The latter includes the chamber, firing pin, bolt and trigger. For the purposes of this exercise the telescopic sight, permanently screwed to the top of this metal section, can be described as being part of it. It is not necessary to remove the scope when disassembling the rifle. It is inevitable, however, that during disassembly/reassembly, the precise alignment of the scope must be affected. This may be only minimal but nevertheless, it must have an effect." 

Edited March 28 by Pat Speer

[Benjamin Cole]

44 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The possibility exists that Oswald washed his face at the rooming house, and that the gsr on his hands came from the Tippit shooting.

BUT... the housekeeper insisted he was in and out and had not visited the bathroom.

AND...despite constant claims of as much, it's clear the rifle was not wiped down for fingerprints.

Well...it makes little sense for Oswald--assuming he was the shooter--to not wipe down the rifle--when the study of fingerprints at crime scenes was common knowledge--and then turn around and wash his face to remove gsr--when the testing of cheeks for gsr was not nearly as commonplace or well-known--and he had no intentions of getting captured. 

So, perhaps he got "lucky" on two counts--he washed his face without realizing it might help him claim his innocence--AND no one noticed. 

 

LHO's landlady said she was glued to the TV (naturally enough) when LHO entered, and as I recall, she was in the living room in the front of house, by the front door. 

So, would she have noticed LHO taking one minute in the bathroom? Further down the hall. 

Or, there were bathrooms in the Texas Theater. 

Anyway see my related post. Even wiping ones face with a cloth can remove GSR. 

The GSR test strikes me as very iffy. Even perspiration can remove GSR, while shooting with the wind (as opposed into the wind) can limit exposure. 

Von Pein has links to tests that showed no doses of GSR using the M-L rifle. Yes, take with a grain of salt. 

"The Warren Commission Report, Pages 561-562....

"In a third experiment, performed after the assassination, an agent of the FBI, using the C2766 rifle, fired three rounds of Western 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition in rapid succession. A paraffin test was then performed on both of his hands and his right cheek. Both of his hands and his cheek tested negative."

---30---

The cheek test was administered by the DPD past the number of hours it is considered conclusive. 

I would not declare LHO innocent or guilty based on a GSR test administered on LHO when it was, given all the variables. 

 

 

[Gil Jesus]

Deleted

Edited March 28 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

50 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It is not necessary to remove the scope when disassembling the rifle. It is inevitable, however, that during disassembly/reassembly, the precise alignment of the scope must be affected. This may be only minimal but nevertheless, it must have an effect." 

Exactly. And you can't sight a scope in without firing test shots. Period.

[Pat Speer]

32 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

LHO's landlady said she was glued to the TV (naturally enough) when LHO entered, and as I recall, she was in the living room in the front of house, by the front door. 

So, would she have noticed LHO taking one minute in the bathroom? Further down the hall. 

Or, there were bathrooms in the Texas Theater. 

Anyway see my related post. Even wiping ones face with a cloth can remove GSR. 

The GSR test strikes me as very iffy. Even perspiration can remove GSR, while shooting with the wind (as opposed into the wind) can limit exposure. 

Von Pein has links to tests that showed no doses of GSR using the M-L rifle. Yes, take with a grain of salt. 

"The Warren Commission Report, Pages 561-562....

"In a third experiment, performed after the assassination, an agent of the FBI, using the C2766 rifle, fired three rounds of Western 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition in rapid succession. A paraffin test was then performed on both of his hands and his right cheek. Both of his hands and his cheek tested negative."

---30---

The cheek test was administered by the DPD past the number of hours it is considered conclusive. 

I would not declare LHO innocent or guilty based on a GSR test administered on LHO when it was, given all the variables. 

 

 

The paraffin tests were not considered reliable, even in 1963. The NAA tests are considered reliable, even today. 

But, as to your larger point, yes, you are correct. The tests were performed too late to be conclusive. But there was plenty of gsr on his hands, and he was not believed to have washed his face, so the negative result for antimony on his cheek is undoubtedly suggestive of his innocence. 

When one takes into account, moreover, that the cheek casts ended up with more barium on the control side of the cheek cast than the side that had been applied to his face, the suspicion someone tried to rig the tests is justified.