Pat Speer Chats with Francois Carlier

[Gil Jesus]

On 3/27/2024 at 7:02 AM, 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 certainly does matter if the shooting was at 12:30 and Oswald is seen on the first floor at 12:25 and it takes six minutes to reassemble the rifle. That makes it impossible for him to have done the shooting at 12:30. Do the math.

And while you can speculate that he somehow assembled the rifle earlier in the day somewhere in the building without being seen, there's no evidence to support that. The lack of evidence  "allows" me to rule that out.

In fact, there's evidence that he didn't even know the motorcade was coming by his building until after 9:00 am, when he asked James Jarman why the people were gathering outside and which way the motorcade might come. ( 3 H 201 ) ( see also 24 H 213 )

To your argument that Oswald had access to the building prior to 12:25, the truth is ANYBODY had access to that building prior to 12:25. It was not locked up. There was no security. Access was not controlled. Anybody could have gotten into that building and used the elevators to get to the sixth floor after everyone had gone to lunch and/or were outside waiting for the motorcade.

So your argument that Oswald had access to the building is a moot point. It proves nothing.

The "sniper's nest" was nothing more than a row of boxes that had been moved into the southeast corner because they were laying down a new floor.

According to Oswald’s supervisor, William Shelley, that morning Oswald had been filling orders for Scott-Foresman Publishing, one of the tenants of the Texas School Book Depository building. In fact, Shelley testified that Oswald filled mostly Scott-Foresman orders. ( 6 H 332 )

Superintendent Roy Truly testified that overflow stock of Scott-Foresman books were kept on the sixth floor and that Oswald, “had occasion to go to the sixth floor quite a number of times every day, each day after books.” ( 3 H 215 )

Studebaker Exhibit A shows evidence that cartons of Scott-Foresman books were in the southeast corner of the sixth floor and made up part of the “wall” that was the “sniper’s nest”.

In fact, Charles Givens testified that he saw Oswald coming from the southeast corner at 11:55 pm  ( 6 H 349 ) and he had his, "board with his orders on it."

So we would expect to find Oswald's fingerprints on cartons in that area if he were moving cartons in his search for books to fill those orders.

Now, I've provided evidence that Oswald's prints on the cartons were part of his doing his job. Tell us how do you get from Oswald's prints being on the cartons, to him firing a rifle ?

And when did Zahm say the ten shots were for sighting in the rifle for the FIRST TIME ?

I can't find that in his testimony.

Please post your source for that.

Edited March 28 by Gil Jesus

[Benjamin Cole]

48 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

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. 

Yes, as I recall, the purported LHO plaster cast (not truly plaster but a waxy-type material?) fell into the hands of DPD officer for a while (many days or weeks?) before belatedly finding its way to a testing lab run by Guinn (the erstwhile bullet guy, as I recall).

I gather the DPD guy thought an LHO cast would be valuable as a souvenir. I wonder if it is the "real" LHO plaster cast. The chain of evidence was broken, as I recall. 

In addition, though you say there is no evidence LHO washed his face...it is certainly possible he did. 

Also, see my related post for all the ways in which a false negative can be had in testing for GSR. 

Franky, I do not know what to make of the FBI test-firing the M-C rifle and finding it left no GSR traces. 

Well, each to his own.

IMHO, I would not exonerate, or convict, LHO on the cheek evidence. 

 

Add on: Gloves will prevent GSR deposits, and so will covering the face while shooting. 

Edited March 28 by Benjamin Cole

[Mark Ulrik]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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." 

It seems you have a later version of the article. The afterthought on scope alignment is absent in my copy; otherwise I would certainly have included it in my quote.

[Tom Gram]

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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.

Here is the 12/10/63 report by Inspector James H. Gale on the FBI’s secret internal investigation that recommended Hosty and other agents be reprimanded: 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9940#relPageId=13

I forget if I’ve seen an unredacted copy online…possibly under a different RIF number but this is all I had bookmarked. If anyone has an unredacted copy let me know. 

Edited March 28 by Tom Gram

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

It certainly does matter if the shooting was at 12:30 and Oswald is seen on the first floor at 12:25 and it takes six minutes to reassemble the rifle. That makes it impossible for him to have done the shooting at 12:30. Do the math.

Your point is moot if Oswald had access to the sixth floor prior to 12:25. Can you rule that out?

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

And while you can speculate that he somehow assembled the rifle earlier in the day somewhere in the building without being seen, there's no evidence to support that. The lack of evidence  "allows" me to rule that out.

Pointing out that we don't know when the rifle was assembled is not speculation. You're the one attempting to artificially narrow down the window of opportunity.

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

In fact, there's evidence that he didn't even know the motorcade was coming by his building until after 9:00 am, when he asked James Jarman why the people were gathering outside and which way the motorcade might come. ( 3 H 201 ) ( see also 24 H 213 )

Oswald feigning lack of interest?

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

To your argument that Oswald had access to the building prior to 12:25, the truth is ANYBODY had access to that building prior to 12:25. It was not locked up. There was no security. Access was not controlled. Anybody could have gotten into that building and used the elevators to get to the sixth floor after everyone had gone to lunch and/or were outside waiting for the motorcade.

So your argument that Oswald had access to the building is a moot point. It proves nothing.

I said sixth floor, not building, but thank you for admitting that Oswald had access.

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

The "sniper's nest" was nothing more than a row of boxes that had been moved into the southeast corner because they were laying down a new floor.

How convenient.

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

According to Oswald’s supervisor, William Shelley, that morning Oswald had been filling orders for Scott-Foresman Publishing, one of the tenants of the Texas School Book Depository building. In fact, Shelley testified that Oswald filled mostly Scott-Foresman orders. ( 6 H 332 )

Superintendent Roy Truly testified that overflow stock of Scott-Foresman books were kept on the sixth floor and that Oswald, “had occasion to go to the sixth floor quite a number of times every day, each day after books.” ( 3 H 215 )

Thank you for admitting that Oswald had legitimate, work-related reasons to make unsupervised visits to the sixth floor at various times, including the morning hours of 11/22.

I rest my case.

[Gil Jesus]

3 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Pointing out that we don't know when the rifle was assembled is not speculation.

You're the one attempting to artificially narrow down the window of opportunity.

Oswald feigning lack of interest?

I said sixth floor, not building, but thank you for admitting that Oswald had access.

Thank you for admitting that Oswald had legitimate, work-related reasons to make unsupervised visits to the sixth floor at various times, including the morning hours of 11/22.

I rest my case.

Pointing out that we don't know when the rifle was assembled is not speculation.

You didn't say that. You suggested that Oswald reassembled the rifle earlier that morning. Again, you have no evidence to support that. That's called speculation.

You're the one attempting to artificially narrow down the window of opportunity.

Narrowing what window ? You've got him reassembling the rifle sometime between 8am and 12:25 pm. Isn't that YOUR window ? What evidence did you produce to support that ?

** Answer: NONE

Oswald feigning lack of interest?

You're speculating again. You have no evidence to support that either.

I said sixth floor, not building,

So now you have Oswald assembling the rifle on the sixth floor sometime that morning while the crew was present laying down a new floor ?

but thank you for admitting that Oswald had access.

As I pointed out, so did the rest of the world. What's your point ?

Thank you for admitting that Oswald had legitimate, work-related reasons to make unsupervised visits to the sixth floor at various times, including the morning hours of 11/22.

With a crew present laying down a new floor and nobody saw him reassembling the rifle ?

Nobody knew he was even on the floor ?

I rest my case.

What case ? You haven't provided one stitch of evidence to prove anything you've said. No testimony, no documents, no exhibits, no photographs. Nothing. You've provided nothing but your own opinions without fact.

And you haven't addressed one point I've made or answered one single question that I've asked you.

Yeah, some case you've got there.

Edited March 28 by Gil Jesus

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

Pointing out that we don't know when the rifle was assembled is not speculation.

You didn't say that. You suggested that Oswald reassembled the rifle earlier that morning. Again, you have no evidence to support that. That's called speculation.

You're the one attempting to artificially narrow down the window of opportunity.

Narrowing what window ? You've got him reassembling the rifle sometime between 8am and 12:25 pm. Isn't that YOUR window ? What evidence did you produce to support that ?

** Answer: NONE

Oswald feigning lack of interest?

You're speculating again. You have no evidence to support that either.

I said sixth floor, not building,

So now you have Oswald assembling the rifle on the sixth floor sometime that morning while the crew was present laying down a new floor ?

but thank you for admitting that Oswald had access.

As I pointed out, so did the rest of the world. What's your point ?

Thank you for admitting that Oswald had legitimate, work-related reasons to make unsupervised visits to the sixth floor at various times, including the morning hours of 11/22.

With a crew present laying down a new floor and nobody saw him reassembling the rifle ?

Nobody knew he was even on the floor ?

I rest my case.

What case ? You haven't provided one stitch of evidence to prove anything you've said. No testimony, no documents, no exhibits, no photographs. Nothing. You've provided nothing but your own opinions without fact.

And you haven't addressed one point I've made or answered one single question that I've asked you.

Yeah, some case you've got there.

The whole world had access, you say, while flatly rejecting the notion that Oswald would've had access prior to 12:25, unless I can produce a timestamped photograph of him on the sixth floor with the rifle in his hands. I find that peculiar and not entirely reasonable.

You'll have to forgive me if I failed to answer any of your questions. Would you care to repeat them?

[Pat Speer]

8 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Yes, as I recall, the purported LHO plaster cast (not truly plaster but a waxy-type material?) fell into the hands of DPD officer for a while (many days or weeks?) before belatedly finding its way to a testing lab run by Guinn (the erstwhile bullet guy, as I recall).

I gather the DPD guy thought an LHO cast would be valuable as a souvenir. I wonder if it is the "real" LHO plaster cast. The chain of evidence was broken, as I recall. 

In addition, though you say there is no evidence LHO washed his face...it is certainly possible he did. 

Also, see my related post for all the ways in which a false negative can be had in testing for GSR. 

Franky, I do not know what to make of the FBI test-firing the M-C rifle and finding it left no GSR traces. 

Well, each to his own.

IMHO, I would not exonerate, or convict, LHO on the cheek evidence. 

Well, I wrote a book on this topic because, whether or not the tests prove Oswald's innocence, the DPD and FBI's behavior regarding these tests is proof THEY thought they were suggestive of Oswald's innocence, and were scared this would come out. 

As far as the paraffin (wax) casts, they were taken home by the DPD crime lab employee who'd conducted the tests, and brought back a few days later when the FBI expressed an interest in them. This makes their chain of custody better than average (for this case)...certainly better than the chain-of-custody for the shells.  

Edited March 28 by Pat Speer

[Greg Doudna]

 

8 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

According to Oswald’s supervisor, William Shelley, that morning Oswald had been filling orders for Scott-Foresman Publishing, one of the tenants of the Texas School Book Depository building. In fact, Shelley testified that Oswald filled mostly Scott-Foresman orders. ( 6 H 332 )

Superintendent Roy Truly testified that overflow stock of Scott-Foresman books were kept on the sixth floor and that Oswald, “had occasion to go to the sixth floor quite a number of times every day, each day after books.” ( 3 H 215 )

Studebaker Exhibit A shows evidence that cartons of Scott-Foresman books were in the southeast corner of the sixth floor and made up part of the “wall” that was the “sniper’s nest”.

In fact, Charles Givens testified that he saw Oswald coming from the southeast corner at 11:55 pm  ( 6 H 349 ) and he had his, "board with his orders on it."

So we would expect to find Oswald's fingerprints on cartons in that area if he were moving cartons in his search for books to fill those orders.

Good argument on this point Gil.

The argument has always been that it looks like a smoking-gun incrimination, too much to be coincidence, that of all TSBD employees, Oswald's is the only known TSBD employee fingerprint match found on those cartons in the location from which a shooter was seen and three shell hulls found.

But Gil Jesus has just shown a plausible explanation for why Oswald's, and not any other TSBD employee's, fingerprints might reasonably turn up on those cartons there, in a way not necessarily implicating Oswald in shooting: his work filling orders for Scott Foresman books (assuming that lettering on the side of that carton in the photo of the arrow in the illustration confirms Scott Foresman books; I cannot quite verify that from reading it myself).

To advocates of the Oswald LN interpretation, this is no problem because Oswald still could have done it. But it starts to go in circles when convicting someone on the basis that he could have done the crime, as distinguished from proof that he did.

Also, I would like to add something to my earlier hypothetical (below)--that hypothetical is on the assumption of today's known information as the basis for the then-juries' consideration in the hypothetical. In a real trial, if Oswald had lived to come to trial and had pleaded not guilty (and not by reason of insanity), he or his counsel could well have sought and obtained through discovery and/or direct testimony from Oswald unknown other information, such as e.g. Oswald as an informant, or working with, say, the ATTU (Alcohol, Tobacco, Tax Unit, today's ATF) on a mail-order firearms investigation being carried out by the Dodd committee in Congress, related to the rifle, or whatever. So the hypothetical below is likely not based on everything of importance that juries might have considered in reality, since what additional Oswald might have brought forward with the assistance of counsel is not known.  

18 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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. 

 

Edited March 28 by Greg Doudna

[Mark Ulrik]

3 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

I rest my case.

What case ? You haven't provided one stitch of evidence to prove anything you've said. No testimony, no documents, no exhibits, no photographs. Nothing. You've provided nothing but your own opinions without fact.

And you haven't addressed one point I've made or answered one single question that I've asked you.

Yeah, some case you've got there.

What case? The case that you helped me make, by admitting that Oswald prior to 12:25 had not only plausible access but even legitimate, work-related reasons to make (unsupervised) visits to the sixth floor.

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

It seems you have a later version of the article. The afterthought on scope alignment is absent in my copy; otherwise I would certainly have included it in my quote.

It was a subsequent article. I remembered Griggs' claiming the photo showing the barrel and scope beside the stock and bag was misleading, and I remembered this correctly,  but I was wrong about his reasoning--as he said the scope and barrel need not be separated. 

But I recalled his saying the disassembly of the rifle would mess with the alignment of the scope. And found his saying as much, here: 

https://docplayer.net/60141044-The-mannlicher-carcano-disassembly-and-reassembly.html

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Good argument on this point Gil.

The argument has always been that it looks like a smoking-gun incrimination, too much to be coincidence, that of all TSBD employees, Oswald's is the only known TSBD employee fingerprint match found on those cartons in the location from which a shooter was seen and three shell hulls found.

But Gil Jesus has just shown a plausible explanation for why Oswald's, and not any other TSBD employee's, fingerprints might reasonably turn up on those cartons there, in a way not necessarily implicating Oswald in shooting: his work filling orders for Scott Foresman books (assuming that lettering on the side of that carton in the photo of the arrow in the illustration confirms Scott Foresman books; I cannot quite verify that from reading it myself).

To advocates of the Oswald LN interpretation, this is no problem because Oswald still could have done it. But it starts to go in circles when convicting someone on the basis that he could have done the crime, as distinguished from proof that he did.

Also, I would like to add something to my earlier hypothetical (below)--that hypothetical is on the assumption of today's known information as the basis for the then-juries' consideration in the hypothetical. In a real trial, if Oswald had lived to come to trial and had pleaded not guilty (and not by reason of insanity), he or his counsel could well have sought and obtained through discovery and/or direct testimony from Oswald unknown other information, such as e.g. Oswald as an informant, or working with, say, the ATTU (Alcohol, Tobacco, Tax Unit, today's ATF) on a mail-order firearms investigation being carried out by the Dodd committee in Congress, related to the rifle, or whatever. So the hypothetical below is likely not based on everything of importance that juries might have considered in reality, since what additional Oswald might have brought forward with the assistance of counsel is not known.  

 

Oswald's work would not entail his moving around the Scott-Foresman boxes unless the items inside were needed for an order. 

So one might think the DPD and FBI would isolate the orders pulled by Oswald throughout the day and see if any of them involved the items in those boxes, or even neighboring boxes. But they failed to do so. 

In fact, if memory serves, they even failed to note that the orders on his clipboard were for items on the sixth floor, and gave him a perfectly logical reason to be on that floor...even if Givens was telling the truth when he said he saw him on that floor. 

As a former warehouse worker I can tell you that there is NOTHING suspicious about Oswald's clipboard being found near the back stairs. An order puller would take a number of orders for a location and grab as much of those orders as he could before going down to drop them off in the shipping department. If heading out to lunch, he would leave his clipboard in the vicinity of where he was to resume work. The discovery of his clipboard by the stairs and elevator then is as suggestive of his innocence as his guilt. 

Edited March 28 by Pat Speer

[François Carlier]

Hello everybody

I have a question.

You are all talking about whether Lee Oswald was seen by officer Marrion Baker (and Roy Truly), or was he on the sixth floor, or was he on the second floor, or was he on the first floor, or was he outside watching the presidential parade….

That's all very well, but reading this thread, it seems to me that nobody here believes that Lee Oswald had an airtight alibi since he was with a Geraldine Reid, handing her a one-dollar bill so he could have change to buy a coke at the vending machine.

That is what famous conspiracy-leaning researcher Robert Groden claims (in his latest book as well as in interviews, on radio or on television – see video below).

That's what I would like to know : who agrees with him, here ?

I know that so-called "lone nutters" such as David Von Pein won't agree with Robert Groden. I don't need his answer, I already have it. DVP would say that Oswald does not have an alibi and was NOT with "Geraldine Reid" at the time of the shooting. I also know what other researchers have said (for example, James DiEugenio, in his review of Groden's book, writes that he was mistaken and was somewhat bamboozled - https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/groden-robert-absolute-proof)

But what about the so-called "conspiracy theorists" ? I mean, all the people here who reject the official version and claim to believe/conclude/suspect/know that there was a conspiracy and Oswald was either a patsy or altogether innocent (not guilty), or part of a plot, or a bystander, or anything you might suggest ? What do you think of Robert Groden's claim ?

I'm interested to know.

 

 

Edited March 28 by François Carlier

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, François Carlier said:

That's all very well, but reading this thread, it seems to me that nobody here believes that Lee Oswald had an airtight alibi since he was with a Geraldine Reid, handing her a one-dollar bill so he could have change to buy a coke at the vending machine.

 

Francois,

That claim in and of itself doesn't matter much to me because it is just the memory of one witness and has no corroboration.

I happen to believe that Oswald told the truth in his interrogation about buying a coke on the second floor, then taking it down and drinking it with his lunch. All before the shooting, of course.

So if Oswald got change from Geraldine Reid for the coke, that would have been around 12:15 PM.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Francois,

I have a question for you.

Does it bother you at all that the HSCA moved the entrance wound that  Humes saw near the external occipital protuberance up by 4 inches, to the cowlick area of the head?

Don't you think that was an astonishing thing to do?

Most CTers know the reason the HSCA did that. Do you?