What evidence is there?

[William Kelly]

We are all familiar with evidence indicating that there was more than one gunman in DP.

But what evidence is there re who did it?

Let me summarize and request your comments.

We are all familiar with the litany of "means, motive and opportunity". Presumably, anyone with the motive to want Kennedy dead and with sufficient money to hire killers had all three.

Motive alone cannot prove who did it, although it ought to be a factor to be considered.

......

Is there are evidence, or category thereof, that I am missing?

Tim, if you follow the evidence from Dealey Plaza it will take you directly to the conspirators.

A text book in my father's library, The Detection of Murder, contained the following advice, before proceeding:

The Detection of Murder – A Handbook for Police Officers, Detectives, Coroners, Judges and Attorneys

by William F. Kessler, M.D. and Paul B. Weston (1953, Greenberg Pub., N.Y.)

“When a murder is discovered and the killer arrested, the usual response of the general public is, ‘What a stupid man.’ And what they think is true – only the ‘stupid’ murderers are caught. Those who escape punishment for committing murder successfully conceal their crimes by simulating suicide, accidental injury, or natural death. Literally, thousands of people each year are getting away with murder….”

“The first officer on the scene of a homicide should learn to know the signs which would put a death in the classification of ‘under suspicious circumstances’ in order that the forces of law and order will not lose precious minutes in seeking out the killer.”

“Death may be due to: a) natural causes, self-inflicted wounds, c) injuries received in an accident, or d) the result of a murderous attack. The officer must find out which of the four possible mechanisms caused death, and then find evidence to support his conclusions. He must, therefore, seek a person skilled in medicine to determine the cause of death from an examination of the body of the victim. Only physicians can perform a post-mortem examination. The official who performs the autopsy is usually called a coroner or a medical examiner.”

“It is the duty of the police to investigate the circumstances attending the death by an examination of the scene and questioning witnesses. His object is to explore the events that led up to it and to seek a reconstruction of the last hours spent on earth of the deceased. From this portion of the initial investigation, it is expected that a reasonable conclusion as to the possible mechanism of death can be made.”

“This information is passed on to the surgeon who is performing the autopsy. It is then the duty of this member of the medical profession to determine the cause of death, the mechanism that brought it about, and any contributing factors. “

“Armed with this autopsy report, the police continue to search into the background of the deceased for any evidence which would tend to clarify the details of the case and perhaps controvert the autopsy findings. Then, and only then, have the police and the medical profession discharged their responsibility.”

“…Standard operating procedure of most police agencies concerned with the investigation of homicide is for the first officer at the scene to clear it of all unauthorized persons, and prevent any unauthorized persons from entering. However, care must be exercised not to clear witnesses from the scene, nor to discourage anyone from coming forward and contributing some slight bit of knowledge which may not seem important at the time, but which may later be the means of establishing the identity of the murderer.”

“In the first moments of his arrival, the officer should caution all present to use care not to destroy or impair the value of possible evidence at the scene. ‘Don’t pick anything up, don’t throw anything down. Don’t touch anything, keep your hands in your pockets.’ And he should personally be careful not to put his own fingerprints on any object at the scene or destroy possible valuable fingerprint impressions by careless or unintelligent handling of objects.”

“Pending the arrival of detective or superiors, this officer should seek to separate the witnesses to prevent their talking together. He can do this easily enough by keeping them busy giving him information as to their names, places of employment, addresses, telephone numbers, etc. If time permits, he should draw each witness a little to one side and secure a statement from him as to just what he knows of the circumstances of the case, briefly writing the facts in his notebook.”

“It is essential that adequate photographs be taken in every case of suspicious death. A competent photographer will be assigned to take pictures of the scene and the dead body…The scene should not be disturbed until the photographs have been made…Photos should be from every possible angle. The cameras not only records but oftentimes picks up and delineates things not readily visible to the eye of the ordinary observer. Each photo should be marked, ‘looking east from extreme northeast corner of room,’ ‘view of victim directly above,’ etc. A ruler can be used to indicate the scale of the photos.”

“…In order to guard against any break in the chain of evidence, the photographer should keep the film in his sole custody until he develops the pictures. Then he may deliver the negatives to whom ever is in charge of records and files in the police department concerned. Later, he must be prepared to testify in court that he took the pictures of the scene, had them in his custody until developed, and that the picture now being offered in evidence is one of those taken and developed by him.”

“A sketch of the scene may be used to supplement the photographs for a better understanding of the distances involved and the location of objects therein. If possible it should be to scale, with some mark which will permit orientation, and objects located by distances to two reference points.”

HISTORY OF SCENE

“As the scene is being photographed and processed for fingerprints – before anything has been moved – the assigned detective, his superior, or the ranking officer at the scene should write down a history of the scene or dictate to a stenographer if available. This commentary would start with physical description of the premises concerned, then the immediate area of the scene, and the position and general appearance of the body. Then the name of the photographer and some details of the photo taken would be noted, followed by the name of the person taking fingerprints at the scene, as well as others who are present.”

“As the crime scene search progresses all evidence, particularly weapons, found at the scene would also be noted, together with exact information as to where found, condition, description, and by whom found.”

SEARCHING THE SCENE

“It is not a difficult problem to search the scene of a crime. The initial search is for fingerprints and weapons, then for any clues or traces which may give information as to who may have been at the scene of the crime at the time of death. Then a search of the personal affects of the victim should be instituted for anything which may throw light on his habits and associates.”

“The most important factor in the examination of the scene is the preservation of evidence. Therefore, everyone present must know his job, and each must be assigned a specific phase of the search in order that every possible nook and cranny of the scene will be searched methodically, and all evidence thoroughly evaluated by men who know the possible value of the various types of evidence, not only in the prosecution of the murderer when apprehended, but also in the detection of murder initially.”

xxxyyyyzzz

[Mark Stapleton]

[----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? Oh yeah, because Oswald's half-nephew once dated one of the Mobile Purvises, of the minute rice and barbed-wire fortune...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In that regard, I will have to check with my distant cousin "Tom Purvis", former Sheriff of Mobile County to find out if his daughter ever dated LHO's kin folk.

http://www.mobileso.com/MobileSO/About/

Tom Purvis 1975 - 1995

Perhaps you are confusing it with LHO's trip to Mobile on his speaking engagement for his first cousin.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald.htm

On July 27, 1963, Lee was accompanied by Dutz and Lillian Murret (his aunt and uncle) and Marina to speak at the House of Studies at Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama. There he discussed his experiences in the Soviet Union before an audience of Jesuit seminarians. Among a variety of views he expressed was the following:

Not sure whether a "Jesuit Priest" in training is or is not allowed to date!

But I will, for the sake of clarification, ask Ann (Tom's Daughter) if she ever dated any of this bunch.

Who knows??????????

Perhaps there is an even closer association between the "Purvis" & "Harvey" families than even I am aware.

Thomas Harvey Purvis (Born in Mobile, AL, but from MS)

Humor trumps sarcasm. Purvis wins this round.

Very noble Pat but the adversaries don't get to judge the outcome--that's the task of those who witness the debate--and my scorecard has you way ahead. Tom's consistent maintenance of the theme that "there's zero evidence to suggest anything other than a lone gunman" sways me not in the slightest. There were at least two and possibly as many as four or five gunmen and while Tom brings lots of information to the Forum (much of it irrelevant, but that's just my opinion), how much of this information has convinced me to change my opinion on this pivotal issue? Zero, that's how much.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

[----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? Oh yeah, because Oswald's half-nephew once dated one of the Mobile Purvises, of the minute rice and barbed-wire fortune...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In that regard, I will have to check with my distant cousin "Tom Purvis", former Sheriff of Mobile County to find out if his daughter ever dated LHO's kin folk.

http://www.mobileso.com/MobileSO/About/

Tom Purvis 1975 - 1995

Perhaps you are confusing it with LHO's trip to Mobile on his speaking engagement for his first cousin.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oswald.htm

On July 27, 1963, Lee was accompanied by Dutz and Lillian Murret (his aunt and uncle) and Marina to speak at the House of Studies at Spring Hill College in Mobile, Alabama. There he discussed his experiences in the Soviet Union before an audience of Jesuit seminarians. Among a variety of views he expressed was the following:

Not sure whether a "Jesuit Priest" in training is or is not allowed to date!

But I will, for the sake of clarification, ask Ann (Tom's Daughter) if she ever dated any of this bunch.

Who knows??????????

Perhaps there is an even closer association between the "Purvis" & "Harvey" families than even I am aware.

Thomas Harvey Purvis (Born in Mobile, AL, but from MS)

Humor trumps sarcasm. Purvis wins this round.

Very noble Pat but the adversaries don't get to judge the outcome--that's the task of those who witness the debate--and my scorecard has you way ahead. Tom's consistent maintenance of the theme that "there's zero evidence to suggest anything other than a lone gunman" sways me not in the slightest. There were at least two and possibly as many as four or five gunmen and while Tom brings lots of information to the Forum (much of it irrelevant, but that's just my opinion), how much of this information has convinced me to change my opinion on this pivotal issue? Zero, that's how much.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There were at least two and possibly as many as four or five gunmen

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In event one does not know what an oak tree looks like, then there is little purpose served in venturing into the forest to look for one.

As, one will merely become "lost" among all of the other trees.

[George Bollschweiler]

Tom's comments aside, I believe that within the strong evidence there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza are some indications of who employed these shooters. On the one hand, we have the probability of a second shooter, probably in the Dal-Tex Building, where Jim Braden--a man with extensive connections to both the oil business and organized crime-- was arrested. On the other hand, we have the likely use of a silenced automatic weapon of small caliber; this would seem to indicate an AR-15/M-16, which at that time was not widely available. I believe its availability was limited to the Secret Service, Air Force, and Special Forces. If James Richards is correct about having a photo of Mitch Werbell holding an AR-15 in 1963, then we should include his circle as well.

If Werbell had the mob contacts some believe he had, one could probably tie him to Ruby and Braden relatively easy. If one is inclined to go the other route, through the Special Forces in Laos and the Opium Trade etc, one can end up in the same place, albeit with more government involvement. In either scenario, Trafficante and Lansky are implicated on some level.

Of course, this is not concrete, but it is a starting place. If somebody can figure out what Werbell was up to in 63, it might actually lead us someplace. Does Mr. Hemming have any ideas?

I absolutely agree with you Pat that the use of silenced weapons in coordination with normal rifles could be one of the reasons why most witnesses heard only 3 shots (many heard more) but the damage caused by bullets indicates that more bullets were fired. But it seems that this idea is rejected by most researchers and I wonder why? Hope James will post the mentioned photo of WerBell holding a silenced AR-15/M-16. BTW Ron has a page where WerBell shows some silenced weapons to Vietnamese army members.

Concerning a possible connection between WerBell and the Mafia I found an interesting

statement given by Mordechai Levy, Feb, 2005.

TP, PG and other Security members boasted to me of the weapons training they had

received at the "Cobra" paramilitary school run by LaRouche’s chief security consultant

Mitch WerBell. [WerBell, now deceased, was an associate of the late Cleveland, Ohio,

mafia boss John Nardi and claimed to be a former CIA contract employee.] TP boasted

that WerBell had taught them advanced "liquidation techniques." PG called these

techniques "wetworks," a euphemism for assassination methods. Another Security

member, RG, explained to me how they had learned to ambush someone by setting up a

three-man fire team and positioning members of the team in such a way as to minimize

the danger of their shooting each other by mistake. TP told me that if you have to take out

an enemy security team in a car, you should always shoot the agent handling the radio

first, rather than the driver, to minimize the chances of a call for backup. TP on at least

two occasions showed me his shotgun and 45 automatic handgun. When TP asked me to

go to the firing range with him, I claimed I had a prior engagement. When still photos of

members of the LaRouche security team dressed in camouflage uniforms and supposedly

engaged in paramilitary training were shown on national TV in the United States (this I

believe was in early 1984), members of Security told me they had leaked the photos in

order to send a message to their "enemies" that the organization was capable of serious violence.

George

[Thomas H. Purvis]

We are all familiar with evidence indicating that there was more than one gunman in DP.

But what evidence is there re who did it?

Let me summarize and request your comments.

We are all familiar with the litany of "means, motive and opportunity". Presumably, anyone with the motive to want Kennedy dead and with sufficient money to hire killers had all three.

Motive alone cannot prove who did it, although it ought to be a factor to be considered.

Are we left with the following?

(a) Threats made before the act.

( Confessions made after the assassination.

© Possible presence in DP: here I refer of course to the reported (but disputed by some, of course) presence of DGI agents in DP and the reported presence of CIA agents in DP.

(d) A fingerprint of Mac Wallace, although it is still a subject of controversy.

(e) The necessity that the conspirators have a relationship with Jack Ruby.

Cleary, there were many made threats against JFK before the assassination which were not carried out. Equally clear not everyone who has "confessed" did it (Jim Files comes to mind).

Is there are evidence, or category thereof, that I am missing?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there are evidence, or category thereof, that I am missing?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Proof of a significant set of curcumstances often produces belief beyond a reasonable doubt...even in the absence of direct proof of the ultimate fact.-

Actually, circumstantial evidence, contrary to public belief, is capable of producing at least as high a degree of certainty as that arising from direct proof."

In such cases, all facts tending to throw light upon the matter and which tend to establish a chain of circumstantial evidence in respec t to the act charged, are admissable.

The only requirement is that they afford the basis of a logical inference relative to the issue and supply a "link in the chain"."

THE EVIDENCE HANDBOOK

Tom

P.S. See "altered evidence/aka Survey Data for the "Direct Proof".

[Tim Gratz]

Regarding the possible use of silenced weapons as evidence of the conspirators, here I would have to disagree with Pat re such use being of evidentiary value. Presumably, anyone sophisticated enough to plan the assassination could obtain silencers, be it the Mafia, Castro forces, the CIA, military snipers, and the list goes on and on.

So I do not believe that positing the use of silenced weapons points us toward the conspirators.

As I have stated before, it is a no-brainer that the Mafia participated in the assassination. And it is well-known that the Mafia used silencers from time to time. But the presumed use of silencers does not make the case against the Mafia any stronger.

Even if silencers were used, the fact that WerBell was a developer of silenced weapns in no way ties him to the assassination. Moreover, it is even possible, is it not, that WerBell sold silenced weapons that were ultimately used in the assassination without his knowledge of their ultimate use.

Let me put it this way (using syllogistic logic):

Major premise: Silencers were used in the assassination.

Minor premise: The following is a non-inclusive list of groups that used silencers: a) the Mafia; the CIA; c) military snipers; d) the KGB; e) the DGI or Castro military.

No conclusion whatsoever can be drawn from those premises. I guess if one could compile a list of organizations that never used silencers, one might be able to exclude them from scrutiny, but that seems highly problematic.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Regarding the possible use of silenced weapons as evidence of the conspirators, here I would have to disagree with Pat re such use being of evidentiary value. Presumably, anyone sophisticated enough to plan the assassination could obtain silencers, be it the Mafia, Castro forces, the CIA, military snipers, and the list goes on and on.

So I do not believe that positing the use of silenced weapons points us toward the conspirators.

As I have stated before, it is a no-brainer that the Mafia participated in the assassination. And it is well-known that the Mafia used silencers from time to time. But the presumed use of silencers does not make the case against the Mafia any stronger.

Even if silencers were used, the fact that WerBell was a developer of silenced weapns in no way ties him to the assassination. Moreover, it is even possible, is it not, that WerBell sold silenced weapons that were ultimately used in the assassination without his knowledge of their ultimate use.

Let me put it this way (using syllogistic logic):

Major premise: Silencers were used in the assassination.

Minor premise: The following is a non-inclusive list of groups that used silencers: a) the Mafia; the CIA; c) military snipers; d) the KGB; e) the DGI or Castro military.

No conclusion whatsoever can be drawn from those premises. I guess if one could compile a list of organizations that never used silencers, one might be able to exclude them from scrutiny, but that seems highly problematic.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I have stated before, it is a no-brainer that the Mafia participated in the assassination

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You must be an associate and/or follower of Mr. Blakely!

If it were such a "no brainer", then perhaps your and/or Mr. Blakely could direct us to the exact person who ordered the assassination.

[Allan Lowe]

one question we should ask - were these silencers useable at long-range (since I would assume the silencer affects speed and trajectory)?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

one question we should ask - were these silencers useable at long-range (since I would assume the silencer affects speed and trajectory)?

Reality Check!

We are looking for a hypothetical person, who has taken on mythological proportions of being either and/or located in the following positions:

1. Storm drain man

2. Badge man

3. Black-dog man

4. Overpass man

And is now shooting with a hypothetical silenced weapon.

I truely hope that no one who is actually serious about the subject matter becomes lost in this scenario('s)

[Allan Lowe]

yes, that's what I was thinking...