Three things I don't get it

[JDThomas]

As for the other evidence and the Mannlicher-Carcano. Oswald tested positive in a paraffin test on his hands, suggesting that he had fired a gun that day -- that is -- a pistol. This allows at least a deduction of a good chance that he shot the policeman. But the paraffin test of his face and upper body was negative. It would have been positive had he fired a rifle.Let's not forget that the paraffin test is a presumptive nitrates test. There are many substances around us that that contain nitrates that can give a false-positive to a 'nitrates from gunfire' paraffin test. High among these substances is paper .... as found in books.... which were in abundance at LHO's workplace. How odd that the investigating authorities chose not to consider this eh?Let's also consider the shells. Where did he buy them from (i.e. not with the Klein's order)? Did he only have the four found and used in evidence? Where were the rest? Surely they were not bought individually like breaking a pack of cigarettes, so where's the rest of the box?Chauncey Holt also claimed that American manufactured ammunition of this calibre were of a higher power and dangerous to be chambered in this slack, old Italian rifle. So the user would have to be careful to buy the correct ammo for this rifle, but from where and when? Again no evidence trail here either.

[Randy Bednorz]

Let's not forget that the paraffin test is a presumptive nitrates test. There are many substances around us that that contain nitrates that can give a false-positive to a 'nitrates from gunfire' paraffin test. High among these substances is paper .... as found in books.... which were in abundance at LHO's workplace. How odd that the investigating authorities chose not to consider this eh?Well, I can't just jettison my world-view because people want to apply a "reasonable doubt" standard. I had mentioned this before: the reaction you can get from police careerists and retired defense attorneys. I had a lot of experience in my work life with probability, statistics, sampling -- testing. I don't see events as governed in their perception by absolute certainty. OJ Simpson's trial was marked first by submission of blood-DNA evidence, for which there was a chance of about 1 out of 4 billion that it was a false match. Then, of course, the chain of custody was broken, and the jury chose to disregard even the practical certainty of a match. I didn't deliberately choose to make a ploy out of this view of things -- to be dismissed as a potential juror in a criminal's trial. When the defense and prosecutor were taking "juror resume's" and posing questions to each potential juror, I had explained that I didn't believe that 98% confidence in statistical testing left the 2% as "reasonable" doubt. "Mr. B___, you're excused!" and I was gone.Take for instance things like the coefficient of resilience for a billiard cue-ball, and the prospect of bouncing it on flat concrete a thousand times. Whether the error arises from measurement instruments or something else in the testing method, you are bound to get some sort of minute variation within such a copious sample.So it is interesting insofar as your remark about chemical traces from paper -- [perhaps printer's ink as well?] -- may have affected those tests. But the purpose of a paraffin test is to extract particles that may even be lodged in the pores of skin. Here, I'm saying there is some chance that Oswald shot Tippit. There is other evidence -- or incongruities in that evidence -- that someone else might have done so.CTKA -- with either Martin Shackelford or Jim DiEugenio -- has rightfully destroyed the main conclusion of Gary Russo's "Live By the Sword." But Russo had argued that an airplane -- possibly the old DC3 -- had filed flight plans to Mexico and had waited for an inordinate amount of time before taking off from Love Field. This only suggests one of various holes in the sieve of possibilities motivating Oswald's movements between his apartment and the Texas Theater. But although the lone-nut advocates argue the relevance of the Tippit killing, it is no less plausible that Oswald killed Tippit with the realization that he was being framed for the JFK murder. Then, there are the sources which suggest that someone had been designated to kill Oswald -- Richard Case Nagell, for instance. Oswald had been seen at the same restaurant on several occasions by a waitress when Tippit was there. I suspect there are a lot of loose ends we may never resolve about the Dallas Police Department. Some will recall the Roscoe White story as information you might classify as "folklore" pertaining to our topic.For the Tippit killing, there was potential "front-porch" testimony by more than one person that conflicts with the Warren conclusions. Then -- the fact that they couldn't match the bullet fragments found in Tippit to Oswald's pistol; the shell casings themselves seemed to be an anomaly, since Oswald's gun was a revolver, and the original casings found were argued to be other than those acquired by FBI. Even the type of ammunition implied by the casings was inconsistent with what Oswald was purported to use.

[Douglas 606]

That's Gary Marlow on the left....James Files, right side.According to James Files' testimony on tape, Gary Marlow killed officer Tippet. The morning after the ''event'', Marlow shows up at File's motel room door and asks Files to get rid of the pistol that Marlow used to kill Tippet. Files refused and shut the door.

[JDThomas]

In order for the Warren Commission to assert that Oswald killed Tippit, there had to be enough time for him to walk from his rooming house to 10th & Patton-over a mile away. The Warren Commission and HSCA ignored Markham's time of 1:06 PM, did not interview Bowley (1:10 PM), did not ask Roger Craig (1:06 PM) and did not use the time shown on original Dallas police logs. Instead, the Warren Commission (1964) concluded that Oswald walked that distance in 13 minutes. The House Select Committee on Assassinations (1978) determined the time was 14 minutes, 30 seconds. Both concluded Oswald was last seen at the corner of Beckley and Zang at 1:03 PM. Either of their times, 13 minutes or 14 minutes and 30 seconds, would place Oswald at 10th & Patton at 1:16 PM or later. The time of the Tippit shooting as placed by the Commission,1:16 PM, contradicted the testimony of Markham, Bowley, Craig and the Dallas Police log. Another problem for the Warren Commission to overcome was the direction in which Oswald was walking. If he was walking west, as all of the evidence suggested, he would have had to cover even more ground in the same unreasonably short period of time. The Dallas Police recorded that the defendent was walking "west in the 400 block of East 10th." The Commission ignored the evidence-5 witnesses and the official Dallas Police report of the event-and said he was walking east, away from the Texas Theatre. John ArmstrongLook at the Poilce logs ... there is no way Tippit was shot as late as the Warren Commission assert.... no way. I also contend that the logs show that the Police were likely out looking for Oswlad before his description was circulated. I wounder why.Let's not even start on the forensics here.

[Randy Bednorz]

Let's not even start on the forensics here.Actually, it is the decades-old tug-of-war about "forensics-of-the-moment" which had wearied me.I think I had seen the timeline-analysis before -- arguing that Oswald could not have shot Tippit.I, too, would tend to agree a likelihood that "Dallas police were [ . . . ] out looking for Oswald before his description was circulated." But that's a double-edged sword, so to speak: The very fact or "likelihood" that DPD had a "head-start" or were somehow involved in corralling the "patsy" would also provide a motive to Oswald, whose understanding of things may have dynamically changed very quickly after the JFK murder.Personally, I've had to contend with police careerists who are still inclined to believe the Warren Commission. Then, of course, there is the "reasonable doubt" standard of others that I also mentioned. Yet, an enlightened "layman" could conclude a likelihood that Oswald, in ideal criminal trial conditions conducted without limitations that hark back to the old Houston-Rogers Memorandum, might have been acquitted. This possibility, of course, may have been obscured by the mock trial pitting Bugliosi against Spence in the late '80s. The document I unearthed in 2004 -- only discovered in my digi-camera pics in 2009 -- suggests a pervasive Lone-Nut propaganda campaign over decades, and that includes the mock trial. These things have always been the barriers to achieving a more thorough public consensus. Even so, one has to ask how Oswald's hands tested positive in a paraffin test. Some innocent explanations have been given here. There may be other "innocent" explanations that include actual use of the pistol in days before the assassination. This, I throw out "off the top of my head," and you may destroy it if you know more about Oswald's movements during the previous week.

[Randy Bednorz]

According to James Files' testimony on tape, Gary Marlow killed officer Tippet. The morning after the ''event'', Marlow shows up at File's motel room door and asks Files to get rid of the pistol that Marlow used to kill Tippet. Files refused and shut the door.We could start another thread about this, but it has been on my mind.I have the Files DVD. I could never completely accept nor reject Files' assertions.Over the years, the compass-needle has turned in various directions about knoll shooters, Dal-Tex shooters -- the Mac Wallace folklore about the fingerprint under contention. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I even think the old Roscoe White folklore provided familial hearsay that he (also?) had shot the President.Per Files, Jay Epstein had argued that "phone records" indicated Files was in Chicago at the time of the Dealey Plaza shooting. I happened to see this recently on the CTKA web-site. Right away, you have to ask how "meta-data" proves Files was in Chicago. It only proves that "somebody" answered the phone. Jim DiEugenio argues that Files' account of a relationship with Dave Phillips is implausible, because Phillips was a "propaganda specialist" and wouldn't have been personally known to the mechanics. But this is also a weak argument. My own interest in this matter had led me to various readings -- Marchetti, Prouty, Simpson and several others on this matter of propaganda and psy-war. Psy-war involves propaganda that surrounds an event, with plenty of historical evidence that events can be created precisely for their propaganda potential. Also -- in Files' defense, his understanding of Phillips' specialty seemed more sophisticated than one would expect from someone who simply "read books about the assassination." "Various" others had mentioned Phillips' direct contact with Oswald -- excluding Fonzi's investigation and Veciana's signed statement. Did Judyth Baker seize on the Phillips theme just because she might have read about it? I could not say. A chronology helps to dispel the possibilities, but dispelling the possibilities isn't conclusive to false or exaggerated witness account.Recently, my lawyer friend -- who I'd mentioned -- passed me a November issue of the "National Inquirer" -- a publication I'd always caricatured as having front-page headlines like "Michelle Obama gave birth to alien twins!" the N__I__ spotlighted Anthony Summers' book, telling the story of Tony Cuesta -- telling of a confession by Herminio Diaz Garcia. Those names had surfaced somewhat earlier in assassination research. And again -- what Cuesta said is still "hearsay."Finally, there's the old Christian David angle on Lucien Sartie -- "Badgeman." That's also hearsay.A lot of conspiracy-doubters tend to discount witness accounts and stories from people known to lie or simply convicted criminals. This argument had been applied to E. Howard Hunt, for instance. With people like Phillips, we are talking about sophisticated professionals in the art of lying. I think I can prove that if you get two Liars talking to each other in such a way that nobody notices what they're saying, they may tell the Truth to each other -- a variant of "Honor among Thieves."Assume that Phillips confessed -- right under Bugliosi's nose and in plain view of his reading public. He points a finger at Morales, Esterline and others who had been part of "Operation Zapata" -- including "Mr. Rubbers." There's no overt identification of the shooters themselves. And all those possible candidates would have been accessible as resources to Phillips and Morales.

[Dealey Joe]

Files pointing the finger at Marlow has caused me to give thought of what was said, Files indicated Marlow stopped at his motel room saying "I had to burn a cop" I have always considered this a confession and I think Files took it that way also, however he did not witness Marlow doing the actual shooting?

[Randy Bednorz]

Consider the landscape of "assassination research history." I know I posted this before, but people apply standards in trying to match the auspices and pretensions of the Warren Report. So there's this legal notion of "reasonable doubt." If someone said that a second someone "confessed," is that "hearsay?" So the Files statement about his colleague Marlow is an assertion made by somebody about what someone else (ostensibly) told him. This is the same as the Tony Cuesta story about Herminio Diaz Garcia, or Christian David's assertions about Lucien Sartie.Then there's the "convicted criminal" factor. I've had people tell me that they couldn't believe a damn thing E. Howard Hunt said, because he was convicted in Watergate. Not only does this address the criminal reputation -- it may address former perjured testimony.Sometimes we can test what a crook said with a chronology addressing events and the release of information. In fact, we can do that for any kind of witness testimony.Take for instance Judyth Baker. I have no doubt that she knew Oswald and had an affair with him. But I had to step back a bit on her remarks about Phillips. Would she have known Phillips as "Phillips?" Would that have been the case with Oswald? More likely. Or would she have known him only as "Bishop" or "Knight?" That also goes for Files. Phillips was a CIA careerist. Would he reveal his real identity to someone like Files or Nicoletti? Or would such people likely have direct interaction with someone like Morales -- or Roselli?Those are the kinds of questions it's best to ask when looking at how much of their second-hand remarks are reliable. Then again, you wonder about the first-hand remarks -- like "I was the guy on the knoll with a Fireball .222." Had he seen the Zapruder film -- first aired in the '70s? Take for instance Johnny Roselli. He had told Bill Bonanno when they were both in prison that he-- Roselli-- was "the guy in the storm drain." The story remarks of his great difficulty in escaping through tunnels to the Trinity River. First -- it's "hearsay," second he'd already been convicted of something, third -- he was soon dead just before a scheduled testimony to the HSCA. Fourth, the storm drain angle had been explored at various times -- maybe even before Bonanno published his book.

[Ron]

Kees-Jan wrote:It is conspicuous that there were a lot of people on the streets before Elm Street to see JFK but not on the Elm Street. If you look the pictures or Zapruder / Moorman movie well, you don't see much people on Elm Street like the streets before. Imagine if Elm Street were very packed like the streets before, then you couldn't shoot from the Grassy Knoll well and maybe more people could be injured because of the lost bullets from the TBSD or somewhere else.I wonder why didn't Oswald get an lawyer? He really has the right to get one!Why weren't there any documentation of the interrogation of Oswald? It is against lawsuit if the police didn't documentation anything during the interroogation.When Ruby was terminally ill and he thought that somebody infected him to get cancer, why didn't he confess anything what was really his intention to kill Oswald and who are behind the assassination?Oswald was working with the CIA and being handled by David Atle Philips among others, but I believe he was told to buy that rifle, have the pictures taken for a completely different reason. He went along with what he was told and bingo it backfired on him. Remember he was set up perfectly as the one to take the fall. The Patsy! Oswald wasn't suppose to get away from the TSBD. Once he was arrested those from high above namely FBI,Hoover and Johnson stopped the investigation. No need for lawyers or Ruby telling the truth. They got their plan accomplished.