Bugliosi Fails the Paraffin Test

by Pat Speer

On Page 964 of Reclaiming History, as part of his list of evidence proving Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy, Vincent Bugliosi states:

"Dallas Police performed a paraffin test on Oswald's hands at the time of his interrogation to determine if he had recently fired a revolver, and the results were positive, indicating the presence of nitrates from gunpowder residue on his hands."

This statement is incredibly deceptive.  By including this statement in his list, Bugliosi is clearly suggesting that this evidence is indicative of Oswald's guilt, even though he readily admits 800 pages earlier that "the paraffin test is not conclusive...mere handling of a weapon may leave nitrates of the skin, even without firing it." (p. 164)  Even worse, when one looks at the results of another test, performed on the paraffin casts of Oswald's cheek, one can only conclude they suggest that Oswald did not fire the shots that killed Kennedy.  You see, while the tests of Oswald's hands were positive, the tests for Oswald's cheek were negative.  This suggests that he did not fire a rifle on November 22, 1963.

Bugliosi tries to tackle this problem. In a footnote on page 165, Bugliosi states "Predictably, the paraffin cast for Oswald's right cheek showed no reaction." Predictably? He explains by asserting that there is no gap through which residue from a rifle could leak onto the cheek.  He then cites the Warren Commission testimony of FBI Special Agent Cortlandt Cunningham to support this supposition. On page 79 of his endnotes (available on a separate cd-rom) he acknowledges that former FBI agent William Turner reported that he'd spoken to Dr. Vincent Guinn about tests performed by Guinn, and that Guinn had found nitrates in abundance on casts of the cheeks of men who'd fired rifles like the one owned by Oswald. Bugliosi dismisses Turner's assertion, however, essentially calling him a liar, by stating "There is simply no way to square this with the testimony and experience of the Dallas Police and FBI."  Bugliosi then explains that two Dallas Police officers testified that they didn't think a test of the cheek would read positive for a man firing a rifle, and that Cunningham testified that an FBI agent had fired the rifle three times but that tests for his cheek had come up negative. Bugliosi begs of his readers "Why in the world would these two Dallas officers lie under oath about something like this?" and that "No one could really believe this is perjured testimony, if for no other reason that no professional would lie under oath on a matter that he knows other experts could easily refute him on." (endnotes, p. 80)

But what Bugliosi misses, or simply chooses to ignore, is that these men were discussing the standard paraffin test performed in the 1960's, and that Turner asked Guinn about a different test entirely involving neutron activation analysis of the paraffin casts.  Bugliosi, who elsewhere cites conversations with Guinn, never mentions discussing this with Guinn himself, nor of Guinn denying that he'd conducted such tests.  He never mentions that, as exposed in Professor Gerald McKnight's Breach of Trust, Guinn called the FBI in 1964 suggesting they conduct these tests (McKnight, Breach of Trust, p.211) and that, per the testimony of the FBI's John Gallagher—the last testimony taken by the Warren Commission—the FBI had indeed conducted neutron activation analysis on the paraffin cast of Oswald’s cheek.

It seems more than a coincidence that Bugliosi keeps the results of this test from his readers Gallagher testified that there was more gunshot residue on the outside of the paraffin cast than on the side exposed to Oswald’s cheek and that he could therefore reach no conclusion as to whether Oswald had fired a rifle. He stated furthermore that “I found that there was more barium and antimony on the inside surface of the cast than you would find on the cheek of an individual who had recently washed his cheek” without explaining why anyone should assume Oswald had just washed his cheek. (While the casts had reportedly been washed, nothing was offered to substantiate that rinsing a wax cast would have nearly the effect on the levels of residue as Oswald’s washing his face.) (15WH751)

This unexpected result, which suggests that the gunshot residue levels were too low to conclude Oswald had recently fired a rifle, becomes even more intriguing when one considers that researcher Harold Weisberg, through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, received the controls for this test and found that gunshot residue was always present on the cheeks of those firing a rifle like Oswald’s (Weisberg, Post Mortem, p. 437).  These controls, moreover, confirmed what Guinn had told the FBI in his phone call, (the FBI document describing this phone call is listed in McKnight’s book as R.M Jevons to Conrad 2/27/64 memo), what Guinn told an August 1964 conference (Lane, Rush to Judgment, p. 153), what Guinn published in an October 1964 article in the Journal of the Forensic Science Society (p. 189), and what Guinn later told Turner (Turner, Invisible Witness, p. 76).

Also of significance is that, unlike the paraffin tests originally performed on Oswald, the Neutron Activation Analysis performed by Gallagher only gained in respectability in the years following the assassination (Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases, 1986, p.255), and is considered to be a reliable indicator of whether a suspect has fired a rifle.  Larry Ragle, a retired Director of Forensic Sciences for Santa Ana, California, in his 1995 book Crime Scene, explains: “By design, revolvers can leak…Rifles, depending on their construction and wear, can also leak.  There is only one way to determine the leakage capacity of any weapon and that is to collect samples from the hands or face firing the weapon under controlled conditions while using the corresponding ammunition.” (Ragle, Crime Scene, p. 172) Of course, this is precisely the kind of test performed by Guinn and Gallagher in 1964.

In sum, the gunshot residue tests conducted by Guinn and Gallagher create real doubt that Oswald fired the rifle found in the Book Depository.  Rather than acknowledge this, Bugliosi dismisses these tests as a William Turner pipe dream.  That he is outraged that anyone might think FBI agent Cortlandt Cunningham a liar, while simultaneously implying that William Turner—a man who left the FBI after he'd had enough of J. Edgar Hoover's misuse of the agency—is a liar, is outrageous. Perhaps Bugliosi's blind hatred of all suggestions of Oswald's innocence has blinded his thinking. In any event, his research simply can not be trusted.

For more information on the paraffin tests and their significance, see chapter 4 at patspeer.com.

See also Pat Speer's blog on Vincent Bugliosi's book, Reclaiming History from Reclaiming History.

Comments

[Dr. Gregg Wager]

Pat,
Interesting assortment of reportage, although it all begs a burning question: why would the Dallas Police Department have taken a paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek in the first place, if it wasn't a routine procedure? Why suddenly all the doubts about this routine test when no nitrates show up on Oswald’s cheek?

I also have read that Dr. Guinn denied doing the NAA tests on the paraffin casts in 1964, despite the fact that certain newspapers had printed this. Apparently Mark Lane, who is otherwise a thorough investigator, did use these erroneous newspaper accounts in his book, Rush to Judgment. I remember watching Guinn testify to the HSCA back in the late 1970s, and he was always presented as an “outsider,” that is, someone with no connection to the FBI or the original NAA tests (even though he was involved enough to get into the fray, even if by mistake).

I took a quick look at your online book too. It looks like you’ve done some great work there. We’re of the same generation that has had to piece this thing together for ourselves and come to the conclusion that key elements in our government and media are still lying about all this (what else are they lying about?).

[Pat Speer]

Thanks, Gregg. While the DPD had never performed a paraffin test on a cheek prior to Oswald, such tests were performed at times in other jurisdictions and the DPD performed the test, reportedly, to cover all the bases.

As outlined in my essay and at patspeer.com, the standard paraffin test, whereby a chemical was applied to the wax cast to make nitrates visible, was eventually considered too inaccurate to be reliable. Many mistakenly believe this means the Neutron Activation tests performed on the casts are also unreliable. This is not true. The Neutron Activation tests were far more specific, and could isolate antimony and barium, which are normally found together in gunshot residue. These tests were performed up until the seventies and might still be used today if cheaper methods for testing gunshot residue had not become available.

As far as Guinn and the WC, McKnight pretty much cleared this up in Breach of Trust. He found FBI memos regarding phone calls from Guinn, shortly before Gallagher performed his tests. So Guinn didn't lie. He never worked for the WC. He merely advised the FBI, unofficially. He then blabbed about it at an overseas conference. The reporter incorrectly made it sound like Guinn was working for the WC. Thus, the confusion.

Inspired by the work of Weisberg and McKnight, I did a little digging of my own and found a 10-64 article by Guinn in an obscure forensics journal. In this article he acknowledged that he'd been testing s specific rifle and had found that gunshot residue was always present in abundance on the cheek of the shooter. From the newspaper article and the FBI memo, there can be little doubt he was referring to the rifle purportedly used by Oswald.

[Jeff]

Respectfully gentleman, you are each living in the fantasy land that Bugliosi points to. For the sake of argument - let's forget about any paraffin test for a moment. So let me guess? You probably think that the rifle found on the 6th floor wasn't Oswalds? Do you not think those were his fingerprints found on the rifle? Do you not think those are his fingerprints on the boxes in the sniper's nest? And do you think he brought curtain rods to work instead of the rifle? Quit trivializing yourself on small inconsistencies that exist in every case and look at the bigger picture of evidence. If you've studied this case like you say you have then eventually common sense should overtake you and help you realize that the case against Oswald is ironclad.

[Rex Bradford]

Re: fantasy lands, this points up the general problem of people talking past each other. I responded in a different comment directly, if briefly, to the issue of the evidence against Oswald. Here, the same commenter prefers to "forget about any paraffin test for a moment" and revisit the oft-cited "proofs" of Oswald's guilt. I personally simply don't see what's so science-fiction about planting a rifle and some cartridge cases; it doesn't seem like rocket science to me. For the record, there were no fingerprints on the rifle which was purportedly assembled and fired on the 6th floor, and no gloves were found at the "sniper's nest." Far from "conspiracy theorists" ignoring the evidence, what I see is others refusing to confront the vast number of problems with that evidence. I recommend Don Thomas' essay on this blog for a look at some reasons why the attempts to put Oswald on the 6th floor with a rifle in his hand failed. "Common sense" tells me that this case smells at every turn, and for the obvious reasons. Repeating the presence of a rifle tied to Oswald, some cartridges, etc. doesn't cut it.

[Pat Speer]

Jeff, I take your response to an article on the paraffin tests with an assertion that the other evidence against Oswald is "ironclad," as an acknowledgment that the paraffin tests are not suggestive of Oswald's guilt, as stated by Bugliosi.

Now, maybe you can answer me something. If the evidence against Oswald is so "ironclad," why did Bugliosi throw so much obvious nonsense into the mix, which only hurt his credibility? And how does the possibility that Oswald fired shots from the sniper's nest undercut the likelihood, based on the eyewitnesses, earwitnesses, photographic evidence, and medical evidence, that at least one shot came from somewhere else?

What was Oswald's motive? To become famous? How many other people performing an act to become famous have insisted that they did not perform the act which made them famous? Where in Oswald's background is there any evidence that he was starving for fame?

(And don't tell us the Walker incident, as there is no evidence whatsoever that Oswald sought any fame from this incident.)

The evidence against Oswald is all open to interpretation. Some of it may have been faked. Please do a little research and show us where, in history, a man was convicted in a court of law after supposedly smuggling a rifle into a building, where EVERY witness to the package supposedly carrying the rifle insisted the package was too small to have held a rifle. Looking for reasonable doubt? There it is.

That simple fact, along with the paraffin tests, might have set Oswald free (for killing Kennedy--the case that he killed Tippit was a bit stronger). But we'll never know because Jack Ruby killed Oswald right in front of dozens of Dallas Police officers. If that doesn't set off your smell detector, your nose just ain't working.

This is far from a "simple act of murder" and the case against Oswald is far from "ironclad." And anyone pretending it is, a la Bugliosi, is either deceiving himself or deliberately deceiving others.

[Jeff]

It's ironclad Pat - get used to it. And as usual, neither you or any other conspiracy theorist can provide a single shred of evidence that anyone other than Oswald is guilty. You and your fellow conspiracy theorists have turned the entire perspective of history into a joke. You grasp on faint hopes that an inconsistent piece of testimony or evidence somehow exonerates Oswald. I could debate your points one by one with you and would love to engage you in that. If you'd like let's do it. However I have better things to read and write, rather than argue with someone (you) who feels that the fact that Oswald owned the rifle (which had has print on it) that fired the bullets that killed the president isn't the beginning of solid pattern of evidence. Sure Pat - and I always carry curtain rods to work in a brown paper bag. And of course those rods are nowhere to be found - but the bag is found on the 6th floor near the sniper's nest. All just a big misunderstanding, right Pat? And let me guess Pat - Oswald didn't kill Tippet either, right?
I'm sure you're a good guy Pat - but I find your summary (along with all the other CT's) preposterous. Sure would love to hear your thoughts on the magic bullet sometime.

[Jeff]

Pat,

Can you provide me a link to your web site that describes your opinion of how the assassination took place (# of shooters, # of bullets, etc..).

Thanks.
Jeff

[Jeff]

Pat, you wrote:

>show us where, in history, a man >was convicted in a court of law >after supposedly smuggling a >rifle into a building, where >EVERY witness to the package >supposedly carrying the rifle >insisted the package was too >small to have held a rifle. >Looking for reasonable doubt? >There it is.

Well, Pat - are you sure about that? EVERY witness. Let's start with the biggest witness. Let's take a look at Buell Frazier's testimony to Mr. Bugliosi during 1986 below. Hardly sounds like he's "insisting" (that is your word Pat) that the paper bag was too small for a disassembled rifle. So who "smuggled" Oswald's rifle into the TBD? The Easter Bunny? So someone stole the rifle out of Paine's garage and placed it in the TBD without anyone else seeing them drop the rifle there - and of course they fired some bullets from Oswald's rifle just for fun right - because as you know the bullets that were found came from Oswald's rifle. Nice web site but you are grasping at straws sir.
--------

VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Did you recall how he {Lee Harvey Oswald} was
carrying the bag?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER (Oswald's co-worker; he drove LHO to work on
11/22/63 and watched Lee carry a paper package into the Book
Depository that morning) -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to
his body."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his
body....on the right side?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I
think you've said that in the past."

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of
his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."

[Pat Speer]

And what is it in Frazier's testimony that makes you think the bag was bigger than he'd previously asserted? That it COULD have been protruding out in front of Oswald's body? Now, tell me, can you honestly imagine anyone carrying a taped-together paper bag containing a de-constructed rifle by cupping it with one hand at the bottom and leaning it out in front of his body. An intact rifle maybe. A de-constructed rifle I don't think so.

If Bugliosi has ever demonstrated how this was done, please find it for us. As it is, he cherry-picks the testimony of the 1986 mock trial which he wants us to swallow. His book included a cd rom. He has a website promoting his book. Why didn't he make a full transcript of his supposedly successful mock trial available? What is he trying to hide?

The WC couldn't figure out how Oswald got the rifle in the building so they just decided that Frazier and Randle were wrong. As far as I've been able to determine, they never looked into the depository cleaning crew to see if any of those with access to the building were likely suspects. Perhaps one of the night janitors was a John Birch Society member or a devotee of General Walker's. We'll never know. Particularly as those with a budget to investigate the case, a la Bugliosi, refuse to do so, and merely rehash the same old arguments.

[Jeff]

Pat,

With all due respect, your words on the JFK assassination are a joke. Like I said, I'm sure you're a good man and a good person but your theories and words borderline on pure ignorance. Just to point a few more (and this will be my final post with you because it's a waste of time to continually prove you wrong) but you say that "Bugliosi cherry picks the testimony". Pat, are you forgetting the fact that the jury at that trial listened to ALL of the testimony and found Oswald guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt? Likewise Pat, this is the same conclusion from every investigation into the murder (WC, HCSA, Rockefeller, etc).

And once again you just cannot point out one single shred of evidence that anyone other than Oswald committed the crime, can you? You mention the night janitors and a devotee of General Walker's. Hello?? Are you really that desperate Pat to grasp for those strawas?? So what you're saying is that your amateurish review of the Warren Commission and FBI has brought you to the point where you think a member of the cleaning crew should be investigated?? And of course you probably think that just maybe a Walker devotee or a member of the cleaning crew went to the Paine's garage earlier to "plant" Oswalds rifle on the 6th floor, correct - and they fired a few bullets from the rilfe since the ballistics evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the bullets came from Oswald's rifle?

You're in another world Pat. Have fun chasing your tail with all of this. You'll just continue to look more foolish than you already do, and that's hard to imagine.

Jeff

[Martin Hay]

Jeff,

It's always amusing when someone begins a rant with words like "With all due respect, your words on the JFK assassination are a joke." There's no repect there, Jeff, however you cut it. Your patronising "you don't know anything unless you agree with me" attitude is frankly out of place in any forum that others may be hoping to learn from. And at which point did you "prove" anybody wrong?

It is a plain and simple fact that one hundred percent of the available evidence demonstrates that Oswald did not carry the rifle into the TSBD with him that day. You cannot get away from it no matter how hard you try. In their respective Warren Commission testimonies, both Buel Wesley Frazier and his sister, Linnie Mae, were certain that the package Oswald was carrying was to small to contain the rifle. The most damning testimony however comes not from Frazier but the ONLY witness to actually see Oswald enter the building that morning, Jack E. Dougherty. Dougherty swore under oath that Oswald carried nothing in his hands. Now let's see if Dougherty was certain in his testimony:

BALL: Do you recall him having anything in his hand?

DOUGHERTY: Well, I didn't see anything if he did.

BALL: Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?

DOUGHERTY: Well, I believe I can - yes, sir - I'll put it this way: I didn't see anything in his hands at all.

BALL: In other words, your memory is definite on that, is it?

DOUGHERTY: Yes, sir.

BALL: In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?

DOUGHERTY: I would say that - yes, sir.

If in fact Oswald was carrying a package large enough to contain the rifle, one would assume that Dougherty would have had to be blind not to see it. It's not a stretch to imagine that if Oswald was carrying the package with one end tucked under his arm and the other cupped in his hand, it may have been relatively easy to miss. However, if he was carrying the rifle with one end protruding out in front of his body it would have been virtually impossible not to observe it.

[Jeff]

Pat,

I can't resist. I do have a lack of respect for the distortion you present in your posts and the fact that conspiracy theorists like you have continued to ignore the facts in the case. Your justifications are absurd. You said that:

"EVERY witness to the package supposedly carrying the rifle insisted the package was too small to have held a rifle. Looking for reasonable doubt? There it is."

Yeah sure Pat. One of the most daming pieces of evidence was the brown paper bag that Frazier saw Oswald carry. Where are the curtain rods Pat?? I've shown you above the exact testimony of Buell Frazier that refutes your claim that "everyone insisted" exactly how Oswald held the package. Frazier didn't insist on anyting. He wasn't sure. What he was sure of was that Oswald had a package - coincidentally the same package found on the 6th floor. And take a look at all of Dougherty's testimony Pat - not just the part that you like. Dougherty told authorities (see Bugliosi page 819-820 and the endnotes) that "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald when he came to the work at about 8am and didn't see anything in his hands at the time." If Oswald was in fact carrying a package with curtain rods then why is it that Dougherty couldn't see it? Add it up Pat. Dougherty wasn't paying close attention and no one knows what Oswald did with the package once he was in the building. And you yourself admit he was carrying a package Pat - based on Frazier's testimony. Just because no one saw Oswald handle the package in the TBD doesn't provide reasonable doubt Pat. It just means that no one was aware that Oswald was going to try and shoot the president later that day, so they didn't monitor him. The facts are that Frazier saw Oswald carry a package - which is the same package found on the 6th floor.

Further, Dougherty's father testified (see Bugliosi page 820) to FBI agents that his son "received a medical discharge from the US Army and had considerable difficulty in coordinating his mental facilities with his speech" and his boss, Roy Truly in the TBD testified to the Secret Service that "Dougherty was mentally retarded and had difficulty in remembering facts". Bugliosi didn't make this testimony up - see the endnotes for the official documentation Pat.

I'm sure you'll find more imaginary ways to refute this but who cares. Pat, once again (and again and again) you continue to NOT provide me one single shred of evidence that anyone other than Oswald is guilty. Why Pat? I've asked you more than once for this, but you can't provide it. None of the CT's can. Like all other CT's you rely on typical inconsistencies in testimony (that exist in every case) to cling onto this thread of hope that all this work you've done to believe in a conspiracy might actualy be worthwhile. It's not. You are wrong Pat - there is no credible evidence of a conspiracy and more importantly, there is overwhelming evidence that Oswald is guilty - despite your belief that he isn't.

Will you please provide me your analysis of what happened that day (how many shots, what direction, how many shooters, etc).

My email address is: jeffreyb@cfu.net if you'd like to continue this discussion.

Jeff

[Pat Speer]

Jeff, you seem to have missed that Martin was the one who brought up Dougherty. I'm well aware that Dougherty was mentally challenged and that his testimony is not all that reliable. So why did the WC put him on the stand? Well...they needed to. You see, Baker and Truly each testified that one of the elevators was missing when they reached the fifth floor. The WC needed to offer some explanation for what happened to this elevator, as its disappearance proved SOMEONE came down from the top floors just after the shooting, AFTER Oswald had already been seen in the break room. So they put Dougherty on the stand and tried to get him to say it was him. They were partially successful. Unfortunately for them Dougherty said a number of other things that were problematic.

SO... if you want us to ignore Dougherty's testimony that Oswald had no package--which would be unlikely if Oswald had been carrying something as large as a rifle--than you also have to ignore Dougherty's assertion that he was the one on the elevator. Are you willing to do that?

As Martin said, there is no evidence Oswald brought the rifle to work as claimed by the WC. No one saw him get the paper to make the bag. Both Frazier and Randle's best recollection was that the package Oswald was carrying was considerably smaller than a package holding the rifle. A prosecutor in an actual trial would have great difficulty fighting off their statements. It certainly seems the WC should have investigated the possibility Oswald (or someone) got the rifle to work some other way. My reference to the cleaning crew was intended to show that there were other options. It's not as if the good Quakers Paine ever locked their garage door or anything...

By the way, Jeff, you're grasping at air when you try to lump me in with other CTs. If you take the time to read through my online book at patspeer.com, you'll see that I disagree with CTs as much as LNs. Since the LN postion is so tenuous, however, this still leaves me very much a CT. I urge you to acquaint yourself with my arguments before insisting there is no evidence that anyone but Oswald...blah blah blah.

If you got patspeer.com you'll find evidence that

1. There was a verifiable lack of interest by the FBI in uncovering the facts of Kennedy’s autopsy.

2. The drawings prepared by the autopsy doctors and presented in their Warren Commission testimony ignored their own measurements of the President’s wound locations and presented a grossly distorted picture of his wounds. During his testimony, Dr. Humes lied about the use of the measurements in creating these drawings.

3. There was a verifiable lack of interest on the part of the Warren Commission in determining the facts of the President’s wounds, and how these related to the possibility of conspiracy.

4. The re-enactment on May 24, 1964 was deliberately not as accurate as it could have been, in ways that indicate it was designed not to uncover the likelihood of the single-bullet theory, but merely whether it was remotely possible.

5. A report was created in 1967 that blatantly misrepresented the autopsy photos of the President at the very time CBS News was pressuring the administration to create a report confirming that these photographs supported the conclusions of the Warren Commission.

6. A similar report was created in 1968, and released in the final days of the Johnson Administration. This report is blatantly false in its defense of the single-bullet theory. Its re-appraisal of the President’s head wounds is also in conflict with the autopsy photos on the internet.

7. This incorrect appraisal of the head wound was seconded by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel in 1979. To support their conclusions a number of contradictory exhibits were presented.

8. Dr. Michael Baden presented an important exhibit to the HSCA upside down. He made statements in his testimony that, when compared to the pathology report created by his panel, reflected his total confusion about Kennedy’s head wounds. He also lied in his testimony about the nature of the skull exit observed at the autopsy.

9. The enhanced x-rays as presented by the HSCA were cropped in a suspicious manner, with an area of supreme interest in the un-enhanced x-ray, the occipital region, deliberately left off.

10. The interpretations of the autopsy photos and x-rays by the HSCA’s various panels and consultants were frequently in disagreement with each other. The committee for the most part ignored these conflicts, and presented the reports of the consultants as if they had all been accepted by the committee. While this may have spared the doctors some embarrassment, it left an extremely confusing public record..

11. The x-rays as presented included fractures and fragments that were in conflict with the HSCA’s conclusions on the head wounds. While some of these items of interest were acknowledged by the HSCA’s radiology consultants, they were left unexplained by the pathology panel.

12. The HSCA’s trajectory analysis was conducted against the advice of both its forensic pathology panel and wound ballistics expert and presented blatantly false depictions of both Governor Connally’s position in the car at Zapruder frame 190, and President Kennedy’s posture at frame 313. These false representations supported the committee’s conclusions on the single-bullet theory and its assertion that Oswald fired all the bullets striking Kennedy.

13. The conclusions of the bullet lead analysis performed on behalf of the HSCA were almost certainly false and were undoubtedly in conflict with the earlier writings of its author. These conclusions were also in conflict with the guidelines of the FBI in place at that time.

14. The exhibit titles and testimony of the HSCA’s ballistics expert were changed in such a manner as to disguise that he'd been studying the wound ballistics of subsonic ammunition. This was apparently done on purpose and without his knowledge.

15. The single-bullet theory simulations and recreations shown on TV have all been deceptive in one way or another. None of them present the proportions of Kennedy and the locations of his wounds accurately. They are quite often deceptive about Connally’s position in the limousine as well. Even worse, neither the Warren Commission, nor any of the subsequent medical panels, nor any of the television programs defending the single-bullet theory, have demonstrated the internal passage of the magic bullet through Kennedy and, specifically, how this bullet evaded bone.

16. The autopsy photos and x-rays available on the internet, whose authenticity has been acknowledged by a number of men who’ve inspected the originals, reveal an entrance on the skull right where the autopsy doctors said it was.

17. The eyewitness evidence overwhelming contradicts the current shooting scenario favored by single-assassin theorists, in that the first shot almost certainly struck Kennedy, and the third shot (as heard by most witnesses) most probably missed. Elements of the FBI and Secret Service came to this same conclusion, and created exhibits depicting such a scenario.

[Jeff]

Pat,

As usual, you once again ignore my request and cannot provide one single shred of credible evidence that anyone other than Oswald is guilty. Thank you for further proving my point.

Jeff

[neaguy]

Pat is, of course, correct in his analysis.
Based on the eyewitness testimony gathered, Oswald did not carry a rifle to the TSBD on the morning of November 22.
Both Frazier and his sister were consistent in describing a package that was clearly at least a foot shorter than the disassembled rifle.
We should discount what he told Bugliosi years later.
Testimony closer to the event is better, Jeff.
Further, there is a Black Star photo, reproduced in one edition of Howard Roffman's superb book Presumed Guilty (1975) and David Wrone's excellent book from 2003 on the Z film, showing a many putting up curtain rods in Oswald's apartment after the assassination.
So, apparently his room did need curtain rods.
Finally, more than 20 years ago, I interviewed Harold Weisberg, the most knowledge man on this case, on the matter of parraffin casts. As he told me, on the basis of these test results which he forced the federal government to divulge to him through court action, Oswald fired no rifle on November 22.

[Jeff]

I have Wrone's book and I will be happy to look at the photo. The truth is no, his apartment didn't need curtain rods. The truth is that Frazier saw him with a package that morning with the same wrapper found on the 6th floor. The truth is that Frazier didn't pay very close attention to the package. The truth is that his rifle was missing from Paine's that day. The truth is there are articles clearly illustrating the lack of accuracy and consistency with parraffin tests. The truth is that Oswald's rifle fired the bullets and his prints were very present in the sniper's area on the 6th floor. The truth is that Oswald purchased the rifle found on the 6th floor and then was the one person out of 500,000 people in Dallas who happened to shoot a police officer when he fled the TBD. If I commit a serious crime (like rob a bank for example) the last thing I'm going to do is get a speeding ticket on my way out. If I shoot the president of the US the last thing I'm going to do is flee the building and go shoot a police officer within an hour later.

I mean, show some common sense here. There are inconsistencies when you investigate a case for over 40 years. The WC was right, and the CT's are just flat out wrong. The preponderance of evidence very, very clearly points to Oswald's gulit and Oswald alone.

Once again - show me one piece of credible evidence that someone other than Oswald is guilty. You simply can't do it.

[Martin Hay]

Jeff

I'm amused to see you've fallen into the same old trap that you lone nutters always seem to find yourselves in: If you can't deal with the evidence, you'll just have to try to discredit the witness. Dougherty may not have been the sharpest tool in the box but since he was at least intelligent enough to perform his duties at the TSBD, I think its safe to assume he could tell whether or not somebody had something in their hands. I'm sure you'll never except this possibility so I'll move on.

What is it with the absurd demands? How do you expect Pat, or anyone else for that matter, to present you with the evidence the FBI and the DPD never bothered to collect? Short of building a time machine and getting to the scene of the crime before anyone else, I'm fairly certain this is not possible. I'm sure you are aware that in a court of law the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. The evidence against Oswald is circumstantial at best and despite your claims to the contrary falls far short of proof.

Anyway, I thought it might be fun to turn this little game of yours around. Instead of demanding proof from others, since you seem to be so fixated on that meaningless paper bag, why don't you prove that that bag was made by Oswald? And when you've finished perorming that miracle, you can prove that that bag ever came into contact with the Mannlicher Carcano.

Good luck.

[Jeff]

Martin,

Yeah, us crazy lone nutters. It's just so crazy for people like myself to have common sense and agree with the summation of every official investigation into the murder. My guess is that 98% of the CT's don't even own a copy of the Warren Report.

You were the one who brought the testimony of Dougherty into the mix here. If Dougherty was such a great witness Martin, and so reliable, then how come he didn't see Oswald at least carrying the "curtain rods"? Any good answer? You and Pat rely heavily here on the testimony of Frazier and Dougherty - yet you fail to realize that there testimonials don't even coincide. Frazier says he had a package, Dougherty says he didn't.

You are correct that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution - and all you have to do is read the Warren Report or HCSA report to find hundreds of pages pointing directly to Oswald's guilt. The WC and HCSA have ALREADY PROVED THE CASE. It's you and the CT's that refuse to provide any evidence to support your claims that someone else is guilty. If Oswald didn't do it Martin, then who did? Are you going to join Pat in his ridiculous claim that perhaps it was some member of the cleaning crew, the Birch society or a General Walker devotee?? Are you guys really that desperate to find somebody else. If you're counting on Frazier and Dougherty to be such reliable eyewitnesses why can't you count on all the other TBD employees to notice that someone else (besides Oswald) is in their building trying to kill the president, and also trying to escape afterwards - if that's what you think may have happened.

I'm not asking for a lot of credible evidence - just one solid piece that someone other than Oswald killed Kennedy. You can't do it. But the CT's sure are quick to discredit the HCSA and WR like they're idiots involved in some master conspiracy - or too incompetent to conduct an investigation (and you would be hard pressed to find an investigation that was staffed with higher quality talent than the individuals who undertook these investigations).

The paper bag is not meaningless Pat because it's one of the credible pieces of evidence found at the scene of the sniper's nest. The rifle, when disassembled fit perfectly into it. The bag was also seen in Oswald's arms on the way to work. Doesn't sound real meaningless to me.

So I ask you Martin, do you just think it's all a coincidence that on the day of the assassination Lee went to see Marina a day early, left his ring and money behind, carried a brown paper bag with him to work that was found at the sniper's nest, had fingerprints of his found throughout the sniper's nest - including on the boxes used to position the rifle, and had bullets fired at the president from a rifle HE ordered?? And let's not forget the eyewitness testimony of Brennan.

All a coincidence Martin? You CT's cling onto every bit of hope that your dream of solving a conspiracy (or absolving Oswald) will someday come true. Good luck. Keep believing in the conspiracy, Oswald's innocence, and Santa Claus. I'll put my faith into my own common sense, my own diligent research, and two of the most intense investigations in the last 50 years by some of the most educated, experienced and esteemed Americans in history. If you want to discredit them (the WC, HCSA, FBI, etc) because you feel that perhaps a group of CT amateurs and novices think they're smarter, go ahead and make yourself feel better. You just look foolish in the end.

With all due respect to Weisberg (and he appeared to be a great guy and no novice) he admitted also that he never found a piece evidence that would have proven any conspiracy. He found deficiencies in the investigations but no credible evidence to prove that those investigations were wrong.

[Jeff]

Pat, Martin, and others,

I want each of you to know that I sincerely do apologize if my words appear to show disrespect. They are not intended in that manner. My sincerity into my beliefs often masks the respect I have for others who have different convictions on this investigation. What we're doing right now is experiencing a wonderful aspect of democracy and free speech. I adamantly disagree with the CT's but I never intend to disrespect them.

I recently listened to a radio debate between Wecht and Bugliosi in which similar phrases were passed. At the surface you would believe that they hated or disrespected each other but that is far from the truth. They just happen to disagree, like we do.

Once again, my apologies - sincerely.

Jeff

[Pat Speer]

Jeff, what you're missing is that at patspeer.com I go through the medical and eyewitness evidence in detail, and conclude that they suggest there was more than one shooter. This means there was a conspiracy, and that Oswald was either part of a conspiracy, or set up. Those like yourself in the cult of Vince love to tell us he won the mock trial, but never seem to remember that 3 of the 12 jurors said they were convinced Oswald was part of a conspiracy.

In your last few posts you have invoked the high holiness of the HSCA. This is interesting because the HSCA concluded Kennedy was killed by a probable conspiracy. I know Posnerites love to spew that this was only because of the tainted dictabelt evidence, but this is a lone-nutter myth, as both Stokes and Blakey told the press the dictabelt evidence only confirmed their prior suspicions based on Ruby's connections to organized crime. (It is a bit suspicious that the guy who just so happened to kill the supposed assassin in front of a bunch of cops just so happened to have been calling a number of mob and teamster enforcers--suspected murderers--in the weeks leading up to the assassination. It is also a bit suspicious that three of the most likely organized crime suspects in Kennedy's death--Hoffa, Giancana, and Rosselli just so happened to get snuffed during the reinvestigations of the 70s, and that their murders remain unsolved.)

As far as the paper bag... there were no indentations or marks in the bag indicating it had carried the rifle. The FBI said the rifle was dirty. It would have to have been de-constructed to fit in the bag. So why were there no signs the rifle had been in the bag? As far as I know, NO ONE, government employee, CT or LN, has put a dirty de-constructed M/C rifle in such a bag and carried it around, in order to see the indentations and marks that would be left on the bag. Until such a test is performed, and the results show that such a rifle would leave no marks on the bag, I'll remain convinced that that rifle was never in that bag. Why? Frazier told the FBI that he saw the package on the backseat of the car, and that it stretched 27 inches across the back seat. He estimated that the package was 27 by 6. The bag purportedly found in the sniper's nest, when it's stretched out to hold the rifle, is roughly 38 by 12. This is 456 square inches compared to the 162 square inches of the package observed by Frazier, much much more than a minor difference.

[Martin Hay]

Pat

Your last comment prompted an amusing thought. I can't imagine anything more absurd than the idea that Oswald, on his way to shoot the President, would simply toss his rifle onto the backseat of Frazier's car, behind his own back, where he can't keep an eye on it and Frazier could conceivably pick it up and discover Oswald's secret. How hilariously careless would he have had to be?

Anyway, I've got to say I agree with you one hundred percent about the parafin test. Jeff pointed out that parafin tests are often considered unreliable, which is true, but he seems to be missing the obvious. Parafin tests are unreliable because nitates can be picked up from a number of sources. Therefore, the presence of nitrates does not neccesarily mean that the subject has fired a weapon. However the complete absence of nitrates remains a very strong indicator that the subject has not. As we know the police cast of Oswald cheek produced a negative result. Unhappy with this, the FBI had seven different men fire a mannlicher and all had casts made of their cheeks. All of the casts, including Oswald's, were subjected to neutron activation analysis. Every one of the control casts revealed heavy deposits. Oswald's had none. The science speaks for itself as does the fact that none of this appears in the Warren Report or its accompanying 26 volumes.

Jeff, unbelievably you seem to be under the impression that the Warren Commission conducted a good faith investigation. I can't see how you could possibly believe this but if you haven't already done so, I suggest you treat yourself to a copy of history professor Gerald McKnight's outstanding book "Breach Of Trust: How The Warren Commission Failed The Nation and Why."

[Pat Speer]

I didn't notice an edit function so I'm using this post to correct an incorrect measurement in my last post. A few years back, when I was first looking into the possibility the rifle had been in the paper bag Oswald brought to work, I saw a photo of the bag purportedly found in the sniper's nest and approximated its proportions as 38 by 12. (Perhaps its exact measurements are in the WR somewhere but I don't recall seeing them.) Anyhow, last night I looked at the photo of the bag by the rifle in CD1, the FBI Summary Report. More precise measurements reveal that the width of the bag appears to be 11.1 inches tapering to 9.2 inches. Let's average it at 10 inches. This still makes the bag 380 square inches, when the package seen by Frazier was purportedly 162 square inches, less than half its size.

[coach handbags]

As is well known, books teach us to learn life, truth, science and many other useful things. They increase our knowledge, broaden our minds and strengthen our character. In other words, they are our good teachers and wise friends. This is the reason why our parents always encourage us to read more books.

[cardiology emr]

The paper bag is not meaningless Pat because it's one of the credible pieces of evidence found at the scene of the sniper's nest.

Kevin