The brilliant Jim DiEugenio and Pat Speer

7/10/22

Steve Roe is really getting to be like your weird Uncle Sam who you place in the back room when you visit someone.

First, there is no Steve Roe Consulting.  He just made that up in order to give himself some form of distinction, since he has none.  If I am wrong on this, please show me how and why.

Roe is the guy who said JFK Revisited: Through he Looking Glass had failed to connect with the public.  Remember that,something about Sri Lanka?   LOL. ROTF.

The exact opposite is the case.  No JFK documentary in history has ever had the impact this one has had.  And that is what he is upset about.  If you combine the figures from Quebec, with the ones accumulated prior to that, beginning at Cannes, Stone's film has reached a potential audience of 40 million. That is not me talking, that is the PR companies that distributor Altitude hired, numbers from You Tube, numbers from Coast to Coast, and Joe Rogan, and Channel 9 and three national newspapers from Australia, Paris Match etc. 

Roe and his partner Litwin could not put a dent in that progress.  And that is what they are mad about.

Edited Sunday at 05:08 PM by James DiEugenio

This is the latest issue, the citing of Oswald at a training camp in La.

William Bishop was interviewed by Dick Russell, referred to by Gary Shaw.  On page 328 of the revised edition of The Man Who Knew too Much, Russell lists the written documents that were provided by William Bishop, including FBI files.

The idea that somehow the man who originally knew William Bishop, Bob Morrow, should be the reasons to disregard him is nutty in the face of this. But it misses the point.  If you never talked to Morrow, then what does that prove?  And here is my point:  Gus Russo is Mr. Warren Report. Right?  After he spent hours with Morrow, he was convinced he was contract agent for the CIA. He might deny that now, but back in the nineties that is what he said.

Now, did Roe or Litwin talk to Gary Shaw?  Please show me where.

Now, did Roe or Litwin talk to Dick Russell?  Please show me where.

And this is a problem with their methodology. Anyone can sit in their office or living room and say, "I don't like this guy." And then make up stuff dissing the witness. The people I respect are those who actually get on a plane and go and talk to someone.  That is what is hard.  But that is what is valuable, as one can see from my interview in the book with McGehee. (pp. 414-20)

Now, William Bishop was my secondary source for the camp.

My primary source was Bob Tanenbaum.  He actually saw the film. And I have talked to him about it on more than one occasion.

Roe can call Bob. Anyone can get his number.  He talks to anyone.  He has never gone back on this film issue.  Even before the ARRB.

Parnell's attempt at the other issue, with Phillips, proves nothing.  I talked to Bob about that.  See Sprague had interviewed Phillips prior to Bob. Without the document.

 

Roe is almost funny in his desperation to go after the book.

The issue of the mail to Chicago is not whether a plane can fly to Chicago in one day from Dallas.  Duh.  It is: could the mail go though a sorting process, and not just one but two, in less than 24 hours.  The first would come at the main Chicago post office, and then the tributary offices in the area of Klein's.  From there it would go to a carrier on foot to be delivered to Klein's.  

At Klein's, they went through another sorting practice involving different forms of currency, and also in state and out of state.  Then it was carried over to the bank.

 I  do not believe Roe was not aware of this. Therefore, if you think all of that took less than a day, then this is why I have no respect for you. 

Roe brought up the other issue about Oswald's payment schedule, as if that settles anything.

It does not.  Both sources say that there were no SS deductions in the final quarter.

If you compare the prior Marine payment records with the last one, you will see a quite notable difference. Ben Cole indicated it.  Any idiot can see it, and it is key. And I do not believe that they were not aware of it.

(Tom Gram---See my latest comment in that thread.  Litwin’s claims about the training camp, which he footnoted with an apparently bogus citation, have less evidentiary support than Oswald being there. And that is a very generous way to put it.)

 

Nice way of putting it.  But Litwin does not deserve a lot of generosity.

Now, let us turn to the Hunt/Mantik ET issue.

This appears to be an error, and I asked my editor if he could include an errata in the book.  It was too late.

I have someone going to NARA to check on this in person.  And will address this in Dallas if it turns out to be the case.

I truly wish I had caught this in advance.  You know why?

Because I would have taken it out of the script and placed in there the Thompson/ Thomas stuff about the projectile being found on the wrong stretcher. And also the interview by Wallace Milam with Wright's widow saying they were finding several bullets that day.  In other words, the plotters were determined to try and get the right stretcher one way or another.

To me that is in some ways even worse than ET. It utterly killed chain of custody, which we already did anyway, without ET.

 

Now why can i address this honest error honestly?

Because our side is after a factual record.  Unlike their side which is obsessed with a mythological record.

Secondly, as noted above, we have an almost endless supply of exculpatory evidence.

In fact, personally, I think the strongest evidence for conspiracy in the film, especially the long version, is the material on Kennedy's brain. Those pictures, and the Ida Dox illustration, cannot be of Kennedy's brain. When you have a neurologist saying that on camera, i mean that is high cotton.  Don't think its ever been done before.

Now, why would that be necessary?

To cover up a brain that showed too much damage for one shot, or actual evidence of shots from two directions. I thought Henry Lee was  good on this.  (See JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, pp. 367-68) So was Gary Aguilar.  (See, pp. 289-90)

In addition, the film, especially the long version, proves shots from the front. And we do it with their evidence, namely Sturdivan's. (ibid, pp. 284-85)

 

With that out of the way, let me address the issue of what I call The Coward's Club.

See, its one thing to sit in front of a computer and toss out this junk.  Its another to actually address the guy you are talking about in person on a stage in front of hundreds of people, or on a podcast or broadcast.

Many, many years ago, back in the nineties, I was set to do a debate with Gerald Posner up in, IIRC, Portland on the radio.  Two days before the debate, I got word that it was cancelled, by Posner, for whatever reason.

Last year, another podcaster was setting up a debate with me and Litwin, J G Michaels. On Parallax Views.  I looked forward to it.

About a day or two before, Litwin backed out.  So the host interviewed us separately.  If you listen to it, you will see why Fred backed out.  

Now, when JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass started making waves, Posner tried to advertise his book as the kryptonite for the film.  LOL, a book written before the ARRB.  So I challenged him to a debate.  He never replied.  

I then said, OK, how about you and James Kirchick--who was attacking the film at Air Mail,--plus you can have Willens, Griffin, and Slawson. Know what Kirchick did when I tried to deliver the invite to him?  He blocked me!  

 

Now, here is the clincher.  I then told Posner, you can have all the revenue the event generates.  I only ask that i get to pick one partner, your advantage 5-2. I said you can also have in addition to the gate, any podcast or broadcast fees the event generates.  I was sure we could fill up Royce Hall at UCLA.  Again, no reply.

So you know what happened next? Posner teamed up with Litwin.  He now said he would debate me with Litwin, as long as I was teamed with Oliver and Oliver got us on Rogan!

LOL.

In other words, the chickens want to pick both the participants and the venue! A non starter.

What this meant was that Posner simply wanted no part of me.  And I don't blame him.

Now, let me address the utter hypocrisy of this idea of them choosing witnesses.

The WC is largely built around three witnesses: Brennan, Markham, Marina. (And Ruth Paine, who Max Good did  a nice job on.)

Guess what? The Commission did not buy the three. Joe Ball thought Markham was an utter screwball.  She was talking to Tippit after he was dead for starters. (Edward Epstein, The Assassination Chronicles, pp. 142-43) She also claimed she was the only witness on the scene: utterly false. Even though Ball and Liebeler knew she was worthless, Redlich included her as a probative witness in the TIppit case. How did he defend that? "The Commission wants to believe Mrs. Markham and that's all there is to it." (ibid, p. 143).

Roe should stamp that on his forehead.

• 
  

Ball did not buy Brennan either.  The only eyewitness who claimed he saw Oswald shooting from the sixth floor.  Brennan denied the ID of LHO both at the line up and to the FBI. (p. 143). But he did positively ID before the WC.

Ball discovered that when he did a reconstruction with Brennan, the man appeared to have a vision problem.  Brennan then said he saw the gunman standing up.  That was it for Ball. Redlich said Brennan was accurate and in excellent position.  Really?  Then why did he refuse to be interviewed by the HSCA?  In fact he swore he would fight any subpoena. (Palamara, Honest Answers, pp. 186-89)

I don't even want to talk about Marina.  I mean first she says LHO is not in Mexico City. Then she says he was.  First it was the wrong rifle, then it was the right one.  I mean, she even threw in that LHO was going to murder Nixon!  Not even the WC bought that one. Redlich said in February, "Marina Oswald has lied to the secret Service, the FBI and this commission...."  (ibid, 143-44) But Redlich used her anyway. I don't need to add how fiercely LIebeler attacked some of these points in his famous memorandum.

So how do Roe and Litwin justify this huge double standard that Larry Schnapf pointed out?  Its a problem of necessity.  If you admit these people are XXXXX, what does that say about the WR? And you.

If you eliminate them from the matter, you have some problems in presenting the case against Oswald. So its a matter of expediency and escapability.  That is not the way a legal proceeding should work.

(I just got a chance to look at Tom's work on the camps.

Very nice job Tom)

(Tom Gram---Thanks Jim. The camps are an interesting topic. Davis and Bringuier both said that Oswald wanted to join the exile training group, and Bringuier testified specifically that Oswald knew about the camp. How the hell does a commie loner find out about a small, top secret elite training operation for Cuban exiles and know exactly who to talk to about joining?

Bringuier tried to sell a story to the WC that Oswald found out because the alleged Castro spy, Fernando Fernandez, informed his contact in Cuba who subsequently informed Oswald and ordered him to try to infiltrate the camp. Even Wesley Liebeler was suspicious.)

 

Nice one, with Liebeler as the icing on the cake.

 

(Lawrence Schnapf---steve occasionally comes up with some good stuff. he seemed to be right about the rifle strap.

However, he applies different evidentiary standards to evidence. he too easily ignores problems with evidence that supports the lone gunman theory but then using exceedingly exacting standards for dismissing evidence of a conspiracy. In other words, his analysis tends to be distorted by bias.)

 

That is being kind Larry and I disagree about the strap.

Nice going Ben, about Brennan. 

Tom, I think you blew up Litwin

 

(Lawrence Schnapf---BTW- Ruth Paine was either "misremembering" or dissembling when she denied that she had spoken to Oliver Stone in Max Goode's movie. In 2013, I asked Oliver at the Wecht 50th anniversary program why he had changed the names of the Paines to Williams but did not change the names of any other important characters. He said it was because the Paines threatened to sue him and his production company.

Too bad Max did not know this when he interviewed her.  She made it sound like Oliver was either afraid to contact her or ignored her because she would contradict his thesis. Even if it was the Paines' lawyer who contacted Stone, her statement was inaccurate. And she did that laugh when she said that which is her "tell" when she is being evasive.

I wish Max had also grilled her on the phone message from the employment office. She was evasive with Liebler who was not interested in getting a straight answer.)

 

Pat Speer---Just curious, David [DVP]. Do you really believe Brennan? Or are you just picking and choosing? The one thing Brennan was consistent on was that the man he saw was not wearing the shirt whose fibers were found on the rifle. Do you believe that?

Because if you take his word on that then it's hard to escape the probability those fibers were planted. And if you accept that then it's hard not accept that some of the other evidence pointing towards Oswald was faked.

My disregard for many of the most popular conspiracy myths is well-known. But I can't hold any of the most prominent LNs in anything more than disregard unless they are willing to accept that some of the evidence may have been faked. 

I mean, I don't get it. We are grown-ups. We know that the Dallas Police and the FBI were capable of faking evidence and giving false testimony when they thought they had their man. So why is it so hard for supposedly rational LNs to acknowledge that some of the evidence could have been faked? 

Because they think of this as a game and that would be letting the CTs score a "point"? 

What are we, children? 

 Pat Speer again---A couple of points. 

1: The rifle was not wiped down. This is something you invented so you could have it both ways. 

2. If you're claiming Euins was confused when he said he saw a black man, you are acknowledging he said he saw a black man, when several police officers swore he did not. The only say-so that he said as much comes from two members of the press. If they were telling the truth it would mean the police lied. Are you acknowledging, then, that some of the police lied?

From patspeer,com, chapter 7b

Amos Euins. Beyond the confusion as to Euins' location during the shooting, there is considerable confusion over Euins' earliest statements, and whether or not he said the shooter was a white man or a black man. Statements regarding his identification of the shooter's race have been highlighted. (11-22-63 report to KRLD and CBS by Jim Underwood, about 30 minutes after the assassination) "As I told you earlier, a youngster said that he saw a colored man fire three times from the window of that building... one of the officers found a small colored boy who said he that he saw a man fire from about the fourth floor window of the school book depository building." (Note: this officer was D.V. Harkness, who never confirmed nor denied Underwood's claim Euins said the shooter was black.) (11-22-63 signed statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 16H963, 19H474) “I saw the President turn the corner in front of me and I waived at him and he waived back. I watched the car on down the street and about the time the car got near the black and white sign I heard a shot. I started looking around and then I looked up in the red brick building. I saw a man in the window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice…I could tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he was shooting. This was a white man, he did not have on a hat. I just saw this man for a few seconds. As far as I know, I had never seen this man before.” (11-29-63 memorandum from SA Leo Robertson in the Dallas FBI files, as found in the Weisberg Archives) "Amos Lee Euins...advised that on the day of the assassination he was standing on the the northeast corner of the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets. He stated that the car in which the President was riding had turned the corner and was proceeding on down Elm. He stated since he could no longer see the President's car, he happened to glance up and noticed what appeared to be the barrel of a rifle protruding from a window near the top of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated he saw a man's hand on what appeared to be the rifle stock and that he knew it was a rifle because he heard the shots fired. He stated he could not tell anything about the man and that he never saw anything other than what appeared to be his hand on the stock." (12-14-63 FBI report, CD205 p12) "He said after the President's car started down the hill, he heard what he thought was a car backfire and he looked around and also glanced at the TSBD building, and on the fifth floor where he he had seen what he thought to be a metal rod, he noticed a rifle in the window and saw the second and third shots fired. He stated he saw a man's hand on what appeared to be the trigger housing and he could also see a bald spot on the man's head. He stated he did not see the face of this individual and could not identify him. He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand extended outside the window on the rifle. He stated he also heard what he believes was a fourth shot, and that the individual in the window, after firing the fourth shot, began looking around and he (EUINS) at this time hid behind a concrete partition. He said he saw this individual withdraw his rifle and step back in the window... Euins advised he could not distinguish the features of the man standing at the window, and as he had previously stated, he only saw his hand and a bald spot on his head." (12-23-63 FBI report, CD205 p.i) “Amos Lee Euins, age 14, states saw white man…in window…with rifle after first shot and observed this man fire second and third shots and what he believes may have been a fourth shot.” (3-10-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 2H201-210) ‘then when the first shot was fired, I started looking around, thinking it was backfire. Everybody else started looking round. Then I looked up at the window, and he shot again... I got behind this little fountain, and then he shot again. (When asked how many shots he heard) “I believe there was four to be exact…After he shot the first two times, I was just standing back here. And then after he shot again, he pulled the gun back in the window. And then all the police ran back over here in the track vicinity… The first shot I was standing here… And as I looked up there, you know, he fired another shot, you know, as I was looking. So I got behind this fountain thing right in there, at this point B… I got behind there.  And then I watched, he did fire again. Then he started looking down towards my way, and then he fired again.” (When asked what he saw in the building) "I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could see his hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could see his hand sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through, he just pulled it back in the window." (When asked what kind of a look he got at the shooter) "All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his head something like this." (When asked for the record if he means the man was looking down the rifle) "Yes, sir, and I could see the spot on his head." (When asked to describe the man) "I wouldn't know how to describe him, because all I could see was the spot and his hand." (When if he was slender or fat) "I didn't get to see him." (When asked if he could if he was tall or short) "No." (When asked the man's race) "I couldn't tell, because these boxes were  throwing a reflection, shaded." (When asked if he could tell if the man was black or white) "No, sir." (When asked by an incredulous Arlen Specter 'Couldn't even tell that? But you have described that he had a bald--) "Spot in his head. Yes, sir; I could see the bald spot in his head." (When asked if he could tell the color of the man's hair) "No, sir." (When asked if he could tell if his hair was dark or light) "No, sir." (When asked how far back the bald spot stretched) "I would say about right along in here." (Specter then asks: "Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying? To which Euins responds) "Yes, sir; right along in here." (When asked again if he'd got a good look at the man) "No, sir; I did not." (When asked if he could tell anything about the man's clothes) "No, sir." (Specter then reads Euins the statement he'd signed in which he claimed the shooter was a white man. He is then asked if the statement refreshes his memory) "No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man. I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head." (When then asked if his best recollection was that he doesn't know if the man was a white man or a negro) "Yes, sir." (When then asked if he'd told the police he'd seen a white man, or if they'd made a mistake) "They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a white spot on his head."

(4-1-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of KRLD reporter James Underwood) (Describing the aftermath of the shooting, 6H167-171) "I ran down there and I think I took some pictures of some men--yes, I know I did, going in and out of the building. By that time there was one police officer there and he was a three-wheeled motorcycle officer and a little colored boy whose last name I remember as Eunice." (When asked "Euins?") "It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his name. He was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle. He was telling this to the officer and the officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that time, motorcycle officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with a rifle and he said "Yes, sir." I said, "Were they white or black?" He said, "It was a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice." (4-9-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of officer D.V. Harkness, 6H308-315) (When asked by David Belin if he remembered anything Euins had told him beyond that the shots had come from the sniper's nest window) "No, sir." (When then asked if Euins had said he'd seen a rifle.) "He couldn't tell." (Note that this last response is at odds with Euins' own statements, and suggests Harkness was being deliberately vague about Euins' statements to him outside the building. Well, this in turn, suggests Euins DID tell Harkness he saw a black man, and that Harkness was under pressure to deny Euins told him anything beyond that the shots came from the sniper's nest. Or not. It also seems possible Harkness was anticipating Belin's asking him about Euins' statements regarding the race of the shooter, and responded to that question instead of the one in the transcript--about the rifle.) (March 1964 account of Dallas Morning News reporter Kent Biffle, reporting on the witnesses he saw and heard in Dealey Plaza just after the shooting on 11-22-63, published in an 11-19-78 Dallas Times Herald article, and subsequently published in JFK Assassination: The Reporters' Notes, 2013) (After first running to the grassy knoll to see what was going on) "I ran east toward the Texas School Book Depository. 'A policeman was talking to a black boy. 'It was a colored man done it. I saw him' the boy was saying. The boy was pointing toward the upper levels of the building." (5-7-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels, 7H332-350) (When asked if he'd interviewed Euins in Dealey Plaza a short period after the shots had been fired) "Yes, sir; I did. And he also said that he had heard the noise there, and that he had looked up and saw the man at the window with the rifle, and I asked him if he could identify the person, and he said, no, he couldn't, he said he couldn't tell whether he was colored or white." (11-21-64 AP article found in the Brandon Manitoba Sun) "Amos Lee Euins, 16, schoolboy who went with friends to the end of the motorcade route because he thought they could get a better view than in the crowds downtown. He saw the president fine. And also saw a rifle being withdrawn from the sixth floor of the Depository. Ever since the phone has been ringing at the Euins home. Often it is a man with a heavy voice saying "Amos better be careful with what he says. I have a complete copy of what he told police." "I got a phone call just last week," said Amos' mother, Eva, 40. "Twenty minutes later he called back. It sounded like the same heavy voice. I don't think it's a prank "cuz no grown man is going to play that much. It. makes me uneasy, it really does." The Euins' told police but didn't ask for protection and none was offered. There have been a lot of crank calls to figures in the assassination. Meanwhile at the Euins home a light burns on the front and back porches all night. Amos doesn't usually take the bus to school. Members of the family take him by car. He isn't allowed to roam too far alone. Amos does not appear concerned over the calls." (12-15-64 interview with Dallas Police Officer J. Herbert Sawyer as reported in FBI File 105-82555, sec. 224, p39) "Sawyer continued that only one other person was brought to him who had reportedly seen the assassin. This person was a young negro boy named Euins. However, upon talking to this youth, it was determined that the boy could not describe the subject, not even to the detail as to whether the man he had seen had been a white man or a negro."

Yes, absolutely. Euins is not reliable. My best guess would be that he thought the man was white because his hand was in the sun but said he may have been black, or something equally vague, and the press jumped all over it saying he said the man was black and the DPD and FBI etc then pretended he never said anything about him being black. The smoking gun that something was afoot was that, months and months after the DPD/Sheriff's Dept. wrote up a statement from Euins saying that the man was white, several of those who talked to him on that day said he could not ID the race of the man. 

My point in the post about Brennan was to the ongoing war between LNs and CTs. The LNs insist that they are logical and consistent. But when it comes to Brennan they simply choose to believe his latter-day ID of Oswald and pretend Brennan's ID did not come with a proviso--that he only ID'ed Oswald under the belief he was not wearing the shirt the DPD and FBI and WC had decided Oswald was wearing. 

It's like a badly-programmed computer that melts down when asked a question it can not answer. 

Do you believe Brennan? They say yes. Then you say "Well he said the man he saw was not wearing the shirt the DPD, FBI, and WC said Oswald was wearing. So either Oswald was wearing the shirt, and Brennan did not ID him, or Oswald was wearing a different shirt, and the fibers on the shirt were planted. You can't have it both ways."

Complete meltdown ensues. 

There is plenty of sloppy thinking on both sides of the fence, but this one sticks out, and can be used as a litmus test to determine if someone is a serious student of the case or just a zealot reciting propaganda. 

Oh my Lord, we must have been through this before. 

1. On 11-22, Oswald said he changed his pants at his rooming house but apparently said nothing about his shirt. (The shirt Mary Bledsoe insisted was filthy). 

2. That night, the shirt he was wearing while arrested--which was not IDed by any of his co-workers as a shirt he'd worn that day-was taken from him and flown to Washington to be tested by the FBI. 

3. Something is already fishy. Lt. Day of the DPD and Vincent Drain of the FBI both claimed all the evidence sent to the FBI (which would include the shirt) was transferred at 11:30. Problemita: Oswald was caught on camera still wearing this shirt roughly an hour later. 

3. The next morning fibers from this shirt were found wrapped around the butt plate on the rifle. As no prints were found on the rifle, and no one IDed Oswald as the shooter, this was one of the most important pieces of evidence linking Oswald to the shooting. 

4. When asked that day about his trip to his rooming house. Oswald told the DPD and FBI he'd changed his pants AND shirt, and that the shirt he had worn at work had been a reddish shirt with a button-down collar. 

5. No such shirt was mentioned in the numerous listings by the DPD, FBI, and WC, of Oswald's clothing recovered at the rooming house. As a result, the non-existence of this shirt was used by LNs to suggest Oswald lied about everything and had simply made up the shirt. 

6. About ten years ago, however, I prevailed upon the archives to sell me some color photos of a supposedly brown shirt found in the rooming house I suspected was the reddish shirt. Sure enough, it was both reddish and filthy--and was almost certainly the shirt Oswald had said he'd worn to work.

7. When when one looks at the FBI's testimony about the fibers found on the rifle, for that matter, it gets even uglier. The fibers were found ON TOP of fingerprint powder. This led the FBI to offer as ;pure conjecture that Lt. Day--whose job involved inspecting the rifle for fibers BEFORE dusting--had not noticed the fibers and had inadvertently wrapped them around the butt plate while rapidly brushing the fingerprint powder. Another probelmita: Day had attended the FBI's course on fingerprinting and the FBI's course had stressed that one should not brush rapidly, for fear of brushing away a print.

8. Of course, there's another problem, a big problem. One can search through forensics journals and textbooks for years and years--I know I have--and not find any other incident in the history of police work in which a tuft of fibers was found neatly wrapped on the butt plate of a rifle. Individual fibers are sometimes found on greasy rifles, or in the mechanism, etc. But a tuft neatly wrapped around the butt plate? Never happened! (And it didn't happen this time, either!) 

 

It should be clear to anyone aware of these facts (yes, even the ghost of Bugliosi and his sycophants), moreover, that someone (most probably Day and/or Drain) planted these fibers on the rifle to implicate Oswald in the crime. It doesn't mean Oswald was innocent. 

But it may provide a motive for his murder. Think about what a smart attorney could do with these facts. It could provide a reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury. Now think about the fact that Oswald was murdered as he was on the verge of getting such a lawyer. Well, hell, if you're the DPD you can't have this commie killer dragging your department through the dirt. Better off having him get killed--in which the DPD would look like clowns--than letting him get off because you faked evidence. I mean, think about it. Dozens if not hundreds of other men convicted by Wade and Fritz could very well have received new trials as a result of this one massive screw-up. The commie killer had it coming, man!

Jim DiEugenio:

One of the best analyses of Brennan is by Ian Griggs in his book No Case to Answer. (pp. 90-95)

He points out that Brennan did not even recall how many men were in the line ups he said he saw, or if there were any people of color in them.  Recall, this is Texas in 1963.

And I don't know how one gets around Brennan and the HSCA.  When the HSCA wanted to do a home interview, Brennan said he would have to be subpoenaed.  For a sit down home interview?

When the HSCA asked him to reconsider, he refused.  When they said this left them no choice but to subpoena him, Brennan said he would not come to Washington under any circumstances. And if they issued a subpoena he would fight the process. He then said he would get his doctor to give him a medical excuse.  And if they forced him to come he would simply clam up.

When the HSCA sent him records they wanted him to examine, Brennan refused to sign for the receipt.  They then offered him immunity, he still declined.  I mean, whew. (Palamara, Honest Answers, pp. 186-89)

The reason I brought up the WC and Marina, and the WC and Markham, and the WC and Brennan was to make a certain important point.  Which Epstein did, through certain attorneys, in his book.

Its not so much the serious problems with all three, but the fact the WC KNEW OF THESE PROBLEMS AND USED THEM ANYWAY!

What Epstein's book does is it gives us a good example of the guys doing the day to day work, ratting out the guys at the top.  Redlich was their messenger: the Commission wants it and I work for the Commission.  That was their naked rationale. It was simply a power play with these three.  I mean we all know that Ball called Markham a screwball in public right?  That was technically his witness. And he did not buy her.  Or Ball finding out that Brennan had vision problems?  Or Marina reversing her story twice, and on two crucial issues. And then throwing in Nixon for fun?

These are the people and the process these guys want to make disappear, hiding behind a cloak of sanctity.  That they do not notice that it is splattered with mud. 

Edited 2 hours ago by James DiEugenio