From: cortez@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: Husky Fever
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 08:23:17 GMT

grant_jo@ripple.enet.dec.com (Joel Grant) writes:


>re: 3232 (Tom Warner)

>>>	I agree that trajectory analysis presents a range of
>>>	possibilities and that that range can be quite broad.
>>>	In fact, I have been trying to make that point.  And
>>>	we'll get to the SBT.

>>Yes, you'll have to, if you want to stick with the lone gunman with a
>>Mannlicher Carcano.

>	A crime scene is a puzzle and the pieces need to be
>	put together.  Must we re-hash the evidence placing
>	a gunman in the 6th floor window firing three shots,
>	two of which were recovered and matched to a rifle
>	found on the 6th floor?

I don't see any reason too. Keep in mind I think the shells and rifle
were left behind just so they would be found by police and lead to
Oswald as the assassin. CE399 was also almost certainly planted, since
it is too pristine to have caused *any* of the wounds to JFK or Connally
or to have hit anything else in the limo.

>       And the lack of any other
>	gunman or rifle in any other buildings or Dealy
>	Plaza locations?

And also, none of these other alleged rifleman waved brightly colored
flags, or yelled out *here I am, come get me now.* What's your point?
There are in fact several witnesses claiming to have seen riflemen in other
locations, most in the grassy knoll area. Others saw the famous puff of smoke.

>	What trajectory analysis will show us is whether
>	or not the place where the guy with the rifle was
>	seen, the rifle was found, etc., is *consistent* 
>	with the other evidence.  Does the 6th floor, TSBD
>	fall within that range?  The answer, clearly, is
>	yes it does.

Even if you don't try and make the sixth-floor shooter use a Mannlicher-
Carcano, the front neck wound was too small to be an exit and the head wound
came from the right front, based on other evidence.

On trajectory analysis alone, all that can be ruled out is the single-bullet
theory. It also places limits on all other explanations, depending on what
explanation you're proposing.

>>>	150 feet is a generous estimation of the distance from
>>>	the car to the 6th floor window at the time the second
>>>	bullet was fired.  I suspect it was closer to about
>>>	180-185 feet.

>>Kennedy's neck isn't 180-185 feet wide either. Again, it's the angle, not
>>the distance, that's at issue. It's a comparison of the angle from the
>>throat wound to the back wound, to the angle from the throat wound to the
>>6th floor TSBD. If you work out the geometry on paper, you'll see that your
>>"angel on the head of a pin" criticism is silly and wrong. You might even
>>ask yourself, how could anyone possibly suggest that a 2-dimensional
>>analysis is worth any more to your case than a pile of bat feces?

>	Note the "angle from the throat wound to the 6th floor TSBD"
>	phrase there.  The 6th floor TSBD was between 150 and 190
>	feet away from JFK's neck.  I am suggesting that, all things
>	considered, trying to nail down that angle to a degree of
>	accuracy equal to two inches is not a feasible enterprise.
>	Guano argue with that one?

Yes, you still haven't figured it out. Why is the distance a problem?
The longer the distance, the *less* important the precision with which
you place JFK's throat wound is. The "two inches" does not come into play
in this angle measurement, really -- it comes into play in the measurement
of the angle you're comparing to, that is, the angle from the back wound
to the throat wound.

>       Since the measurements of the
>	horizontal angle vary by at least 12 degrees, I'd say
>	no 100% accurate results have as yet been developed.

I don't know why others have failed to agree with their measurements, but I
expect some (possibly on both sides) have fudged things in very obvious
ways. There is absolutely no reason why, using the existing film(s), very
precise measurements could not be taken.

>>>	By "Dallas police" do you mean E. R. Walthers, who was a
>>>	deputy sheriff of Dallas County?  He has denied finding
>>>	any such bullet.  No photo exists of him or anyone else
>>>	finding a bullet in the grass, though there is a photo
>>>	of people *looking* for a bullet.  They just didn't
>>>	find one.

>>J. W. Foster, who guarded the bullet and watched the "agent" pick it up.
>>The photo and story, like I said, is in Marrs. The bullet isn't visible
>>in the photo, just Foster and another man standing in the background as
>>another man fingers the ground.

>	And this you regard as, somehow, a tighter chain of
>	custody?

No, and I said so.

>>>	Should I ever get a law degree and decide to practice
>>>	criminal law, and should I get the definitive version of
>>>	the history of all the physical evidence in the JFK
>>>	assassination, I will be better able to judge what would
>>>	or would not be admissable due to a loose chain of
>>>	possession.  Interestingly, you reject the limo fragments
>>>	and CE399 because the chain of possession isn't tight
>>>	enough for you, but accept the existence of a bullet
>>>	that is apparently possessed by no one and which nobody
>>>	actually claims to have found.  Rather startlingly different
>>>	standards, what?

>>Not at all. First, we are talking about a murder case in which there
>>is a high probability of political motive. We also have Oswald, who
>>several suspicously obvious pieces of evidence point to but other
>>evidence proves could not have been in the suspiciously obvious
>>"assassins lair" at the time of the shooting, failed a paraffin test,
>>could not have fired all the shots with the supiciously obvious weapon,
>>and shortly after the assassination, was taken out by the mafia with
>>apparent cooperation from someone within the Dallas police.
>>Furthermore, CE399 is just too damn pristine to have caused *any* of
>>Connally's wounds, and the man who found the bullet just laying there on
>>a stretcher did not recognize it as the bullet he found, not to mention
>>that two witnesses claim to have seen Oswald's assassin at the hospital.
>>Is this not enough to make you think maybe, just maybe, someone
>>was planting evidence? Given all the circumstantial evidence of a frame-up
>>is the fact that the chain of possession is not only "not tight" but gaping
>>a mile wide of note? Puh-lease!

>	Your basic method of argument here is that you assume, in
>	your premise, that which you seek to demonstrate for your
>	conclusion.  This is known as begging the question.

You mean, I assume there is a possibility that evidence is planted,
which leads me to question the validity of *all* evidence, which leads
me to conclude that the bullet and fragments in evidence, without proof,
cannot be conclusively said to be the same items recovered from the
stretcher and limo? There is something wrong with this line of thinking?

>	You ignore the physical evidence that ties limo frags and
>	CE399 to Oswald's rifle,

No, I just add to this that they may be planted, and in CE399's case,
almost certainly was, either at the hospital or after.

>       wrist frags to CE399 and head
>	frags to limo frags.  This is a chain of custody tight to
>	the atomic level.

You greatly exaggerate the value of these tests. You actually believe
that there is a method by which little specks of metal can be conclusively
tied to individual fragments or bullets? There's not, sorry.

>       And you prefer as an alternative a
>	bullet that was not claimed to have been found by the
>	man Foster says found it and is now nowhere in existence.
>	This is the mile-wide gap, Husky.

First, please don't call me a Husky, I consider the term derogatory. :)

Second, I don't have any claim by Foster that anyone other than himself
found a bullet, do you?

More importantly...
A
>>I'm not resting the whole case on Foster's statements, the way you are resting
>>your entire case on the authenticity of CE399 and the fragments. I was just
>>responding to something inaccurate (as best is known, I have no reason to
>>doubt Foster -- especially since such vital evidence as the "babushka lady"s
>>film has definitely disappeared) that you posted.

>	It is not true that I rest the "entire case" on CE399 and
>	frags.  Each piece of evidence serves its own purpose.

If a piece of evidence is crucial to your case, i.e., without it you have no
case, then you are resting your entire case upon that evidence.

Obviously, if the bullet and fragments in evidence are not the same as the
bullet and fragments recovered from the limo and stretcher, then 
the whole case against Oswald completely falls apart.

I don't know either way, I just don't know why you think you do. I'm willing
to accept the possibility that the framents are bona fide; I haven't seen
any plausible explanation for how CE399 got shot from the sixth floor TSBD
into *anything* in the limo and came out looking like it does.

>>>	As for the impossibility of Oswald slipping off three
>>>	shots in the approximately eight seconds of the firing
>>>	sequence, I suggest this is a feat that can and has
>>>	been easily duplicated.

>>You'll first have to show that your figure of eight seconds is plausible,
>>and that the gaps in between the 1st and 2nd and 2nd and 3rd shots were
>>long enough, and that there were no more than 3 shots. Good luck.

>	Short version: 

>	Shot one - approximately Z-film 162

Through the tree? Was this the miss then? How did it get to the curb
way on down the street from where the limo was at this point?

>	Shot two - approximately Z-film 220 (3.17 sec)
>	Shot three -             Z-film 313 (5.08 sec)

>	Total time elapsed: 8.25 seconds.

>	Why I would have to "prove" there were no more than three
>	shots is unclear.  Three shells were found near Oswald's
>	rifle, and three shots can be accounted for by the evidence.

Because JFK has three wounds, Connally has three wounds, a bystander
was hit by a fragment or shrapnel, and the curb was hit. You have
to be able to explain how all these hits were done by three bullets.

The fact that three shells, all neatly lined up in a row, were found
by the obvious "assassins lair" is only evidence of the number of shots
fired if you begin with the assumption that all shots were fired from that
rifle. Whose being circular, here?

>>>	Why would Charles Guiteau walk up and, in plain sight of
>>>	everyone, pull the trigger?  Why do any crimes leave
>>>	evidence?

>>You don't get it. If Oswald didn't do it, which the evidence proves he didn't,
>>then there had to be a sophisticated frame up. Such conspirators would not
>>have left their rifles laying around in the Dal-Tex building.

>	It is you that doesn't get it.  Your logic here is tangled
>	beyond all hope of retrieval.

No, you just want it to be, so you mix issues until it appears that way.

>       The evidence proves a negative,
>	namely that Oswald didn't do it.  But the sophisticated
>	frame-up has planted evidence that proves Oswald did do it.

You're following me accurately so far.

>	Mind readers, we know what these sophisticated conspirators
>	would not have done.  And what they would have done.
>	And they weren't sophisticated enough to fool you, eh?

Huh? I'm just trying to point out that if Oswald didn't do it, then we
*by necessity* have a sophisticated conspiracy on our hands, that planted
evidence to frame Oswald. You were claiming that the fact that no rifles
were left behind in any other location was evidence that the only shooter
was in the TSBD, which only works if you assume a *lack* of sophistication
on the part of the assassins. On the other hand, if you assume even a
modicum of competence on the part of the assassins, the fact that no other
rifles were left behind is entirely consistent with a frame-up of Oswald
as the lone assassin.
>	
>	Now why don't you present your actual theory of the
>	assassination?

I entertain several, with a wide degree of uncertainty in all details.
  
>       Please include your conjectures of how
>	many people might have been involved, what sort of
>	planning needed to have taken place, how they chose
>	Oswald as the patsy, when they chose Oswald as the
>	patsy, how they managed to plant all that evidence,
>	including the death of Officer Tippit.

Very generally, somewhat more than needed to be, especially on the
mafia side. I think the operation was planned as a "get him in whatever
city we can" and most likely began in the mafia or right-wing-luny circle
and then someone made a contact in government somewhere that assured
low security. Either the Mafia, government or para-intelligence figures
could have chosen Oswald as patsy, and I think this very likely occurred
before the trip to Mexico City, in New Orleans, through Bannister. I'm not
certain on that, there may have been some other reason for Oswald's trip
to Mexico City. But the appearance is of creating an apparent connection
between the assassination and Cuba and the Soviet Union. I think that at least
part of the conspiracy fully intended to hang the whole thing on Cuba,
but LBJ, even though he apparently was convinced up to his death that
Cuba was involved, just didn't respond the way they thought he would.

All anyone needed was to know how to get Oswald's gun from his garage.
That's not all that hard, if you have someone talking to Oswald prior
to the assassination. Even if Oswald was just chosen because he worked
for the TSBD, and no one in on the plan really had much to do with him
until they decided they needed a patsy and found this guy with the "commie"
background at the TSBD, it still wouldn't be very tough.

As far as Tippit's death, someone shot him, possibly while Oswald was on the
scene. Possibly Oswald shot him.

>       I mean - none
>	of this vague stuff here.  The Oswald-did-it scenario
>	is detailed to the nth degree.  Conspiracy scenarios
>	prosper to the extent they are vague, with some noteworthy
>	exceptions.  So let's hear yours.  Expecting 100% airtight
>	perfection in the case against Oswald while delivering
>	murky innuendo is the epitome of the double-standard.

This is a crock. I believe there was a conspiracy primarily because
Oswald could not possibly have done it. The Oswald-did-it scenario is
detailed (bogus, but detailed) because the weaknesses of this scenario
is what drives belief in a conspiracy. Do you think we begin by imagining
some fully-wrought scenario down to all the details and then work
backwards from there? I don't, I look at the evidence, and where the
evidence is unclear, I consider all possibilities.

I don't expect 100% airtight perfection in the case against Oswald, just
something plausible. It isn't there.

If this case is ever seriously investigated and plausible case is built
agianst specific individuals, then we'll discuss details about it. Until
then, it's irresponsible to accuse people without evidence, and a waste of
time arguing about it.

>>>	Why are you extracting Bruce Schuck's statements and 
>>>	shoving them at me?  Take it up with Bruce.

>>Gee, I thought this was a public forum.
>>I was taking it up with Bruce, and everybody. I just think its important
>>to keep in mind that most of the evidence points to a non-traversing
>>back wound, which would allow for a sixth floor TSBD shooter to have
>>hit Kennedy at the point that the Z film appears to show him first
>>taking a hit.

>	Perhaps Bruce will address your point.  As for "most
>	of the evidence" I presume you exclude the autopsy?

No, in fact, I rely most heavily upon the autopsy. At the autopsy, absolutely
no evidence of traversing was found. Checks were done both from the back,
looking for a path, and from the inside of the chest cavity, where the
autopsists quite logically assumed a bullet shot from above and behind would
pass into if it hit soneone in the back. They spent a great deal of time
trying to figure out where the bullet went and were under alot of pressure
to figure it out. Meanwhile, the FBI were hanging on the perimeter hoping for
a bullet or even just a fragment to take back to their lab, but the doctors
never found any, not even by x-ray (except in the head).
It was only after the autopsy was over with and the body was already done
up by the morticians that the Bethesda autopsists learned that the
throat wound they thought was only a tracheostomy opening had been a
wound. They then simply wrote into their final report that the bullet
must have traversed because they could make no other explanation for not
being able to find the bullet.

>>>       Apparently,
>>>	Conspiracy Central did a good job in planting them in the
>>>	limo, but a poor job in establishing (to your satisfaction)
>>>	chain of custody.

>>I'm not accusing the handlers of the bullets of being part of the conspiacy.
>>They did, however, completely fail to document the chain of possession.
>>Any step of the way, the fragments could have been switched. Or perhaps they
>>are the real thing. The point is, planted evidence is all over this case and
>>there's no way of knowing where those fragments actually came from for certain.

>	Please explain how they managed to have the fragment recovered
>	from JFK's head match the fragments found in the limo.

Please explain what the hell you're talking about.

>>>	No witnesses on that day came forward with any stories of
>>>	anyone else with a rifle.  All such stories have been
>>>	uncovered well after the fact.

>>First, who said "anyone else"? Other than who? I'm talking about the Rowlands,
>>who told the FBI that day they saw a man with a rifle on the other side of the
>>building. They also claim to have told the FBI about a Black man being with
>>this man, but this is not in the records.

>	You mean Arnold Rowland, singular.  His wife did not support
>	his statements, indeed even made a comment to the effect that
>	her husband had a tendency to tell tales.

Where do you get this?

>>It may be true that no record of someone claiming on 1//22/63 to have seen
>>a rifle in a location in a different area altogether, I don't know. However,
>>the number of witnesses who, like the Rowlands, claim to have told more to
>>the FBI than is reflected in the records opens up some doubt.

>	Rowland actually first testified about seeing the black
>	man when he was in front of the WC.  The WC took his
>	statements seriously enough that they decided to interview
>	each and every employee of the TSBD to see if they could
>	substantiate Rowland's claim.  They found no such
>	substantiation.

Why would they? What would TSBD employees have over anyone else?