Oswald's Escape Route Time Trial

[Fergus O'Brien]

Conclusion,

The "fresh" fibers could be put on the rifle 3, 4 or 5 weeks ago.
We know that Oswald did not use the rifle daily.
We know that the three types of fibers on the rifle matched the same three types of fibers on Oswald's arrest shirt, therefore the shirt was owned by Oswald.
The three types of fibers on the rifle could have come from another piece of material being composed of the same three types of fibers.
Bugliosi in Reclaiming History informs the reader that "The FBI laboratory found that the colors, and even the twist of the fibers, perfectly matched those on the shirt Oswald was wearing at the time of his arrest. Though such fibers could theoretically have come from another identical shirt, the prohibitive probability is that they came from Oswald’s shirt."

JohnM


so in your mind and that of the man you bow down and pray to each morning fibers that could be left on a rifle some 5 weeks prior to an event would be considered FRESH ?.

as much as you may want to ram your nonsense down peoples throats neither you , the FBI or bugliosi ever proved that the fibers came from oswalds brown shirt to the exclusion of any other shirt in the world .

probably , could have , most likely blah blah blah . none of that equals PROVEN .

but i do understand how it works ha ha . your little LN pal was trying to avoid evidence he did not care for , LN 101 , if you dont like it or it creates a problem ignore it lol . so i can see why you felt a need to step in and help your little pal .

[Fergus O'Brien]

Mr. EISENBERG. In other words, you concluded they were fresh--well, you said you thought they were fresh, Mr. Stombaugh, and I don't quite understand now whether you seem to be backing off a little from that?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I am not trying to do that. I am trying to avoid a specific time element, since there are other factors which may enter couldn't--this is something that I won't even attempt to do, just say this was on here for 1 hour or 10 minutes, something like that.
But I would say these fibers were put on there in the recent past for this reason. If they had been put on there say 3, 4, 5 weeks or so ago, and the gun used every day, these fibers would have come off. Am I making myself a little more clear?

just as i said the fbi experts certainly in this case refused to say something was fact if it was not , to say it was irrefutable if it was not . Stombaugh said above even if he felt the fibers were left on the rifle 10 minutes prior , an hour prior that he would not state such . when asked if he was NOW TRYING TO BACK OFF FROM HIS FRESH STATEMENT he replied NO "i am not trying to do that " .

so Stombaugh in no way reversed his FRESH fibers statement . he simply refused to be drawn in to GIVING AN OPINION (as opposed to fact ) and to (to use his wording ) "to avoid a SPECIFIC time element " as to WHEN these fibers were left there .

[Fergus O'Brien]

"wasn't it Weidmann who called Markham a "Screwball"?" Mr Mytton

i would feel with certainty that the original person who said that was indeed YOUR very own Mr Ball of the warren commission .

[Martin Weidmann]

"wasn't it Weidmann who called Markham a "Screwball"?" Mr Mytton

i would feel with certainty that the original person who said that was indeed YOUR very own Mr Ball of the warren commission .

He knows that, Fergus, but whenever Mytton gets stuck he starts playing silly games and goes ad hominem. I'm used to it by now.

[Fergus O'Brien]

You are not following.  I'm not disputing that Oswald wore the arrest shirt at the moment of the assassination and left the fibers on the rifle at that time.  To the contrary, that is almost certainly what did happen.  What I was addressing is your claim that it somehow poses a problem that fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt were found on the rifle.  Think about the logic of arguing that fibers linking a particular person to the murder weapon somehow lends itself to his innocence.  That is absurd.  If fibers from Oswald's shirt are on the rifle, that is just another link between him and the murder weapon and therefore the crime regardless of when they got there.  It does not lend itself to his innocence.  As I've tried to explain, even if you were correct, based on your assumption, that he changed shirts before his arrest, that would only mean his arrest shirt had come into contact with the rifle at some prior time.  It still links Oswald to the rifle used to commit the crime which lends itself to his guilt rather than his innocence.

Your claim is also premised entirely on Oswald's unsubstantiated statement that he changed shirts.  It is not a fact by a longshot that he actually changed his shirt.  In fact, it is very unlikely that Oswald wasted any time changing his clothes.  He knew he was the most wanted man in the world at that moment.  He was not going to linger at his boardinghouse waiting for the police.  The fact that he requested to be let out of the cab some distance away from his boardinghouse supports the conclusion that Oswald was concerned that the police might already be there by that point in time.  He was not wasting a second longer than necessary being there.  He came there to obtain his gun.  He is in and out. 

Assume for a second that Oswald was the assassin.  Why might he lie to the police and tell them that he had changed clothes after the assassination?  Because for all he knows someone had seen the assassin and provided a description including the manner of his dress.  What to do to muddy the waters?  Claim that he has changed clothes after the crime.  He can then argue that it is only an unlucky coincidence for him that he put on a shirt that is similar to the one as described by any witness as being worn by the assassin.  He knew his jacket would cover the shirt.  So there was no reason to take time to change the shirt to avoid detection for the assassination.  The jacket has to be discarded, however, after murdering Tippit in the presence of multiple witnesses because he knows the description of the Tippit shooter will include a reference to the suspect wearing a jacket.

oh do not worry i follow PERFECTLY .

number 1 , i have NEVER in many years doing this claimed that was Oswald was innocent , but also nor have i said he was guilty .there is a reason for that . it is that in so far as my research has shown me the official case against Oswald has never been proven . in fact often it simply does not stand up to close scrutiny . but also , even tho i say the case against Oswald has never been proven , i also am aware of no one piece of irrefutable proof that would completely exonerate him .

number 2 , i have never said that YOU dispute that Oswald wore the brown shirt IN WORK . it should be clear to anyone reading that that is your stance REGARDLESS ANY EVIDENCE OR WITNESS TO THE CONTRARY .

number 3 . i have not in any way argued that fibers from Oswalds shirt on the rifle would prove him innocent . unlike your arguments of assumption i argued based on recorded statements from within official interrogation notes , even Bugliosi used these notes in his door stop . my argument VERY CLEARLY is that A stombaugh said these fibers were FRESH all be it he declined to state just how fresh , and B that oswald was recorded in interrogation stating he changed his slacks and shirt at his rooming house .and THUS that if he did indeed do that , that the BROWN shirt he was arrested in was not the shirt he wore in work that day . if that is indeed the case HE CANT HAVE LEFT FRESH FIBERS FROM HIS BROWN SHIRT ON THE RIFLE AT 12.30 AT THE DEPOSITORY . you could only counter that with supposition that he left the fibers from the brown shirt weeks or months prior .

number 4 . yes its TRUE that it is not a proven fact that Oswald changed his shirt and slacks that day . but here is the kicker I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS FACT OR PROVEN . i said very clearly IF IT IS INDEED TRUE that he then cant have left the fresh fibers on the rifle at 12.30 that tragic day .i will not / never state something to be proven fact if i dont know it to be or cant prove it to be , its an affliction of mine , it is this darn honest streak that runs through me  . but i know most LN do not suffer with the same affliction lol .

yes oswald could have lied about changing his shirt and slacks , but also he could have told the truth .the difference between you and me is that you are taking a stance that he killed and thus he lied , and i am sure anything he said that you dont care for you call a lie . where as my approach is to examine both trains of thought , IE did he lie or did he tell the truth .from my perspective and approach on the surface atleast there appears more reasons to accept that he told the truth on this particular matter .

[Fergus O'Brien]

He knows that, Fergus, but whenever Mytton gets stuck he starts playing silly games and goes ad hominem. I'm used to it by now.

hello Martin and may i wish you and yours a very happy and healthy 2024 .

indeed i know Mr Mytton and his ways for quite some years now .and you are quite correct . i too have been the subject of his attack on a few occasions . like you it does not bother me , i just carry on regardless lol . but thank you for your reply . i have read a great many of your posts here and i have to say they are well written , intelligent and based clearly on very good research . and i do very much enjoy reading your comments and replies . to your credit you do seem to have the measure of the LN on this forum , and you handle them accordingly . take care and talk soon

[Fergus O'Brien]

there may be people reading this who are new to this case or who or not new to it but desire to learn more about these fibers , so here is a segment of an article by Pat Speer in regards the fiber evidence .

"Which brings us back to the 4-3-64 testimony of the FBI's fiber expert, Stombaugh...

He eventually discussed the fibers: “I tried to match these fibers with the fibers to the blanket, and found that they had not originated from the blanket, because the cotton fibers were of entirely different colors. So I happened to think of the shirt and I made a known sample of the shirt fibers…I removed fibers from the shirt to determine the composition of it and also the colors. I found that the shirt was composed of dark-blue, grayish black, and orangish-yellow cotton fibers, and that these were the same shades of fibers I had found on the butt of the gun… "

He then presented some photographs to prove his point: “Color photographs are very difficult to make microscopically because the color isn’t always identical to what you see in the microscope. So these colors are slightly off.” “These are the orangish fibers. The color is not exactly the same as what one would see under the microscope. However, you can see that the fibers on both sides, namely the fiber from the rifle, here…And the fibers from the shirt, which are on the left hand side of Exhibit 674, do match. The colors are the same and also, we find the same twist in the fiber.” He then moved on to the grayish-black fibers: “These are the gray-black cotton fibers and the color didn’t come out well on these in this instance because of time and color process limitations…The same would apply to Exhibit 675 as to 674, with the exception of the color. The color on these is much darker and we tried up to last night to duplicate the exact color and this is the best I could come up with under the time and color process limitations. It took us about four hours to make a photograph such as this.”

Well, this is a bit of a surprise. Stombaugh was unable to get his photographs to match and expected the commission to take his word for it that the fibers really did match, when seen under his super spiffy microscope. Of course, they did just that. Not surprisingly, a detailed report by Stombaugh, explaining how and why he came to his conclusions, when his photographs didn't even match, never surfaced. A defense attorney could get fat on this stuff.

Stombaugh then moved on to the dark blue cotton fibers: “the color match of the dark blue cotton fibers shows rather well in this photograph, Exhibit 676…" (When asked about a violet fiber in the picture) “I asked the photographer about this when he developed this and I said “Why did we get this; this is not in the slide at all,” and he said that is one of the orange fibers. They use different techniques in bringing out the blue and yellow-orange in a photomicrograph…this shade in the photograph is different from what that fiber actually is. It is in the development process. I am not too familiar with color photography. There is an art to it. However, I do know that there are times and technical limitations on the accuracy of color reproductions…I believe (I recovered) a total of six or seven fibers from the butt plate, and three of them are blue fibers and all matched…Two shades.”

When asked his conclusions, Stombaugh declared: “it was my opinion that these fibers could easily have come from the shirt…Mainly because the fibers or the shirt is composed of point one, cotton, and point two, three basic colors. I found all three colors on the gun. Now if the shirt had been composed of 10 or 15 different colors and types of fibers and I only had found 3 of them, then I would feel that I had not found enough, but I found fibers on the gun which I could match with the fibers composing the shirt, so I feel the fibers could easily have come from the shirt.”

Could Stombaugh really have stated that a rust brown shirt was made up entirely of dark blue, grayish-black, and orange-ish yellow fibers? I must admit I'm skeptical. Since when is there no brown in brown? His assurance that the fibers found on the rifle "could easily" have come from Oswald's shirt is also questionable, and notable for its lack of precision."

https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4b-threads-of-evidence

[Richard Smith]

oh do not worry i follow PERFECTLY .

number 1 , i have NEVER in many years doing this claimed that was Oswald was innocent , but also nor have i said he was guilty .there is a reason for that . it is that in so far as my research has shown me the official case against Oswald has never been proven . in fact often it simply does not stand up to close scrutiny . but also , even tho i say the case against Oswald has never been proven , i also am aware of no one piece of irrefutable proof that would completely exonerate him .

number 2 , i have never said that YOU dispute that Oswald wore the brown shirt IN WORK . it should be clear to anyone reading that that is your stance REGARDLESS ANY EVIDENCE OR WITNESS TO THE CONTRARY .

number 3 . i have not in any way argued that fibers from Oswalds shirt on the rifle would prove him innocent . unlike your arguments of assumption i argued based on recorded statements from within official interrogation notes , even Bugliosi used these notes in his door stop . my argument VERY CLEARLY is that A stombaugh said these fibers were FRESH all be it he declined to state just how fresh , and B that oswald was recorded in interrogation stating he changed his slacks and shirt at his rooming house .and THUS that if he did indeed do that , that the BROWN shirt he was arrested in was not the shirt he wore in work that day . if that is indeed the case HE CANT HAVE LEFT FRESH FIBERS FROM HIS BROWN SHIRT ON THE RIFLE AT 12.30 AT THE DEPOSITORY . you could only counter that with supposition that he left the fibers from the brown shirt weeks or months prior .

number 4 . yes its TRUE that it is not a proven fact that Oswald changed his shirt and slacks that day . but here is the kicker I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT IT WAS FACT OR PROVEN . i said very clearly IF IT IS INDEED TRUE that he then cant have left the fresh fibers on the rifle at 12.30 that tragic day .i will not / never state something to be proven fact if i dont know it to be or cant prove it to be , its an affliction of mine , it is this darn honest streak that runs through me  . but i know most LN do not suffer with the same affliction lol .

yes oswald could have lied about changing his shirt and slacks , but also he could have told the truth .the difference between you and me is that you are taking a stance that he killed and thus he lied , and i am sure anything he said that you dont care for you call a lie . where as my approach is to examine both trains of thought , IE did he lie or did he tell the truth .from my perspective and approach on the surface atleast there appears more reasons to accept that he told the truth on this particular matter .

You haven't argued "in any way" that the fibers from Oswald's shirt would prove him innocent?  Then why make such a big deal about him changing shirts and claiming that resulted in a "problem" for LNers?  What problem would there be then?  The argument seemed to be that because Oswald claimed to have changed shirts, he could not have left the fibers on the rifle that was used to assassinate JFK.   That sounds a lot like suggesting he was not the assassin.   The facts are that the fibers found on the rifle are consistent with those from the shirt that Oswald was wearing approximately an hour after the assassination.  Absent a time machine we can't know certain things with absolute certainty, but those facts lend themselves to Oswald's guilt rather than his innocence.  What are the odds that Oswald puts on a random shirt that matches the fibers found on his rifle that day?  And again, even if there were no fibers from his shirt, there is ample evidence to link Oswald to the murder weapon.  It is difficult to even contemplate how there could be any more evidence of the fact.  Oswald has no explanation for the presence of his rifle at the crime scene.  He has no credible alibi for the moment of the assassination.  He flees the scene within minutes and gets a gun.  He is identified by several witnesses as the person who murdered a police officer in broad daylight on the street.  I'm puzzled how anyone can fixate on a trivial point like the fibers in the face of the overwhelming mountain of evidence that links Oswald to the crime.