JFK Assassination Forum
The JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Michael T. Griffith on June 19, 2026, 02:50:18 PM
-
I still remember being surprised in the early days of my research into the JFK case to see Norman Mailer say in a TV interview that he could have gotten Oswald acquitted in a trial. In 2015, Jeremy Gunn, the former general counsel for the Assassination Records Review Board, said he believed Oswald would have been acquitted--found not guilty--if he had stood trial. Said Gunn,
If we actually ask the question was Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I am convinced that Oswald would have been found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To me there is just no question he is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
What led Mailer and Gunn to say these things? Answer: There are gaping holes and numerous problems with the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald. Here are just a few of them:
-- The Dallas post office where the alleged murder rifle was supposedly picked up should have retained the signature of the person who picked up the rifle for four years. However, the FBI said the signature form was "missing" when they tried to obtain it from the post office.
-- The alleged murder rifle was ordered under the name "A. Hidell." Yet, Oswald stipulated on his PO Box form that "Lee H. Oswald" was the only person authorized to receive mail from his box. Moreover, U.S. Postal regulations required that "Mail addressed to a person at a PO Box who is not authorized to receive mail shall be endorsed 'addressee unknown' and returned to sender."
It should also be pointed out that the FBI was unable to find anyone at the post office who recalled giving Oswald the large package that contained the mail-order rifle. Additionally, the money order that was allegedly used to buy the rifle was purchased at a time when Oswald was at work.
-- Oswald supposedly carried his disassembled rifle into the TSBD in a long paper bag that he allegedly made from wrapping paper and tape from the TSBD. However, no such bag appears in any of the official crime scene photos of the sixth-floor sniper's nest, and the first police officers on the scene did not see it there. For example, Sergeant Gerald Hill told the WC that the only paper bag he saw was a "small lunch sack" and said, "... if it was found up there on the sixth floor, if it was there, I didn't see it" (7 H 65).
DPD Detective R.D. Lewis showed Buell Wesley Frazier the long paper bag supposedly found in the sniper's nest. Frazier told him "he did not think that it resembled ... the crinkly brown paper sack that Oswald had when he rode to work with him that morning..." (FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 17, p. 100) Frazier got the best look at the bag that Oswald carried that morning.
WC defenders not that Oswald's partial right palmprint and partial left index fingerprint were found on the bag. Yet, this raises an obvious question: How could Oswald have left only two partial prints on the bag when he supposedly made it himself using paper and tape from the TSBD, carried it with him to the Paine home, used it to wrap his rifle, carried it into the TSBD, and unwrapped it off his rifle on the sixth floor?
Oswald worked at the TSBD and handled boxes and wrapping paper as part of his job. It is likely that the DPD either found wrapping paper that Oswald had touched and used it to make the large paper bag or they made the large paper back and manipulated Oswald into handling it during one of his interrogations. Either scenario would explain why only two partial Oswald prints were found on the bag.
If Oswald had actually made the bag and carried it as claimed by the WC, his prints would have been all over it--he certainly would have left more than just two partial prints on it.
Oswald told the police that the bag was a regular small brown grocery bag from a grocery store and that it merely contained his lunch and nothing else. There are compelling reasons to believe he was telling the truth.
-- WC defenders point out that Marina Oswald "identified the rifle in testimony to the Warren Commission during its 1964 hearings." When asked, "Is that the scope that it had on it, as far as you know?", Marine said "Yes" (1 H 119). However, when she was interviewed months earlier by the Secret Service, Marina said the only rifle her husband ever owned did not have a scope. In fact, she said that before she saw the sixth-floor rifle on TV, "she did not know that rifles with scopes existed" (CD 344, p. 24).
Needless to say, this also calls into question the backyard rifle photos, which Marina allegedly took (although in later years she insisted they were not the photos she took). Thus, it is no surprise that the backyard photos contain impossible variant shadows that no one has ever been able to duplicate, despite repeated attempts.
-- WC defenders note that the FBI said it found a "tuft of cotton fibers ... clinging to the butt of the rifle" and that the fibers "matched those in the shirt worn by Oswald the day of the assassination." However, the shirt to which the fibers were "matched" was the one Oswald was wearing when he was arrested, but this was not the shirt he wore to work that day.
During his interrogations, when he knew nothing about any fibers found on the rifle, Oswald told police that between the time of the shooting and the time of his arrest, he returned to his rooming house and changed his shirt and pants. Oswald's statement was corroborated by Dallas Policeman Marrion Baker. Baker saw Oswald on the second floor of the TSBD less than two minutes after the shooting and saw him again at the police station a few hours later. Baker told the WC that when he saw Oswald the second time, "He looked as though he did not have the same thing on" (3 H 262).
In other words, an FBI man, not realizing that Oswald had changed shirts after he left the TSBD, took the shirt he was wearing when he was arrested and rubbed the butt of the alleged murder rifle into the shirt to plant fiber evidence against Oswald.
-- WC defenders claim that Oswald's palmprint was found on the barrel of the alleged murder weapon and that this proves he was the assassin. Leaving aside the highly doubtful, extremely suspicious circumstances of the alleged discovery of the latent palmprint, it should be pointed out that the man who supposedly (and belatedly) found the palmprint, Lt. J. C. Day, told the WC the print was an "old dry print" (26 H 831) and said in a 1994 interview that the print "had been on the gun several weeks or months" Anthony Summers, Not In Your Lifetime, p. 84).
Suffice it to say that when the FBI's fingerprint expert, Sebastian Latona, examined the rifle a few days later, he found no indication that the rifle had even been processed for prints and saw no prints on the rifle barrel, even though Lt. Day claimed the palmprint was still visible on the barrel after he allegedly lifted it.
-- We still here some WC apologists cite Vincent Scalice's 1993 claim that he positively identified the fragmentary fingerprints on the alleged murder rifle's trigger guard as Oswald's prints. Scalice claimed he found 18 "points of identity" by using a composite of four enhanced Dallas police photos.
Yet, when Scalice examined the trigger-guard prints for the HSCA, he said they were "of no value for identification purposes" (8 HSCA 248). Moreover, when FBI latent print expert George Bonebrake reviewed the prints for the PBS documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?, he concluded the prints were "simply not clear enough to make an identification." In addition, in 2003, an FBI laboratory computer software analysis of the prints failed to match the prints with Oswald's prints (Donald Thomas, [i[Hear No Evil[/i], p. 85).
-- Voice stress analysis (VSA) of Oswald's declarations of innocence while in police custody indicate he was telling the truth when he said he didn't shoot anybody. VSA polygraphs are more effective than traditional polygraphs because they can be administered without the person's knowledge and/or can be administered after the fact from recordings of the person's statements. George O'Toole, an ex-CIA agent, discussed the VSA results of Oswald's statements in his book The Assassination Tapes.
A forensic psychologist who is also an expert in body language has likewise concluded from video footage of Oswald in police custody that Oswald was telling the truth when he said he didn't shoot anybody:
-
I still remember being surprised in the early days of my research into the JFK case to see Norman Mailer say in a TV interview that he could have gotten Oswald acquitted in a trial. In 2015, Jeremy Gunn, the former general counsel for the Assassination Records Review Board, said he believed Oswald would have been acquitted--found not guilty--if he had stood trial. Said Gunn,
If we actually ask the question was Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I am convinced that Oswald would have been found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To me there is just no question he is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
A defendant is either found guilty or not guilty. If he is found guilty, the jury concluded there was no reasonable doubt. If he is found not guilty, the jury concluded there was reasonable doubt. There is no such thing as "not guilty beyond reasonable doubt." For Gunn to have said this - twice - is a howler of epic proportions.
Gee, if a novelist with a degree in engineering could've got Oswald acquitted, maybe he really was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt! :D :D :D
-
MTG-
An interesting post, and thanks for posting it.
There is a difference between being guilty, and guilty beyond reasonable doubt. A man might be guilty in truth, but in court enough doubts are raised that a jury would have to vote not guilty. And you need 12-0 to convict.
LHO found not guilty in court would not necessarily mean LHO was not guilty in real life. (OJ got off, for example.)
In regards to your excellent post, I suspect the FBI "leaned on on the evidence" in the JFKA, on instructions from Hoover, and LBJ, and so that WC-LNT narrative would prevail. No nuke war with Russia motivated LBJ through this period. A sensible enough concern.
However, the strong possibility that the FBI leaned on the evidence does not, in real life, exonerate LHO. It is possible to frame a guilty man.
For example, I suspect the FBI switched out evidence bullets in Walker shooting, and CE-399 sure looks funny. It may be the FBI introduced false evidence.
However, for me, the best suspect for the TSBD6 sniper remains LHO. The HSCA looked at the BYP and said they were real. LHO was in the building. LHO was invisible at the time shots rang out---not one witness ever said they saw LHO when shots rang out.
A slender white male was seen firing a rifle in the direction of the limo, by Brennan.
LHO's post-JFKA behavior in entirely consistent with that of a guilty man. It may be LHO thought himself framed, or more likely, hung out to dry---hence the bitter "patsy" comment.
I gotta say, LHO as a totally innocent bystander...just does not hold water.
Unfortunately, LHO was murdered before he could spill the beans.
I suspect LHO was part of a very small plot, including possibly G2, or Alpha-66'ers.
IMHO.
Caveat emptor, and draw your own conclusions.
-
I still remember being surprised in the early days of my research into the JFK case to see Norman Mailer say in a TV interview that he could have gotten Oswald acquitted in a trial. In 2015, Jeremy Gunn, the former general counsel for the Assassination Records Review Board, said he believed Oswald would have been acquitted--found not guilty--if he had stood trial. Said Gunn,
If we actually ask the question was Oswald guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, I am convinced that Oswald would have been found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. To me there is just no question he is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
What led Mailer and Gunn to say these things? Answer: There are gaping holes and numerous problems with the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald. Here are just a few of them:
-- The Dallas post office where the alleged murder rifle was supposedly picked up should have retained the signature of the person who picked up the rifle for four years. However, the FBI said the signature form was "missing" when they tried to obtain it from the post office.
Somebody misplaced a piece of paper. BFD. We have a paper trail proving Oswald ordered the rifle. We have pictures of him with the rifle. The rifle was found at his workplace. The rifle had his palm print on it. The rifle had fibers matching the shirt he was wearing when arrested. His fingerprints were on the top of boxes where a shooter was seen and shells were found that matched his rifle. His palm and fingerprint were on the bag found next to the sniper's nest. But we're supposed to disregard all of that because somebody misplaced a piece of paper. Some reasonable doubt.
-- The alleged murder rifle was ordered under the name "A. Hidell." Yet, Oswald stipulated on his PO Box form that "Lee H. Oswald" was the only person authorized to receive mail from his box. Moreover, U.S. Postal regulations required that "Mail addressed to a person at a PO Box who is not authorized to receive mail shall be endorsed 'addressee unknown' and returned to sender."
A government employee didn't follow a rule to the letter. Gee, that never happens. [/quote]
It should also be pointed out that the FBI was unable to find anyone at the post office who recalled giving Oswald the large package that contained the mail-order rifle. Additionally, the money order that was allegedly used to buy the rifle was purchased at a time when Oswald was at work.[/quote]
How many packages do you suppose a USPS employee in a big city handle in the course of one day. Do you really think one of those employees would remember handing Oswald a package 8 months earlier? I thought these were suppose to be REASONABLE doubts.
-- Oswald supposedly carried his disassembled rifle into the TSBD in a long paper bag that he allegedly made from wrapping paper and tape from the TSBD. However, no such bag appears in any of the official crime scene photos of the sixth-floor sniper's nest, and the first police officers on the scene did not see it there. For example, Sergeant Gerald Hill told the WC that the only paper bag he saw was a "small lunch sack" and said, "... if it was found up there on the sixth floor, if it was there, I didn't see it" (7 H 65).
Silly. A picture was taken of a cop taking the bag out of the TSBD.
DPD Detective R.D. Lewis showed Buell Wesley Frazier the long paper bag supposedly found in the sniper's nest. Frazier told him "he did not think that it resembled ... the crinkly brown paper sack that Oswald had when he rode to work with him that morning..." (FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 17, p. 100) Frazier got the best look at the bag that Oswald carried that morning.
Frazier said he didn't pay much attention to how Oswald carried the bag. Why the hell would he? Why would that detail have seemed the least bit important AT THAT TIME.
WC defenders not that Oswald's partial right palmprint and partial left index fingerprint were found on the bag. Yet, this raises an obvious question: How could Oswald have left only two partial prints on the bag when he supposedly made it himself using paper and tape from the TSBD, carried it with him to the Paine home, used it to wrap his rifle, carried it into the TSBD, and unwrapped it off his rifle on the sixth floor?
Fingerprints don't last forever, especially on absorbent materials. Here is what AI has to say:
"The type of surface plays a significant role; non-porous materials like glass, metal, or plastic can preserve fingerprints for weeks, months, or even years if undisturbed. Porous surfaces such as paper or fabric absorb the residue, causing prints to fade more quickly, often within hours or days."
If you dispute this explanation, I'm sure I'd have no problem finding a specific source.
Oswald worked at the TSBD and handled boxes and wrapping paper as part of his job. It is likely that the DPD either found wrapping paper that Oswald had touched and used it to make the large paper bag or they made the large paper back and manipulated Oswald into handling it during one of his interrogations. Either scenario would explain why only two partial Oswald prints were found on the bag.
WTF???!!! You are getting desperate. That's about as asinine as anything I've ever seen your write and that is a high bar.
If Oswald had actually made the bag and carried it as claimed by the WC, his prints would have been all over it--he certainly would have left more than just two partial prints on it.
Your ignorance is showing. AGAIN!!!
Oswald told the police that the bag was a regular small brown grocery bag from a grocery store and that it merely contained his lunch and nothing else. There are compelling reasons to believe he was telling the truth.
You're getting comical. What reason would Oswald have to lie??? Oh, maybe because he was facing a capital offense.
-- WC defenders point out that Marina Oswald "identified the rifle in testimony to the Warren Commission during its 1964 hearings." When asked, "Is that the scope that it had on it, as far as you know?", Marine said "Yes" (1 H 119). However, when she was interviewed months earlier by the Secret Service, Marina said the only rifle her husband ever owned did not have a scope. In fact, she said that before she saw the sixth-floor rifle on TV, "she did not know that rifles with scopes existed" (CD 344, p. 24).
The scope was detachable. It could easily be put on and put back on the rifle as needed.
Needless to say, this also calls into question the backyard rifle photos, which Marina allegedly took (although in later years she insisted they were not the photos she took). Thus, it is no surprise that the backyard photos contain impossible variant shadows that no one has ever been able to duplicate, despite repeated attempts.
Asinine. The photos have been authenticated. Investigators even found negative. Marina even wrote "Hunter of facists" on he back of one of the photos. [/quote]
-- WC defenders note that the FBI said it found a "tuft of cotton fibers ... clinging to the butt of the rifle" and that the fibers "matched those in the shirt worn by Oswald the day of the assassination." However, the shirt to which the fibers were "matched" was the one Oswald was wearing when he was arrested, but this was not the shirt he wore to work that day. [/quote]
Wrong again. He was wearing that shirt when he got on McWatters bus. His former landlady Mary Bledsoe recognized him and noticed the shirt he was wearing had a hole in the elbow. The shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested had a hole in the elbow. It also had a transfer from McWatters bus in the pocket of that shirt. So how the hell do you explain that if he was wearing a different shirt at work that day?
During his interrogations, when he knew nothing about any fibers found on the rifle, Oswald told police that between the time of the shooting and the time of his arrest, he returned to his rooming house and changed his shirt and pants. Oswald's statement was corroborated by Dallas Policeman Marrion Baker. Baker saw Oswald on the second floor of the TSBD less than two minutes after the shooting and saw him again at the police station a few hours later. Baker told the WC that when he saw Oswald the second time, "He looked as though he did not have the same thing on" (3 H 262).
Gee, we can believe Oswald or we can believe all that forensic evidence of his guilt. I guess that's how we should look at every murder case. Ask the suspect if he did it and if he says no, then set him free. Why would someone lie about something like that.
In other words, an FBI man, not realizing that Oswald had changed shirts after he left the TSBD, took the shirt he was wearing when he was arrested and rubbed the butt of the alleged murder rifle into the shirt to plant fiber evidence against Oswald.
We have a choice here. We can believe the real evidence or we can believe crap like this that you just pulled out of your Bahookie.
-- WC defenders claim that Oswald's palmprint was found on the barrel of the alleged murder weapon and that this proves he was the assassin. Leaving aside the highly doubtful, extremely suspicious circumstances of the alleged discovery of the latent palmprint, it should be pointed out that the man who supposedly (and belatedly) found the palmprint, Lt. J. C. Day, told the WC the print was an "old dry print" (26 H 831) and said in a 1994 interview that the print "had been on the gun several weeks or months" Anthony Summers, Not In Your Lifetime, p. 84).
Anthony Summers is full of crap too. Do you have any credible sources for his amazing assertion?
Suffice it to say that when the FBI's fingerprint expert, Sebastian Latona, examined the rifle a few days later, he found no indication that the rifle had even been processed for prints and saw no prints on the rifle barrel, even though Lt. Day claimed the palmprint was still visible on the barrel after he allegedly lifted it.
When a print is lifted, it doesn't remain on the surface it was lifted from.
-- We still here some WC apologists cite Vincent Scalice's 1993 claim that he positively identified the fragmentary fingerprints on the alleged murder rifle's trigger guard as Oswald's prints. Scalice claimed he found 18 "points of identity" by using a composite of four enhanced Dallas police photos.
Just who are these WC apologists who have cited that. It has been known for 62 years that the partial prints on the trigger guard did not conain enough matching points for the FBI to say positively that the prints were Oswald's. That doesn't mean they were not, only that it could not be firmly established by strict FBI standards.
Yet, when Scalice examined the trigger-guard prints for the HSCA, he said they were "of no value for identification purposes" (8 HSCA 248). Moreover, when FBI latent print expert George Bonebrake reviewed the prints for the PBS documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?, he concluded the prints were "simply not clear enough to make an identification." In addition, in 2003, an FBI laboratory computer software analysis of the prints failed to match the prints with Oswald's prints (Donald Thomas, [i[Hear No Evil[/i], p. 85).
You are trying to insinuate that because the partial prints didn't contain enough matching points for a positive identification, that they did not belong to Oswald. The truth is if the prints had not matched, the FBI could have said they were not Oswald's. They didn't do that.
-- Voice stress analysis (VSA) of Oswald's declarations of innocence while in police custody indicate he was telling the truth when he said he didn't shoot anybody. VSA polygraphs are more effective than traditional polygraphs because they can be administered without the person's knowledge and/or can be administered after the fact from recordings of the person's statements. George O'Toole, an ex-CIA agent, discussed the VSA results of Oswald's statements in his book The Assassination Tapes.
Neither voice stress analysis or traditional polygraphs are a reliable means of determining if a person is lying. Both produce false positives and false negatives.
A forensic psychologist who is also an expert in body language has likewise concluded from video footage of Oswald in police custody that Oswald was telling the truth when he said he didn't shoot anybody:
You are arguing that Oswald would have been acquitted at trial yet you are trying to make that argument by citing evidence that never would have been admitted at trial. How silly is that?
All you have demonstrated with this long list of nonsensical arguments is that you are really, really bad at weighing evidence. Most CTs have that same shortcoming. You have given us one more example of what I have said about CTs for decades. CTs don't want to explain the evidence. They want to make excuses to explain away the evidence. You don't even make good excuses. Yours are half-assed. You think these silly excuses are a valid reason for dismissing all the rock-solid evidence of Oswald's guilt. Evidence that would have been admitted at trial.
-
Unfortunately, LHO was murdered before he could spill the beans.
I consider that a good thing. It was the only way justice could be served. Had Ruby not killed him, Oswald would have been convicted and sentenced to death but it is highly unlikely he would have been executed if he exercised his rights in the appellate courts. That little Barsteward might still be doing time in the Texas Penitentiary just as Sirhan Sirhan is doing in the California slammer. And there would be plenty of a-holes arguing that he should be paroled, just as there is for Sirhan. In this case, I'll take vigilante justice over no justice. I have no doubt Oswald was looking forward to being the center of attention that his trial would have brought him. Ruby took that away from him. Nice shot, Jack.
-
This is literally the ULTIMATE in same old, same old. Jeremy Gunn has "no doubt" Oswald would have been acquitted. Has he ever been in a courtroom? No lawyer who has would ever say this. A trial is total crap shoot of pretrial motions in limine to keep out evidence or testimony, actual evidentiary objections and rulings, dueling experts, jury instructions and, of course, jury make-up. There is a "high likelihood" Oswald would have been convicted, but there is NO WAY anyone who has any trial experience could say there is "no doubt" he would've been acquitted. The stuff MTG lists has essentially NO BEARING AT ALL on Oswald's guilt - can you clucks really not see this??? Literally EVERYTHING that MTG lists could actually be a "big problem" for the prosecution without affecting in the slightest a verdict of guilty. The jury has doubts about the Backyard Photos and the paper bag - so effing what?
I may have mentioned before a misdemeanor DUI trial I had early in my career. A tiny little woman admitted she had drank a pitcher of beer. She stumbled and almost fell leaving the restaurant. She dropped her keys when the valet handed them to her. She dropped her purse. She ran over a curb. She was observed weaving in traffic. She failed the field sobriety tests. The defense lawyer, who was essentially dead in the water, went the "Oswald defense" route: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you ever dropped your keys ... ever lost your footing ... ever run over a curb? Of course, you have. We all have." The rather simple answer: "Ever do all of those things in the space of ten minutes when you weren't drunk on your Bahookie?" Guilty! Oswald's guilt or non-guilt would be determined on the basis of the case as a whole, not on the basis of what the jury thought about the Backyard Photos or the paper bag.
If you want to play Oswald defense counsel, put together a narrative a jury might believe that raises legitimate doubt about the really critical evidence. Conspiracy dolts like MTG always lose sight of the fact that the prosecution gets it shot, too. There are prosecution witnesses and experts, as well as prosecution objections to defense evidence, witnesses and experts. The type of stuff MTG relies on here is the sort of stuff a prosecutor deals with every day. The Backyard Photos - do you SERIOUSLY think there would be doubt about those by the time all the dust had settled? Do you SERIOUSLY think the jury would believe Oswald said nothing to Frazier about curtain rods and that the bag Frazier and Randle observed, and the way it was being carried, contained a cheese sandwich and an apple? Neither of these things is of any great relevance to the prosecution's case, but what MTG says is just silly.
FWIW, I remember interacting with the author of this book, which relies heavily on Voice Stress Analysis to show Oswald's GUILT: https://www.amazon.com/Malcontent-Harvey-Oswalds-Confession-Conduct/dp/1733029214. At the Ed Forum, Jimbo immediately chimed in with the "O'Toole" stuff. Here are the author's responses:
Jim, I am aware of that article. However, there is no teeth to it. My book "Malcontent" proved that O'Toole's analysis was fraudulent, although any intentionality by O'Toole is known only to him. The PSE has two modes...modes 1 and 2. Mode 1 is for male voices, mode 2 is for female voices. The gentleman who did my CVSA for Oswald works for the man who created the CVSA. Moreover, that person worked with O'Toole back in the 70's. When he was shown O'Toole's chart of "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir" from "The Assassination Tapes," he immediately recognized what O'Toole did. He saw on the chart where O'Toole changed the speed from mode 1 to mode 2, thus skewing the results. The old PSE machines do not work. My investigation revealed no surplus parts, and the PSEs in existence are missing paper, stylus', etc. The closest thing to duplicating O'Toole's charts is to run them on the CVSA in mode 2. "Malcontent" has the O'Toole chart and the CVSA mode 2 chart that are almost identical to each other, proving that O'Toole used the wrong mode when analyzing Oswald's statement. Moreover, O'Toole only took a 3-day PSE orientation course, then went around doing his analysis. I used a law enforcement veteran who created the questions to be asked sex offenders for CVSA examination. They were also checked by the creator of the CVSA, who is one of three Master CVSA examiners in the world, one of which is deceased. They all agreed O'Toole changed the speed of the PSE during his analysis. This type of deception is exactly why the CVSA mode cannot be changed during examination. ALL of my documentation accrued during my investigation was published in "Malcontent". O'Toole did not publish his other Oswald charts nor any of the documentation from those alleged to have confirmed his results. It stands to reason that if the O'Toole Oswald chart is wrong, the others are wrong too, as "Malcontent" proved the unreliability and erroneous nature of his analysis.
Your post is misleading and disrespectful. First, if you were to read my book, you would note that I do not accuse O'Toole of anything. I specifically state that O'Toole's analysis could have been the result of incompetence (because he only took a three-day PSE orientation course) or that he just plain made mistakes (because he is human). The fact that he is passed away is moot as many researchers have now passed, and their research is still subject to peer review whether living or not. O'Toole passed away in 2001 and I did not start the research for this book until early 2018. I tried to contact his wife and family members many times with negative results. I contacted Dektor and asked for any other material or documentation they may still have from O'Toole; they stated they had none. All of this documentation is in my book. Nobody in the JFK case has ever taken the initiative and conducted a CVSA on Oswald or anyone else related to this case. Most have taken O'Toole at his word and the analysis in "The Assassination Tapes" as final without educating themselves first. My book merely shows that O'Toole's analysis, and thus his conclusions, are flawed. I had several world-renowned experts check my CVSA results who verified and agreed with my results. That documentation is also in my book. So it's not the result of "low-hanging fruit" but meticulous, detailed and documented research. If my conclusions fly in the face of "hundreds of intrepid researchers," then it is what it is. That speaks more of their research, not mine.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61W1wNlQjqL._SL1360_.jpg)
-
Just a bit more about MTG's hero, George O'Toole. He was not an "ex-CIA agent." He was a CIA computer specialist for less than three years during the period 1966-69. He became a freelance author and wrote some fairly successful books, including a supernatural spy novel in which a deceased Russian spy reveals secrets through a psychic medium. He became a gung-ho CTer. His principal CT-oriented book, The Assassination Tapes, was reviewed thusly in Polygraph, the journal of the American Polygraph Association (Vol. 6, No. 1, March 1977):
After reading the book and letting the significance of the author's accusations sink in, I was shocked and appalled by the possible damage that one man with severly limited training could do on a topic that effects us all. Mr. O'Toole used a machine, that is illegal in Texas, to attempt character assassination on a multitude of public servants. One can only guess at just what the results would be if O'Toole had more time or money to pursue his project. The book is important, in my opinion, because it shows just what can happen if the PSE is allowed to be operated without an ethical man at the controls.
Oops - eh, MTG fans? Not only was O'Toole not an "ex-CIA agent," but he would not have been qualified to testify as an expert. Alas, he's the best MTG has.
MTG squawks all the time as to how Factoid Buster Payette refuses to confront his "facts." See what happens when FBP does so? I spent all of ten minutes on this "project." I don't waste my time with MTG and his "facts." He's a CT huckster of the worst sort.
I might get this, however!
(https://murdermayhemandlongdogs.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/agent-spook-i.jpg)
-
O'Toole was closely affiliated with the CT-oriented Committee to Investigate Assassinations. At the Committee's conference in 1973, he was falsely billed as "Former CIA Agent." From the CIA itself, "He was employed as a Digital Computer Systems Analyst in March 1966. He resigned 24 January 1969 from a position as a Research Officer, GS-14, ORD/DDS&T" (Office of Research and Development, Directorate of Science and Technology").
You will also see O'Toole referred to as "chief of the CIA problem analysis branch" and "former CIA bureau chief," which he was not.
And on it goes.
-
Gee, where are MTG and all the MTG lemmings? This is why taking on MTG and the lemmings ain't worth the effort. They don't miss a beat. They just move on to the next factoid. He'll be citing "FBI agent" O'Toole tomorrow and the next day.
-
If anyone wants to read the best response to the case against Oswald ever written to date, it is available free of charge online. It is Barry Krusch's 2012 book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald. The book is available for free viewing and download here:
https://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Case_Against_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.pdf
The problems with the case against Oswald that I discuss in the OP are literally the tip of the iceberg. Krusch picks apart the so-called "evidence" against Oswald piece by piece in exhaustive detail. The book was originally published in three volumes, but the online version contains all three volumes in one PDF (totaling 1,072 pages).
One of Krusch's most important chapters is his chapter on the photographic evidence that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the shooting when Oswald could not have been there (volume 1, pp. 21-52). This was also the conclusion of the HSCA's photographic experts: "There is an apparent rearranging of boxes within two minutes after the last shot was fired at President Kennedy" (6 HSCA 109; see also 6 HSCA 109-115 and 4 HSCA 422-423). Krusch proves with additional photographic evidence and analysis that the HSCA was correct on this crucial point.
-
If anyone wants to read the best response to the case against Oswald ever written to date, it is available free of charge online. It is Barry Krusch's 2012 book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald. The book is available for free viewing and download here:
https://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Case_Against_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.pdf
The problems with the case against Oswald that I discuss in the OP are literally the tip of the iceberg. Krusch picks apart the so-called "evidence" against Oswald piece by piece in exhaustive detail. The book was originally published in three volumes, but the online version contains all three volumes in one PDF (totaling 1,072 pages).
One of Krusch's most important chapters is his chapter on the photographic evidence that someone was moving boxes in the sixth-floor window within 2 minutes after the shooting when Oswald could not have been there (volume 1, pp. 21-52). This was also the conclusion of the HSCA's photographic experts: "There is an apparent rearranging of boxes within two minutes after the last shot was fired at President Kennedy" (6 HSCA 109; see also 6 HSCA 109-115 and 4 HSCA 422-423). Krusch proves with additional photographic evidence and analysis that the HSCA was correct on this crucial point.
Usual MTG crap. In the same photo, someone also took Harold Norman and placed him somewhere else.
-
If anyone wants to read the best response to the case against Oswald ever written to date, it is available free of charge online. It is Barry Krusch's 2012 book Impossible: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald. The book is available for free viewing and download here:
https://krusch.com/books/Impossible_Case_Against_Lee_Harvey_Oswald.pdf
The problems with the case against Oswald that I discuss in the OP are literally the tip of the iceberg. Krusch picks apart the so-called "evidence" against Oswald piece by piece in exhaustive detail. The book was originally published in three volumes, but the online version contains all three volumes in one PDF (totaling 1,072 pages).
CTs always try to dismiss evidence rather than try to explain it. Since there is no evidence to support their beliefs, that's all they can do.
[/quote]
-
That George O'Toole thing?
"Never mind."
The "moving boxes" thing is one of MTG's pet canards. He beats it like a drum. Dale Myers addressed it way back in 1998 in responding to MTG at McAdams' forum:
Of course, computer technology available today (even at the desktop level) was not available in 1978 when these studies were done. Today,however, the position of a photographer can easily be calculated within a few feet by triangulating three fixed points visible in any two dimensional photograph.(see: http://www.jfkfiles.com for a complete description of 3D techniques and triangulation) ... My computer work shows beyond any doubt that the boxes in the Dillard and Powell photographs are in an identical arrangement. In addition, further renderings show that CE715 & CE716, as well as the footage shot by Tom Alyea, show a configuration that matches those seen in the Dillard and Powell photographs. These are the only images showing the original box configuration.
The complete response is here: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/rGOLLeH2Kgw/m/fI2IkofoclgJ
All MTG is doing, you can hopefully see, is assembling CT-oriented factoids as though they were evidence and there were no differing opinions or contrary evidence. It's quite ludicrous, especially on a JFKA forum where most participants are not neophytes.
-
Another important item of evidence of Oswald's innocence is the NAA testing that was done on the paraffin cast from his right cheek. The paraffin mold was made from his right cheek about eight hours after the assassination. The paraffin cast was eventually tested at the Oak Ridge Laboratory using the super-sensitive neutron activation analysis (NAA) test. The NAA test found no chemical indication, i.e., no nitrates, in the paraffin cast that Oswald had fired a rifle during the shooting. The NAA test results were suppressed for years until they were finally released as a result of Harold Weisberg's FOIA lawsuits.
Studies have proven that traces of gunshot residue (nitrates) on a person's skin can be placed on paraffin casts as long as 17 to 24 hours after a shooting. As mentioned, Oswald's paraffin mold was done eight hours after the assassination.
We now know that the morning after the assassination, Dr. M.S Mason and Louie Anderson analyzed the paraffin cast of Oswald’s right cheek for the Dallas police (DPD) with the standard test for detecting nitrates, the diphenyl-benzidine paraffin test, and that they found "no nitrates" on the cast. The FBI then tested the right-cheek paraffin cast with a spectrographic paraffin test, and found no nitrate traces on the mold. Yet, the DPD and the FBI lied about the test results and told newsmen that Oswald's right-cheek paraffin mold had tested positive for nitrates and that this was evidence he had a fired a rifle on the day of the assassination.
Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast was then subjected to NAA testing at the Oak Ridge Laboratory, and the NAA test found no traces of nitrates in the mold.
The documents released by Weisberg’s FOIA lawsuit reveal that the FBI arranged for a control test of the validity of the NAA paraffin test of Oswald’s cheek and found NAA to be 100% reliable in detecting nitrate traces. Since the test required a nuclear reactor, the test was done on the FBI’s behalf at the Atomic Energy Commission’s Oak Ridge facility. Seven marksmen fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle once and then three times in rapid succession, and then underwent an NAA paraffin test. In every single case, NAA detected substantial amounts of nitrates in their cheek paraffin molds. In other words, all seven cheek paraffin casts tested positive for nitrates, just as they should have (Weisberg, Post Mortem, 1975, pp. 436-438; see also FBI HQ JFK File, 62–109060–5; FBI HQ Oswald File, 105–82555–94).
It turns out that one member of the Warren Commission (WC) and one of the WC attorneys knew that NAA testing had found no traces of nitrates on the paraffin mold of Oswald’s right cheek, and that this meant he had not fired a rifle on the day of the assassination. WC attorney Norman Redlich advised WC member Alan Dulles about the NAA results in an internal memo, a memo that came to light only after a FOIA lawsuit filed by Harold Weisberg. Said Redlich,
At best, the analysis [the NAA test] shows that Oswald may have fired a pistol, although this is by no means certain. . . . There is no basis for concluding that he also fired a rifle.” (Memo from Redlich to Dulles, 7/2/1964)
This contradicts the WC’s later claim that nitrates were found on both sides of the paraffin cast of Oswald’s cheek and that therefore the paraffin test was “unreliable.”
The Weisberg FOIA-released documents show that FBI expert Cortlandt Cunningham brazenly lied about the paraffin tests in his WC testimony. Yet, WC apologists still cite Cunningham’s testimony to justify their rejection of the negative paraffin results on Oswald’s right-cheek cast.
Moreover, in the Oak Ridge control test, two of the seven shooters also underwent the standard diphenylamine paraffin test, the same kind of test the Dallas police used, and in both cases their cheek casts tested positive for nitrates (General Atomic Report GA-6152 to the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, pp. 10-11). Also, all seven shooters had to wait three or four hours after firing the rifle before the paraffin molds were made of their cheeks.
Dr. David Wrone, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Wisconsin, says the following about the tests done on Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast:
Paraffin tests test on a well-known fact that when a rifle is fired, gases blow back on the shooter’s face and hands, depositing detectable residues. At midnight on November 22, the Dallas police performed the normal tests on Oswald to detect any deposits, using warm liquid paraffin on his right cheek and both hands to make casts. As it hardened, the paraffin would remove and capture any deposits from his skin and pores. Police sent the casts to Dr. Martin F. Mason, director of the Dallas City-County Criminal Investigative Laboratory at Parkland Memorial Hospital, who at 10:45 AM on November 23 tested them with reagent diphenyl-benzidine. The results showed “no traces of nitrates” on the right cheek, which meant Oswald had not fired a rifle. . . .
In its Report the Commission dismisses paraffin tests by asserting that “a positive reaction is . . . valueless” in showing a suspect fired a weapon and thus “unreliable.” This is disingenuous. To be sure, ink, paper, and many other common objects that Oswald’s hands touched that day during the normal course of his work could have
caused a positive reaction, but as the Commission’s own official evidence proved, the absence of traces is exculpatory. Oswald’s cheek had none; he had not fired a rifle.
Not satisfied with the Dallas testing, the FBI in its laboratory also performed a more refined spectrographic test of the samples, a scientific test used by law enforcement for 60 years in similar cases. The FBI lab drew the same conclusion about residues on the cheek. Then, under pressure from the Commission, the FBI submitted the paraffin casts to a third, even more sophisticated test. They took the samples to the Atomic Energy Commission facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. . . .
Upon receiving word of the findings, FBI headquarters immediately ordered its agents not to release or make known the results to anyone in order “to protect the Bureau”. . . .
Nevertheless, after a bitterly contested lawsuit that lasted ten years, critic Harold Weisberg and his attorney James Lesar obtained the NAA raw data and the results from the bureau and the Oak Ridge authorities.
Weisberg discovered an additional element to the tests that was devastating for the official findings. The FBI had used a control in making the tests. Seven different men had fired the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and NAA officials had made paraffin casts of their cheeks, which were then tested for residues by the reactor. The control firings had deposited heavy residues on the control cheeks. Oswald’s check cast had no such residues or any traces whatsoever. He had not fired a rifle. (The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination, University Press of Kansas, 2003, pp. 171-172)
Needless to say, and as we all know, if Oswald’s paraffin cheek cast had tested positive for nitrates in the DPD diphenyl-benzidine paraffin test, in the FBI's spectrographic paraffin test, and in the Oak Ridge NAA paraffin test, the WC would have hailed this as powerful evidence that Oswald fired a rifle on 11/22/1963, and WC apologists would still be parroting this position to this day.
But, since Oswald’s cheek cast tested negative for nitrates in all three of those tests, WC apologists bend over backward to not only ignore the negative result but to discredit even the NAA paraffin test, even though the FBI’s own control test found that the NAA paraffin test was 100% reliable for detecting traces of nitrates. They've offered such strained, implausible arguments as the claim that no two rifles discharge gunshot residue (GSR) in the same way or that gusts of wind blew into the sixth-floor window at just the right times, three times in a row, to blow the GSR away from Oswald's right cheek!
Yet, WC apologists offer no such exotic, improbable arguments when it comes to the fact that the paraffin casts of Oswald's hands tested positive for nitrates, indicating he may have fired a pistol on 11/22/63. Most researchers recognize that since Oswald frequently handled materials that could have left nitrates on his hands as part of his everyday job tasks, the finding of nitrates in his hand casts does not necessarily prove he fired a handgun. This is why Redlich told Dulles it was "by no means certain" that the NAA test proved Oswald had fired a pistol.
The most exhaustive analysis of the testing of Oswald's right-cheek paraffin cast is Pat Speer's chapter on the subject in his online book A New Perspective on the John F. Kennedy Assassination:
https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4fcastsofcontention
Here's a greatly shortened version of Speer's analysis titled "Bugliosi Fails the Paraffin Test":
https://www.whokilledjfk.net/paraffin_test.htm
Jeremy Bojczuk's article "Oswald's Paraffin Casts" is a helpful introduction to this key evidence:
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2049-oswald-s-paraffin-casts
-
Another important item of evidence of Oswald's innocence is the NAA testing that was done on the paraffin cast from his right cheek. The paraffin mold was made from his right cheek about eight hours after the assassination. The paraffin cast was eventually tested at the Oak Ridge Laboratory using the super-sensitive neutron activation analysis (NAA) test. The NAA test found no chemical indication, i.e., no nitrates, in the paraffin cast that Oswald had fired a rifle during the shooting. The NAA test results were suppressed for years until they were finally released as a result of Harold Weisberg's FOIA lawsuits.
You do like to polish off old turds and present them as if they are new.
The WC addressed the issue of the negative paraffin test. The results were not surpressed. An FBI agent fired Oswald's Carcano and was administered the same paraffin test. He too tested negative on his cheek. The reason is that a bolt action rifle like the Carcano fires a round from a sealed chamber. The only dispersion of gunpowerd residue is out of the barrel of the rifle which would be well away from Oswald's face end ejected out away from him. There would be no discharge of residue near Oswald's face.
Paraffin tests are an unreliable way of determining whether a person has or has not fired a gun. They yield both false positives and false negatives. Their main use in crime solving is to try the leverage a confession from a suspect.
If you stick around for another 20 years, maybe you can recycle this old turd one more time.
-
Just a bit more about MTG's hero, George O'Toole. He was not an "ex-CIA agent." He was a CIA computer specialist for less than three years during the period 1966-69. He became a freelance author and wrote some fairly successful books, including a supernatural spy novel in which a deceased Russian spy reveals secrets through a psychic medium. He became a gung-ho CTer. His principal CT-oriented book, The Assassination Tapes, was reviewed thusly in Polygraph, the journal of the American Polygraph Association (Vol. 6, No. 1, March 1977):[SNIP]
I'd bet good money you haven't even read O'Toole's book, and thus you don't know that he presents an extensive discussion on studies on the reliability of VSA (aka PSE) polygraphs. Dr. David Scheim, who holds a doctorate in mathematics from MIT, has said the following about VSA/PSE polygraphs:
. . . the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), a lie-detector device that measures stress by voice pattern analysis. Demonstrated reliable in several tests, it is used by hundreds of U.S. law enforcement agencies and accepted as evidence i more than a dozen states. (Contract on America, 1988, p. 160)
You can find plenty of "scientific research" that says that the traditional polygraph, the "Psychophysiological Detection of Deception" (PDD) polygraph, i.e., the test where they put wires on you, is "subjective," "unreliable," "unsound," etc. Similarly, you can find, as you have done, studies that make the same claim about the VSA/PSE polygraph. PDD and VSA/PSE polygraph defenders argue that the there are questions about the methods and objectivity of the anti-polygraph studies, and that some of the people involved with those studies harbored a strong bias against the use of any kind of lie-detection device.
I happen to know from my many years in military intelligence that at least two U.S. intelligence agencies use the VSA/PSE polygraph for in-person and remote lie detection/truth evaluation. Some police departments also use it. Police detectives in Sanford, Florida, used it in the George Zimmerman case in 2013, and the evidence indicates it was reliable.
I encourage interested readers to read O'Toole's chapter and appendix, totaling 30 pages, on the reliability of the VSA/PSE polygraph.
Finally, a word about George O'Toole himself. As usual, since O'Toole reached the conclusion that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, Lance Payette seeks to minimize his qualifications, describing him as "a CIA computer specialist." Actually, he was a bit more than a computer specialist, although that in itself is a valid, relevant qualification. O'Toole served as the chief of the CIA's Problem Analysis Branch. He specialized in ways to use electronic information processing technology to solve issues in intelligence analysis. After leaving the CIA, he worked with NASA and on a variety of defense projects for a number of years. This was all before he wrote The Assassination Tapes, which is a serious, credible work on the JFK case (of course, Payette doesn't like it because it presents evidence he doesn't want to believe--and, again, I'd bet good money that he hasn't even read it).
-
I'd bet good money you haven't even read O'Toole's book, and thus you don't know that he presents an extensive discussion on studies on the reliability of VSA (aka PSE) polygraphs. Dr. David Scheim, who holds a doctorate in mathematics from MIT, has said the following about VSA/PSE polygraphs:
. . . the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), a lie-detector device that measures stress by voice pattern analysis. Demonstrated reliable in several tests, it is used by hundreds of U.S. law enforcement agencies and accepted as evidence i more than a dozen states. (Contract on America, 1988, p. 160)
Which means it has been rejected by the rest.
Even those that have accepted polygraphs have restrictions on its use. In Ohio, it can be admitted only if both sides of the proceeding agree to accept it before the test is administered. Even then the judge has the discretion to disallow it. Polygraphs have never been proven to be reliable indicators of a person's truthfulness. They produce false positives and false negatives. Polygraphs measure stress. An innocent person can feel stress just taking the test while a cold-blooded killer might not feel any stress at all. In addition, a liar who is unaware that his voice is being tested, like Oswald, would have no reason to feel stress while lying.
-
I wouldn't stoop to reply, but this is CLASSIC of what MTG does. Reality simply cannot penetrate the CT bubble in which he lives.
I'd bet good money you haven't even read O'Toole's book, and thus you don't know that he presents an extensive discussion on studies on the reliability of VSA (aka PSE) polygraphs. Dr. David Scheim, who holds a doctorate in mathematics from MIT, has said the following about VSA/PSE polygraphs:
. . . the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE), a lie-detector device that measures stress by voice pattern analysis. Demonstrated reliable in several tests, it is used by hundreds of U.S. law enforcement agencies and accepted as evidence i more than a dozen states. (Contract on America, 1988, p. 160)
The ABSOLUTELY SCATHING review of O'Toole's book that I cited and quoted from was from the PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION. Hello?
Forty years later, Sean DeGrilla and his highly professional VSA cohorts ABSOLUTELY SHREDDED O'Toole's work and demonstrated the gross error that he had either incompetently or fraudulently committed.
The issue is not the accuracy of VSA. The issue is the incompetence and lack of ethics of O'Toole. Correctly done VSA by DeGrilla and peer-reviewed by world-class VSA experts showed Oswald as LYING.
Finally, a word about George O'Toole himself. As usual, since O'Toole reached the conclusion that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, Lance Payette seeks to minimize his qualifications, describing him as "a CIA computer specialist." Actually, he was a bit more than a computer specialist, although that in itself is a valid, relevant qualification. O'Toole served as the chief of the CIA's Problem Analysis Branch.
No, he was not the chief of anything during his less than three years with the CIA. His PRECISE POSITIONS that I quoted were from a CIA DOCUMENT describing his employment. This was not a document attempting to minimize O'Toole or his CT views. It was simply a document briefly describing each of the principals of the Committee to Investigate Assassinations: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/THE%20COMMITTEE%20TO%20INVESTIG%5B16506075%5D.pdf.
I repeat: "He was employed as a Digital Computer Systems Analyst in March 1966. He resigned 24 January 1969 from a position as a Research Officer, GS-14, ORD/DDS&T" (Office of Research and Development, Directorate of Science and Technology).
He was not an "ex-CIA agent." He was not a "bureau chief." He was not "Chief of the Problem Analysis Branch." These are all titles that O'Toole either misappropriated or allowed to be attached to his name because what he actually was didn't sound sufficiently impressive. You will also see him referred to as a "case officer."
If this isn't sufficient for you, there WAS NO "Problem Analysis Branch" in the Office of Research and Development. It was called the Analysis Division. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/st33.pdf. A history of the Analysis Division written in the 1970s said the Chief (name redacted) was appointed in 1968 and remained Chief "throughout its history" to the date of writing. https://www.governmentattic.org/27docs/HistCIAofcRandDvols1-6.pdf.
This is what MTG does, again and again. His crap is exposed, reamed, steamed and drycleaned - AND HE FLAT DOESN'T CARE. In the SAME THREAD in which it's been exposed, he repeats it all over again! There is something seriously wrong with this guy.
-
I wouldn't stoop to reply, but this is CLASSIC of what MTG does. Reality simply cannot penetrate the CT bubble in which he lives.
The ABSOLUTELY SCATHING review of O'Toole's book that I cited and quoted from was from the PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION. Hello?
Forty years later, Sean DeGrilla and his highly professional VSA cohorts ABSOLUTELY SHREDDED O'Toole's work and demonstrated the gross error that he had either incompetently or fraudulently committed.
The issue is not the accuracy of VSA. The issue is the incompetence and lack of ethics of O'Toole. Correctly done VSA by DeGrilla and peer-reviewed by world-class VSA experts showed Oswald as LYING.
No, he was not the chief of anything during his less than three years with the CIA. His PRECISE POSITIONS that I quoted were from a CIA DOCUMENT describing his employment. This was not a document attempting to minimize O'Toole or his CT views. It was simply a document briefly describing each of the principals of the Committee to Investigate Assassinations: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/THE%20COMMITTEE%20TO%20INVESTIG%5B16506075%5D.pdf.
I repeat: "He was employed as a Digital Computer Systems Analyst in March 1966. He resigned 24 January 1969 from a position as a Research Officer, GS-14, ORD/DDS&T" (Office of Research and Development, Directorate of Science and Technology).
He was not an "ex-CIA agent." He was not a "bureau chief." He was not "Chief of the Problem Analysis Branch." These are all titles that O'Toole either misappropriated or allowed to be attached to his name because what he actually was didn't sound sufficiently impressive. You will also see him referred to as a "case officer."
If this isn't sufficient for you, there WAS NO "Problem Analysis Branch" in the Office of Research and Development. It was called the Analysis Division. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/st33.pdf. A history of the Analysis Division written in the 1970s said the Chief (name redacted) was appointed in 1968 and remained Chief "throughout its history" to the date of writing. https://www.governmentattic.org/27docs/HistCIAofcRandDvols1-6.pdf.
This is what MTG does, again and again. His crap is exposed, reamed, steamed and drycleaned - AND HE FLAT DOESN'T CARE. In the SAME THREAD in which it's been exposed, he repeats it all over again! There is something seriously wrong with this guy.
Once again, you make so much more sense when you are wearing your LN cap. It makes me wonder why you want to keep switching caps. Those CT caps you don must be so tight that are restricting blood flow to your brain. That doesn't seem to be a problem when you have your LN cap on.
-
If this isn't sufficient for you, there WAS NO "Problem Analysis Branch" in the Office of Research and Development. It was called the Analysis Division. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/st33.pdf. A history of the Analysis Division written in the 1970s said the Chief (name redacted) was appointed in 1968 and remained Chief "throughout its history" to the date of writing. https://www.governmentattic.org/27docs/HistCIAofcRandDvols1-6.pdf.
Just to beat this to death, the Office of Research and Development was reorganized following the issuance of an Inspector General's report in 1972 (3-4 years after O'Toole had left). One of the major divisions was called the Program Analysis Staff. I could find no reference to a Problem Analysis Branch or a Chief thereof, either before or after O'Toole's period of employment, nor could I find any reference to O'Toole in any official document other than the one I linked. It's clear he was a CIA employee, and GS-14 is a fairly high grade reflecting technical expertise, but it definitely seems he enhanced and glamorized his role more than a bit. (The GS schedule is the federal white collar pay scale. In 1969, there were 18 grades. I was a GS-11 Public Information Specialist in an Arizona office of the Department of Interior before I went to law school, and I was definitely no big deal. The analyst position for which O'Toole was originally hired was typically GS-11 to 13.)
-
I wouldn't stoop to reply, but this is CLASSIC of what MTG does. Reality simply cannot penetrate the CT bubble in which he lives.
The ABSOLUTELY SCATHING review of O'Toole's book that I cited and quoted from was from the PROFESSIONAL JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN POLYGRAPH ASSOCIATION. Hello?
Forty years later, Sean DeGrilla and his highly professional VSA cohorts ABSOLUTELY SHREDDED O'Toole's work and demonstrated the gross error that he had either incompetently or fraudulently committed.
The issue is not the accuracy of VSA. The issue is the incompetence and lack of ethics of O'Toole. Correctly done VSA by DeGrilla and peer-reviewed by world-class VSA experts showed Oswald as LYING.
No, he was not the chief of anything during his less than three years with the CIA. His PRECISE POSITIONS that I quoted were from a CIA DOCUMENT describing his employment. This was not a document attempting to minimize O'Toole or his CT views. It was simply a document briefly describing each of the principals of the Committee to Investigate Assassinations: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/THE%20COMMITTEE%20TO%20INVESTIG%5B16506075%5D.pdf.
I repeat: "He was employed as a Digital Computer Systems Analyst in March 1966. He resigned 24 January 1969 from a position as a Research Officer, GS-14, ORD/DDS&T" (Office of Research and Development, Directorate of Science and Technology).
He was not an "ex-CIA agent." He was not a "bureau chief." He was not "Chief of the Problem Analysis Branch." These are all titles that O'Toole either misappropriated or allowed to be attached to his name because what he actually was didn't sound sufficiently impressive. You will also see him referred to as a "case officer."
If this isn't sufficient for you, there WAS NO "Problem Analysis Branch" in the Office of Research and Development. It was called the Analysis Division. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB54/st33.pdf. A history of the Analysis Division written in the 1970s said the Chief (name redacted) was appointed in 1968 and remained Chief "throughout its history" to the date of writing. https://www.governmentattic.org/27docs/HistCIAofcRandDvols1-6.pdf.
This is what MTG does, again and again. His crap is exposed, reamed, steamed and drycleaned - AND HE FLAT DOESN'T CARE. In the SAME THREAD in which it's been exposed, he repeats it all over again! There is something seriously wrong with this guy.
Oh, boy. Once again we're going to see that you get into trouble and show the inadequacy of your research when you engage on specifics.
For starters, I notice you didn't address the point about whether you have even read O'Toole's book.
Now, it just figures that you would cite Sean DeGrilla apparently without knowing of any of the many problems with his shoddy scholarship.
DeGrilla's critique of O'Toole's book is downright deceptive. Let's take a look at DeGrilla's attack on O'Toole's PSE analysis in his book Malcontent (Part II:1):
DeGrilla pretends that PSE experts Mike Kradz and Lloyd (“Rusty”) Hitchcock did not confirm what O’Toole said about their PSE analyses, and that they gave “less than ringing endorsements” when asked about O’Toole’s PSE research. If you actually read DeGrilla’s quotes from Kradz and Hitchcock, you see that he is rather clumsily misrepresenting what they said, even though he quotes them.
With Kradz’s statement, DeGrilla underlines the part where, clearly for rhetorical effect, Kradz describes O’Toole’s research as “a strange, different, and bizarre system of explanations and interpretations.” Perhaps DeGrilla hoped that by underlining these words, the reader would not notice that Kradz then goes on to say that O’Toole’s system of explanations and interpretations is “creditable” and “has not been denied nor refuted.” So even though Kradz said that O’Toole’s research was creditable and had not been denied or refuted, DeGrilla pretends that Kradz denigrated O’Toole’s research.
Furthermore, we should remember that when O’Toole asked Kradz to analyze the Oswald PSE charts, he did not tell him that the charts were of Oswald’s statements. He simply told Kradz that the charts were of statements made by someone who had been accused of murder, so Kradz had no idea that he was looking at charts of statements made by Oswald. I mention this because DeGrilla does not.
Also, when Kradz learned that the PSE charts were of Oswald, he suspected the O’Toole had misused his PSE equipment, so he checked all the settings that O’Toole had used--and found no problem with them.
DeGrilla’s attempt to minimize Hitchcock’s endorsement of O’Toole’s PSE research on Oswald’s declarations of innocence is perhaps even more misleading and sophomoric than his treatment of Kradz’s statement.
DeGrilla quotes an FBI memo that opined that Hitchcock’s letter to O’Toole was “far from an unqualified endorsement.” Really? Hitchcock said that unless Oswald was so crazy that he was unaware of his own actions, he, Hitchcock, could state “beyond reasonable doubt” that Oswald did not shoot Kennedy and did not shoot anyone else. Let’s read what the memo itself quotes Hitchcock as saying:
“Assuming that he (Oswald) was not suffering from a psycho-pathological condition that made him ignorant of his own actions, I can state, beyond reasonable doubt, that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill President Kennedy and did not shoot anyone else.”
And this is not all that Hitchcock said. DeGrilla conveniently fails to inform his readers that Hitchcock also said in his letter that his own PSE analysis of the recordings of Oswald’s innocence declarations “clearly” indicated that Oswald believed he was telling the truth when he made them. I quote from Hitchcock’s letter:
“My PSE analysis of these recordings indicates very clearly that Oswald believed he was telling the truth when he denied killing the president.”
Humm, I wonder why DeGrilla does not see fit to quote that part of Hitchcock’s letter. Why do you suppose he omitted such crucial information?
You have once again been burned by your failure to read both sides of an issue before discussing the matter in a public forum. I'm certain you had no idea about the errors and deception in DeGrilla's research, and it apparently did not occur to you to read O'Toole's book or his article before running with DeGrilla's hack job.
I would encourage everyone to read O’Toole’s article on his PSE analysis of Oswald’s innocence declarations. O’Toole’s article contains a lot more information than what I’ve presented so far, such as information on O’Toole’s methodology and how he used the PSE equipment. Here’s the link to the article:
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/O%20Disk/O%27Toole%20George/Item%2021.pdf
I would also encourage everyone to read O'Toole's book The Assassination Tapes.
As for O'Toole's position at the CIA, I will just point out that unfortunately the CIA has a long record of not always being completely accurate when describing the work and positions of former CIA personnel who said things the agency did not like.
It is worth noting that O'Toole authored several award-winning books, including The Encyclopedia of American Intelligence and Espionage and Honorable Treachery: A History of American Intelligence. One of his books was a Pulitzer Prize nominee.
The bio that O'Toole submitted to a research committee reads as follows:
Mr. O'Toole is a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. He was employed as a Digital Computer Systems Analyst in March 1966. He resigned 24 January 1969 from a position as a Research Officer, GS-14, ORD/DDSGT. Mr. O'Toole accepted a position as Director of the Education Division of Computer Methods Corporation, New York.
Now, I can tell you as a federal employee myself that GS-14 is a very high rank, and that GS-14s are frequently put in charge of running offices or branches of departments and sometimes entire departments. The person who ran the department I worked for at Army Sustainment University was a GS-14.
Of course, you seek to denigrate or minimize the qualifications of any author who posits a conspiracy in the JFK case, but O'Toole was clearly an educated person and a serious and respected scholar.