At the conclusion of a March 2018 presentation by John M. Newman on Tennent H. Bagley's book, Spy Wars, Peter Dale Scott asked him if he was convinced that the Oswald who "returned" to the U.S. from Russia in June 1962 was the same one who had "defected" to it in October 1959.

Then he shared the following anecdote:

He was talking with Marina on the phone one day when he happened to mention the Russian writer, Turgenev, and Marina exclaimed, "Oh! Alek LOVED Turgenev!"

In a conspiratorial tone of voice, Scott told the assembled group, "Oswald didn't check out any books by Turgenev from the library."

You can read into it what you will.

F-him.

You, actually.

The fact Holmes independently verified from Oswald's own mouth that a cop stopped Oswald at the front door refutes every cheap excuse you wrote...What Lovelady told Jarman matches what Holmes described independently and without knowledge of each other...

Holmes only told us what he heard Oswald say, not to anything Holmes actually knew. Oswald told one lie after another so why would you take his word for it that a cop had stopped him?

Your version requires a black man in Texas to decide to go to the most powerful people in America and make up a crazy tale about Lovelady telling him he saw Oswald stopped by a cop at the front door just for the fun of it...

You've never provided a transcript of that Jarman said in his HSCA statement. You only give us your spin as to what he said.

I've won this

<chuckle. Just what is it you think you've won?

because you still have no believe-able excuse for why the authorities did no follow-through...I understand you are trying to say Marguerite's dental records were more important than how and where Oswald left the Depository...And while we are at it why should they even take notes at the interrogation of a suspected presidential assassin?...

You've never provided any credible evidence that Oswald was stopped by a cop outside the TSBD. All you have is Oswald's claim and a rumor Jarman heard.

Forensic evidence is science based evidence that requires evidence from an expert provided to a court in which the expert opines on something on which they have particular knowledge.

Nonsense. Forensic evidence doesn't always require expert testimony to interpret. In some cases, expert witnesses are called to interpret what the forensic evidence for the jury. In other instances, the jury can be presented the evidence and allowed to use their own judgement as to what it represents. That was the case in the murder trial in which I was a juror. We had the medical examiner testify regarding the autopsy evidence and what it established regarding cause of death. We were also presented with the murder weapon and two recovered bullets. The only testimony was by the crime scene investigators who told us where the bullets were recovered from. He didn't attempt to tell us what those bullets indicated. We were able to determine that for ourselves. One bullet hadb bullet had been recovered from the wall and combined with the medical examiners testimony, we were able to determine that was the bullet that had passed through the midsection of the victim. The other bullet had been recovered from underneath the victim's head. It had gone through the victim's head, into the carpet and been stopped by the concrete floor underneath it. That was a lead bullet that had flattened out when it hit the concrete floor. We determined that was the fatal head shot which was fired as the victim was laying on the floor following the first shot.

In another case I sat on, we convicted a forger. While we heard testimony from a handwriting expert, we convicted the forger almost entirely on the handwriting sample which we compared tot he forged check. Even we as laymen could tell both signatures had been written by the same hand. The two were identical in every way. We didn't need the experts testimony to tell us that. I don't recall that we even deliberated about the expert testimony. We passed the checks and the handwriting sample and quickly agreed the guy was guilty.

Often the opinions are with respect to something physical but not necessarily physical.  Experts, for example could be used to establish that certain behaviours indicate that the accused was engaged in trafficking drugs, or smuggling people, or committing fraud.

In this case, a mathematician could provide an opinion on the probability of this kind of distribution of independent witness observations where the vast majority were completely wrong.  That would be forensic evidence. 

BS. Mathematicians can't prove whether witnesses have accurately remembered an event. 

But I also point to forensic evidence in the form of medical opinions of JBC’s doctors that his torso was turned far to the right when hit so that it was almost parallel to the flight path of the bullet.

Since you don't quote those doctors, we are left with your interpretation of what they said on that point.

I could also point to expert lip readers who say that JBC is saying “oh, no, no” around z245-250.

What the hell is that supposed to prove?

So where is your forensic evidence?  You are not an expert on interpreting human responses to gunshot sounds so your opinion on what you think is happening in the zfilm is not forensic evidence.  The zfilm itself is not forensic evidence. It is simply evidence.

We have the forensic evidence of the Z-film corroborating JBC's account that he turned in reaction to hearing the first shot which hit neither him nor JFK. He then tells us after turning and seeing nothing, he was just starting to turn to face the front when he felt the second shot hit him in the back. The Z-film shows us that both he and JFK reacted to being shot at the same instant when both of them suddenly flipped their arms upward at Z226 which was immediately followed by JBC twisting and dipping to his right. That footage also corroborates Glenn Bennett's report that he heard a shot before turning to see JFK hit by the second shot. This is a case where the witnesses are supported by the visual evidence of the Z-film. Nothing you imagine is supported by the Z-film or any other forensic evidence. On the contrary, the Z-film refutes your crazy beliefs.

You need to check the medical evidence. It struck the fifth rib with great force breaking the rib near the spine but missed the scapula.  If the shot was from behind it would not have struck the fifth rib - at most a slight glancing hit.

What do you mean, "If the shot was from behind"?

It hit him in his back.

Regardless, . . .

ME: Is this statement correct? -- "The bullet that struck John Connally on 11/22/63 penetrated his right side, not his back, and struck his fifth rib with such great force that it broke it near the spine. It did not penetrate or hit his scapula. If the bullet had hit him in the back, it would have, at most, glanced the rib."

Perplexity AI: No. As written, the first and last sentences conflict with the primary medical testimony.

Dr. Robert Shaw placed Connally’s entrance wound in the right posterior shoulder, medial to the axillary fold—i.e., the back/posterior chest, not simply “his right side.” He testified that the projectile passed through the chest wall and hit the fifth rib at approximately its midpoint, following the rib’s slant and shattering about 10 cm of it.

The medical testimony supports saying that there was no documented scapular penetration or scapular fracture. It does not support saying that the bullet struck the fifth rib “near the spine”: Shaw said its midpoint.

And the final claim is not correct as a categorical statement. A projectile entering from the posterior chest can miss the scapula and still directly strike—and severely shatter—the fifth rib. A posterior entry does not logically require only a glancing contact.

Accurate revision

The bullet that wounded John Connally entered the right posterior shoulder/chest, medial to the axillary fold, without a documented strike of the scapula. It passed through the chest wall, struck the fifth rib at approximately its midpoint, and shattered roughly 10 cm of the rib. The fact that the entrance was posterior does not, by itself, mean the rib impact had to be glancing.

ME: Disregarding the wounds to his wrist and to his thigh, are the entrance and exit wound locations plus the shattering of ten centimeters of his fifth rib consistent with the theory that he was hit when his back was turned towards the TSBD?

Perplexity AI: Yes — in broad anatomical and geometric terms, Connally’s chest wounds and fifth-rib damage are consistent with a shot from the sixth-floor TSBD when he was rotated so that his right posterior chest [i.e., his back] faced back toward the Depository. They are not, however, sufficiently specific to establish that origin on their own.

Wound course

The documented course was an entrance in Connally’s right posterior chest/back, medial to the axillary fold, descending through the chest, striking and fragmenting the fifth rib at approximately its midpoint, then exiting the anterior right chest below the nipple. The Commission’s account likewise describes an entrance on the right side of his back and a downward chest trajectory.

If Connally had turned to his right — as the Commission’s reconstruction proposed — his right posterior thorax would be exposed toward a shooter behind and above him at the TSBD. A downward, forward-moving projectile could therefore enter the posterior chest [i.e., his back], strike a rib obliquely, and emerge through the front of the right chest.

The rib fracture

Shattering approximately 10 cm of the rib suggests a high-energy collision, potentially along an oblique segment of the rib; it does not require a frontal impact. It is compatible with the Commission’s claimed rear-to-front, downward course. The fracture’s extent cannot determine whether the firearm was in the TSBD rather than another rearward or elevated location.

ME: You said, "Shattering approximately 10 cm of the rib suggests a high-energy collision, potentially along an oblique segment of the rib; it does not require a frontal impact."

Question: Does it require a side impact?

Perplexity AI: No. It does not require a side impact.

Shattering a long rib segment requires significant energy transfer and a trajectory that intersects the rib, but the direction can be posterior-to-anterior, lateral-to-medial, anterior-to-posterior, or some oblique combination. The clinically relevant geometry is the projectile’s angle relative to the curved, sloping rib, not whether it approached from the victim’s anatomical side. Bone damage and the wound tract must be reconstructed together to infer direction.

Applied to Connally

If “side impact” means a shot entering Connally’s right flank/lateral chest, the evidence does not require it. A shot entering his right posterior chest could strike the fifth rib forcefully as it moved forward and downward; if its course was angled across or partly along the rib, it could fragment an extended portion of it.

Conversely, the approximately 10 cm fracture does suggest that the bullet’s contact had a meaningful component along the rib’s length—an oblique collision rather than a trivial surface graze. But “oblique to the rib” is not synonymous with “from the side.” The path can be oblique to a rib while originating behind and above Connally.

ME: Does it require the bullet's penetrating his right side instead of his back?

Perplexity AI: No. The rib fragmentation does not require a bullet to have entered Connally’s right lateral side rather than his back.

A bullet entering the right posterior chest/back can intersect the fifth rib at an oblique angle and transfer enough energy to fracture a long section, especially if its path has a component along the rib’s curved/sloping course. The critical variables are the impact angle relative to the rib, velocity, projectile orientation, and the rib’s geometry—not whether the skin entrance is classified as “side” or “back.”

The medical descriptions themselves locate Connally’s entrance in the right posterior chest/back, while describing the fifth-rib fragmentation. Thus, the documented injury is direct evidence that severe rib damage is compatible with a posterior entrance.