JFK Assassination Forum

Martin Weidmann— from rechecking the wallet police accounts Bentley says he gave it to Baker. I would not rely on Hill much at all because he is late and Hill I have found otherwise filled with basic fact errors and confusions, he’s one of the less reliable witnesses as to accuracy as witnesses go. But Rose, Carroll, and Walker also said they saw Oswald’s wallet so it wasn’t turned in until later to be bagged as evidence and stored. There seems nothing direct from Baker on what he exactly did with it after receiving from Bentley meaning there is no hard evidence (from Baker) that anything is amiss. Weak chain of custody is not the same as positive evidence anything is amiss.

That is, it all can be harmonized by the wallet being reviewed by more than one officer after Bentley handed it over, Oswald questioned about it, etc. then (despite lack of specific paperwork on this) it becomes the bagged and logged Oswald arrest wallet evidence. There is no hard or positive evidence in this calling for supposition of a second wallet from the crime scene being substituted. You can make a scenario of such a substitution but that is argument from possibility which begs the question of how do you know that must have happened. If a second wallet entered and was substituted then you have additional complications raised of a coverup of the first one, officers in on coverup of deception etc. it is no evidence to say police were corrupt otherwise so could be here. That again is argument from possibility not positive evidence that that is the explanation in this case. Which again comes back to, why assume this in the first place.

You have mentioned several times a perception that the WFAA film of the wallet adds positive weight to the Barrett claim as credible. But no—Barrett was there and the wallet was there and Westbrook was there. Barrett is correct on all that but that is not the point. The point is Barrett’s claim that Westbrook’s inquiry to him about the Oswald ID happened THEN. The film of the wallet goes to nothing in confirming Barrett on that first-ever claim 30 years later, which is the point.

I keep telling you this but it's like talking to a wall. I don't need to explain the medical evidence. I leave that to people who are qualified to do that.

No you don't. You cherry-pick your experts. You pretend to be qualified to decide who is a medical expert and who is not. For days on end you kept citing the HSCA FPP as an unquestionable final authority on the medical evidence--until I proved to you that several of the FPP's findings refute your version of the shooting.

Yes, you do keep making the pitiful, embarrassing argument that you don't need to explain the medical evidence, and I keep pointing out why that argument is ludicrous and why it constitutes nothing but a bunch of ducking and dodging, but you just keep repeating it without refuting my counterarguments.

You love to cite people who offer opinions outside their area of expertise. None of the people you cite are forensic medical examiners which is a specific branch of medicine which requires skill sets outside of the area of radiation oncology or neuroanatomy. Neither of these fields involve the examination of gunshot wounds or more specifically, gunshot wounds to the head.

You're still peddling this silly, inane dodge? You assume that forensic pathologists--well, those who agree with you--are the source of all knowledge when it comes to gunshot wounds, ignoring the fact that they are usually not experts in radiology, in physics, in neurology, in neuroanatomy, and in ballistics, much less in the recent science of optical-density measurement, which field did not begin to be pioneered until the 1950s and was still in its infancy in the 1960s.

Forensic pathologists are regular doctors (M.D.s) who have completed a fellowship in forensic pathology after they've been certified in anatomical or clinical pathology.

Deep down you must know that it is untenable and evasive to pretend that the findings of wound ballistics experts, radiologists, physicists, radiation oncologists, neurologists, and neuroscientists in the JFK case can be ignored just because they're not forensic pathologists. Your side still cites the research and experiments of Dr. John Lattimer, Dr. Robert Artwohl, Dr. Piziali, even though they were not forensic pathologists.

But, if you want to talk about forensic experts, let's do that.   

Have you ever heard Dr. Milton Helpern, regarded as one of the greatest forensic pathologists of the 20th century? He flatly rejected the SBT.

How about Dr. F. W. Enos? Heard of him? He was the forensic pathologist who served as the consultant to the CBS SBT wound-ballistics test. After setting up and conducting the test, he concluded that the test "disproved" the SBT and said the SBT was "highly improbable."

How about Dr. Robert Kirschner? Heard of him? The Lancet, a leading medical journal, described him as "a pioneering forensic pathologist." He was one of the ARRB's three forensic consultants. He said the SBT was "very dubious."

How about Dr. Halbert Fillinger? Heard of him? He was a nationally recognized forensic pathologist, considered a "giant" in the field, who was known for handling the most serious cases. "The Halbert E. Fillinger Lifetime Achievement Award" was named after him to recognize outstanding contributors to forensic science. Well, guess what? He scoffed at the idea that an FMJ bullet would have deposited a single fragment on the rear outer table of JFK's skull. He added that FMJ bullets will barely even leave any residue at their entry sites, much less a fragment.

How about Dr. Doug Ubelaker? Heard of him? He was a forensic anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution and was another one of the ARRB's three forensic experts. He said the head damage in the autopsy photos indicated the bullet hit in the front and traveled from front to back.

How about Dr. Joseph Dolce? Heard of him? He was the Army's most knowledgeable expert on wound ballistics in 1964. Dr. Dolce was a battlefield surgeon in the Pacific, for three years, so, needless to say, he dealt with hundreds of gunshot victims. In 1964, he was the chairman of the Army's Wound Ballistics Board. When the WC asked the Army to provide a wound ballistics expert to be the Commission's chief expert on the subject, the Army selected Dr. Dolce. Dr. Dolce's experience and expertise were so highly regarded that if a VIP or member of Congress were injured, Dr. Dolce was asked to review the case. He had much more experience than the WC's two other wound ballistics consultants, Dr. Alfred Olivier and Dr. Arthur Dziemian. Dr. Dolce said the SBT was "impossible" and that the wound ballistics test proved this.

When Dr. Dolce informed the WC that the tests proved the SBT was "impossible," they ignored him and began to rely on the more compliant and less qualified Olivier and Dziemian. That's why Olivier and Dziemian were asked to testify but Dolce was not. 

I know you know something about Dr. Robert Shaw, who was Connally's chest surgeon. Do you know that before he operated on Connally, he had operated on more than 1,000 gunshot wounds of the chest? He, too, flatly rejected the SBT.

Have you heard of Dr. John Nichols? As a professor of pathology at the University of Kansas, he trained forensic pathologists. He, too, flatly rejected the SBT and argued that the head-shot bullet could not have been an FMJ missile.

How many medico-legal autopsies has Dr. Mantik performed. How many has Dr. Riley performed. Without even looking it up I'm going to take a flyer and say combined, the total number is less than one. Why would my "side" need or want such a person?

This is more insincere evasion. A radiation oncologist who is an expert in optical-density (OD) measurement and who is also trained in radiology and holds a doctorate in physics does not need to have performed a medico-legal autopsy to use OD measurements to determine if objects in a skull x-ray are metallic or to determine the thickness of bone in a skull x-ray. You must be kidding.

Similarly, a recognized expert in neuroanatomy does not need to have performed a medico-legal autopsy to determine the location and relationship of wound paths in autopsy photos of a brain. If anything, a forensic pathologist will consult with a neuroscientist when it comes to such matters.

Lattimer, Piziali, and Artwohl never performed an autopsy, but you guys still cite them as authorities on JFK's wounds and wound reactions. Lattimer was a urologist. Artwohl was a general surgeon. Piziali was a ballistics expert.

Dr. Mantik is a radiation oncologist. That is quite different from a radiologist who is an expert in reading x-rays. In fact, a radiation oncologist will often consult with a radiologist in determining the best treatment for a cancer patient under their care. Cancer care is Mantik's area of expertise. The field of medicine has many different specialties and being an expert in one does not make one an expert ina another. You are always citing people offering opinions outside their area of expertise. When your toilet gets clogged, do you call in an electrician?

How many times are you going to ignore the fact that Dr. Mantik is also certified in radiology? How many times are you going to ignore the fact that radiation oncologists use OD measurements as part of their job? How many times are you going to ignore the fact that radiation oncologists are trained in reading x-rays? That's part of the reason they receive their certification from the American Board of Radiology. 

BTW, Dr. Randy Robertson, a board-certified diagnostic radiologist, has concluded that the JFK autopsy skull x-rays indicate that two bullets hit JFK's head. And, several of the HSCA's radiology/forensic consultants said the x-rays show missing frontal bone, but Baden and the FPP majority ignored this fact and claimed the frontal bone was intact.

It never surprises me when a CT clings to the discredited acoustical analysis since they have no real evidence on their side.

You have no business even talking about the acoustical evidence. You haven't read one page of the HSCA's extensive materials on the acoustical evidence. You haven't read even one scholarly defense of the acoustical evidence. You haven't even read the NRC/NAS panel's report, which you cited as evidence against the acoustical evidence.

You did not realize that the NAS panel admitted that there was a 93% probability that the timing-moving correlations identified by the BBN acoustical scientists occurred because the dictabelt recorded gunfire in Dealey Plaza, and that there was a 77.7% chance that the 144.9 impulse pattern was gunfire from the grassy knoll.

Barger's team only concluded there was a 50% probability that the recording showed a shot from the GK and that the impulses on the tape could not be proven to be gunshots. That's based solely on the acoustics and doesn't take into account the cross talk from channel 2 which indicated the shots were not made during the recording or the photo evidence that there was no motorcycle at the spot on Houston St. that Weiss and Aschkenasy presumed the motorcycle had to be.

You have no clue what you are talking about, and you refuse to read anything that refutes what you want to believe on this issue. You just keep repeating these debunked talking points that you've read on some lone-gunman websites. I've read every critique of the acoustical evidence, but you haven't read any research that defends that evidence, and it shows.

The 50% probability finding was a preliminary finding that was made before they conducted the test firing in Dealey Plaza and before they had the BBN research reviewed by Queens College acoustical experts Weiss and Aschkenasy. You'd know this if you had bothered to read a single scholarly defense of the acoustical evidence.

The myth of "cross talk" from Channel 2 was answered by Dr. Barger many years ago, and new research done by BBN scientists in 2019-2020 proves that the Decker transmission is not crosstalk from Channel 2 but is an overdub resulting from the copying process.

Of course, not knowing any better, you repeat the claim that there was no motorcycle in position to record the dictabelt in Dealey Plaza. If there was no motorcycle in position on Houston Street, how do you explain the fact that even the NRC/NAS panel admitted that there's a 93% probability that the timing-movement correlations between the dictabelt impulses and the test-firing impulses occurred because the dictabelt was recorded in Dealey Plaza during the shooting?

If there was no motorcycle in position to record the dictabelt in Dealey Plaza, how did N-waves, muzzle blasts, and muzzle-blast echoes, in the correct order and interval, get recorded on the dictabelt? How is it that the N-waves occurred only in the gunshot impulse patterns? How did windshield distortions get recorded on the dictabelt only when the motorcycle was in position to record them and were not recorded when the motorcycle was not in position to record them? Figure the odds of just those distortions alone happening by coincidence.

I know you'll never read it, but for the sake of others, I again recommend my introduction to the acoustical evidence:

"The HSCA's Acoustical Evidence: Proof of a Second Gunman"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KvdvH8gTqFgMn-2vTI5ppg_egWxRKg9U/view?usp=sharing

If they intended to us Oswald as either the shooter or the patsy, they would need him in a place where he could do the deed. As it was, the route wasn't made public until Monday of that week. That would have meant they had four days to locate a suitable shooter/patsy. What evidence is there that anybody in the Mafia knew Oswald was working in the TSBD? Even if they knew, that is a very small amount of time to convince Oswald to be the shooter. If he was intended to be the patsy, how did they get him to make the preparations to retrieve his rifle from Irving, then make the trip on Thursday night to fetch the rifle, and smuggle it into the TSBD the next day. The same questions apply no matter who one hypothesizes was behind the assassination.

On, the other hand, it is perfectly plausible that Oswald upon learning the motorcade would be passing directly in front of his workplace would hatch a scheme to take out JFK for reasons known only to him. It was a crime of opportunity.

If you disagree  with my analysis, present a plausible explanation for how the Maffia, or anybody else could have hatched this plot using Oswald as either the shooter or the patsy.

Now you're arguing something different from it being a definitive conspiracy-killer that the Mafia would've had to place Oswald in the TSBD and known the motorcade route in advance.

The bare fact of JFK's upcoming trip to Dallas was known before Oswald even went to Mexico City. His uncle's relationship with Marcello was longstanding. If he was part of a Mafia plot, either as a knowing participant (as John Orr believes) or the perfect patsy, it may have been pure happenstance that his perch in the TSBD turned out to be ideal a few days before the deed. Had it not been, perhaps he would have been placed elsewhere.

I don't have to articulate an entire Mafia scenario. I will await what John Orr and Larry Schnapf come up with, in terms of both evidence and theory. I did happen to watch a video interview today of John Orr by Matt Douthit, and Orr said it was an "entirely Mafia" JFKA but didn't expand on how he thought Oswald had been brought into the plot.

I can agree that the LN scenario is a more plausible explanation, at least unless Orr and Schnapf can convincingly show that the one-gunman scenario is ballistically impossible. You are the one who said the realization that the conspirators would have had to have placed Oswald in the TSBD and known the motorcade route long in advance was what ended your days as a CTer. I simply say that your realization is not correct. While being open to the Mafia theory, I don't think for a moment anyone placed Oswald in the TSBD or knew the route long in advance.

Martin Weidmann, it is not correct that the reason I reject the crime scene Oswald wallet first known in Hosty’s book in the late 1990’s is because that is what I want to believe. No, it is because witness claims always must be assessed case by case and that is how it looks to me evidentially as a judgment, on evidence grounds alone. If anything, I have a bias to want to read the evidence in a way that Oswald is innocent, which I have to attempt consciously not to interfere with objectivity (if that is possible). But what about yourself. You will agree, I believe, that upon first encounter of the Barrett story from 1990’s with its sensational claim, that cannot automatically, right off the bat, be known true or false. No witness saying something out of the blue 30 years later makes it true just because he said it. Agreed?

Then the next question is what did tip you to belief that 30-years later witness claim was true? Was a factor in there that you want it to be true (your own question to you)?

A first question in assessing a witness making a new sensational claim 30 years later for the first time (publicly) is always asked by investigative journalists. Did this witness tell others privately of this earlier or from the original time? Answer in Barrett’s case: no. Second question investigative journalists ask: is there positive corroboration from other evidence or witnesses to the late sensational claim? Answer: none known at that time. There was a wallet, that is not in dispute, but there is no positive evidence it was considered crime scene evidence by police, and there is a plausible explanation for it (as I hsve outlined related to the Tippit revolver incident recovery). Therefore the Barrett story is not needed to explain what otherwise has no conceivable reasonable other explanation.

Is it the personal character and credibility of the witness, Barrett? An argument can be made that he tried to incriminate Oswald at earlier times through a false claim, of which the later 30-year claim is similar in genre (intended to incriminate Oswald on Tippit). But never mind that—30 years is time for honest witnesses to confuse details in memory. Anyone who has a grandfather who likes to tell stories of the past knows that. It isn’t dishonesty, it’s fallibility in human recall and narrative construction with the passage of time.

What to you tipped the 1990s Barrett claim from a status of initial uncertainty and justified skepticism (because: sensational; new 30 years later) to conviction or confidence that his claim was true, in terms of positive evidence (not “it could be true” argument, but what you saw as positive evidence that it was true)? What says to you: other 30 years-later stories solely dependent on witness claims with no physical evidence [referring in this case to Oswald ID at the crime scene, not existence of a wallet] are urban legends. What tilted you to conclude this case was different; this witness was not only honest but also accurately honest, in this claim first made public or known made privately either, 30 years after the fact? A question of self-examination of epistemology—why do we come to think we know what we think we know?

Martin Weidmann, it is not correct that the reason I reject the crime scene Oswald wallet first known in Hosty’s book in the late 1990’s is because that is what I want to believe. No, it is because witness claims always must be assessed case by case and that is how it looks to me evidentially as a judgment, on evidence grounds alone.

Fair enough, but the Barrett story finds, at least to some extend, corroboration in the TV footage showing a uniformed police officer (likely Croy) and another man are looking at what seems to be a wallet. For a Hidell ID being found in the wallet Bentley took from Oswald in the car there is no corroboration whatsoever.

If anything, I have a bias to want to read the evidence in a way that Oswald is innocent, which I have to attempt consciously not to interfere with objectivity (if that is possible). But what about yourself. You will agree, I believe, that upon first encounter of the Barrett story from 1990’s with its sensational claim, that cannot automatically, right off the bat, be known true or false. No witness saying something out of the blue 30 years later makes it true just because he said it. Agreed?[/b]

Yes, I agree that when somebody comes forward with a story, thirty years after the fact, it can not automatically be relied upon as being true or false. People build up false memories all the time and sometimes they make false claims on purpose, for whatever reason. But I don't see Barrett as somebody who would do that. So, the first question that needs to be asked is; why would a retired FBI agent suddenly tell a story about a 30 years old event, when he possibly wasn't even aware of the fact that there was footage that to some extend corroborates his story. That's the coincidence I can not get passed to dismiss Barrett's story outright.

But there is more circumstantial evidence. Together with Capt Westbrook, C.T. Walker was at the Tippit crime scene before going to the Texas Theater. This means that if there was a wallet found at the Tippit scene, Walker was there to witness it.

Now let's compare stories;

Story 1: Bentley said he took a wallet from Oswald in the car but does not mention finding a Hidell ID. In his report he says he initialed the revolver (allegedly taken from Oswald) and turned it over tl Lt. Baker, together with "his identification". Gerald Hill says in his WC testimony this happened at around 4:00 PM.

Story 2: C.T. Walker says in his WC testimony that he had the revolver and the suspects identification when Oswald was brought into the homicide bureau. Guy Rose said in his testimony that he arrived at City Hall just after Oswald had been brought in and that he was given a wallet by an unidentified person (which could be a patrolman). He then talked to Oswald and found the Hidell ID in the wallet. This all happened somewhere between 1:30 and 2:00 PM. We know from the receipt that the wallet and the S & W revolver were submitted to the evidence bureau at 3:35 PM

I don't see how the wallet in both stories could be the same one. So, what's a possible explanation? If we disregard the obvious contradiction of the revolver's chain of custody, and only focus on the wallet; it needs to be considered that C.T. Walker was at the Tippit crime scene. The only way I can fit Bentley's wallet story and Walker's wallet story in one narrative is by concluding that Bentley did in fact take a wallet from Oswald, which did not contain the Hidell ID, and kept it until turning it over to Lt Baker at around 4:00 PM, and Walker had the wallet found at the Tippit scene which he brought into City Hall where it was given to Guy Rose and subsequently was submitted to the evidence bureau at 3:35 PM.

If anybody can come with with another plausible explanation to square the two stories, I would love to hear it!
 

It all comes down to opportunity and motive. Could Oswald have arrived at 10th street in time to kill Tippit?

Yes.

What was he even doing there?

He never told us. It's a little late to ask him now.

And if he shot Tippit to evade arrest why not leave after Tippit was down? Why go back and shoot him in the head to ensure he was dead? It doesn't make sense to me. The coup the grace shot is a complete mystery to me.

It doesn't need to make sense to you. It made sense to Oswald. He was calling the shots in this episode.

This is a logical fallacy CTs often fall into. They can't understand why Oswald made the decisions he did and did the things he did. They put themselves in Oswald's shoes and think they wouldn't have done that. That's nice but irrelevant. Oswald did the things he thought was best for him. It doesn't matter if it makes sense to anybody but him.
[/quote]