The Bus Stop Farce

[Charles Collins]

Without knowing much of anything about the situation other than it involves the JFK assassination, she says that she believes fibers that could be described as orange-yellow in color could have come from either shirt.

Your wife's expertise nothwithstanding, the fibers could actually have come from a multitude of other sources. The evidentiary value of fiber evidence is extremely limited.

And it dawned on me that if Pat Speer's argument that the FBI was trying to show that LHO was wearing CE 150 during the shooting, they might have intentionally avoided bringing up the other fibers and clothing in the WC hearings.

Does this mean that you consider it possible that the FBI manipulated evidence and sometimes withheld crucial information from the Warren Commission?

If Linnie Mae is to be believed, you have a point about CE 163.

And if Frazier's testimony is to be believed about the grey jacket he saw on Thursday evening having a zipper, where does that leave us with regard to Roberts's claim that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a darker than grey jacket?

Does this mean that you consider it possible that the FBI manipulated evidence and sometimes withheld crucial information from the Warren Commission?


I wouldn’t go that far. They (FBI experts) are accustomed to testifying in legal proceedings. And unlike most of the ordinary citizen assassination witnesses, they answer the questions...period; without rambling on, etc. The WC investigators asked the questions, and the FBI was obligated to answer them honestly. But the FBI experts were not obligated to offer information that they were not asked about. And that is what I believe happened in the fiber evidence. They just didn’t offer up any information about fibers that they were not asked about. They believed that LHO was wearing CE 150, had fiber evidence that supports that belief. And didn’t want to muddy up the water. You and I are not immune from presenting our views similarly.

[Martin Weidmann]

Does this mean that you consider it possible that the FBI manipulated evidence and sometimes withheld crucial information from the Warren Commission?


I wouldn’t go that far. They (FBI experts) are accustomed to testifying in legal proceedings. And unlike most of the ordinary citizen assassination witnesses, they answer the questions...period; without rambling on, etc. The WC investigators asked the questions, and the FBI was obligated to answer them honestly. But the FBI experts were not obligated to offer information that they were not asked about. And that is what I believe happened in the fiber evidence. They just didn’t offer up any information about fibers that they were not asked about. They believed that LHO was wearing CE 150, had fiber evidence that supports that belief. And didn’t want to muddy up the water. You and I are not immune from presenting our views similarly.

Hang on... The FBI experts were not just witnesses. The WC had no investigators of their own and relied on the FBI to do all the investigative work. In other words, the FBI were not at liberty to withhold any kind of information from the WC.

Obviously, it is true that a witness, any kind of witness for that matter, normally simply answers questions and does not offer any information voluntarily. But when it comes to an investigator that's an entirely different matter. An investigator, or for that matter an investigative body as the FBI, does not have the right to withhold any results from their investigation to a court or, as in this case, a factfinding committee that the WC was supposed to be.

Even worse, if this had been a court case, the FBI would have violated the law by not disclosing all the evidence they had obtained, be it for or against the defendant.

They believed that LHO was wearing CE 150, had fiber evidence that supports that belief. And didn’t want to muddy up the water.

That's the definition of manipulating evidence.

You and I are not immune from presenting our views similarly.

You and I are birds of a different feather. You, as a WC defender, take on the roll as a prosecutor and I, as a WC skeptic, take on the roll of defense counsel. We both can be selective about the evidence we present and emphasize. An investigator does not have that same privilege.

[Charles Collins]

Hang on... The FBI experts were not just witnesses. The WC had no investigators of their own and relied on the FBI to do all the investigative work. In other words, the FBI were not at liberty to withhold any kind of information from the WC.

Obviously, it is true that a witness, any kind of witness for that matter, normally simply answers questions and does not offer any information voluntarily. But when it comes to an investigator that's an entirely different matter. And investigator, or for that matter an investigative body as the FBI, does not have the right to withhold any results from their investigation to a court or, as in this case, a factfinding committee that the WC was supposed to be.

Even worse, if this had been a court case, the FBI would have violated the law by not disclosing all the evidence they had obtained, be it for or against the defendant.

They believed that LHO was wearing CE 150, had fiber evidence that supports that belief. And didn’t want to muddy up the water.

That's the definition of manipulating evidence.

You and I are not immune from presenting our views similarly.

You and I are birds of a different feather. You, as a WC defender, take on the roll as a prosecutor and I, as a WC skeptic, take on the roll of defense counsel. We both can be selective about the evidence we present and emphasize. An investigator does not have that same privilege.

The Warren Commission had authority to investigate in any manner that they deemed necessary. And they often did employ independent experts, interview witnesses themselves, go to the scene of the assassination, etc.

There is a difference between withholding evidence and not volunteering evidence that is not requested. If the FBI wanted to actually withhold any evidence, chances are that Pat Speer wouldn’t be able to find any correspondence regarding it.

Edit: I don’t consider myself as a WC defender or prosecutor. I am a truth seeker. As I have demonstrated, I try to pay attention to both sides. However, I do believe that the WC did a good, job considering the circumstances. Some details are not completely satisfied. And it appears that the CIA didn’t cooperate completely. But I do believe that the WC got the basic points right.

[Martin Weidmann]

The Warren Commission had authority to investigate in any manner that they deemed necessary. And they often did employ independent experts, interview witnesses themselves, go to the scene of the assassination, etc.

The lawyers working for the Commission took testimony from witnesses, but for the investigation they relied completely on the FBI.

There is a difference between withholding evidence and not volunteering evidence that is not requested.

No there isn't. Not for an investigative body as the FBI. As soon as the FBI became the investigators of the WC it was their legal obligation to turn over all the evidence they collected. Otherwise it would be the FBI who determined the outcome of the enquiry and not the Warren Commission.

If the FBI wanted to actually withhold any evidence, chances are that Pat Speer wouldn’t be able to find any correspondence regarding it.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you saying that the FBI would ensure that all records about an investigative result they did not want to share would be destroyed? If so, then I disagree.

The FBI is a massively burocratic institution and their files are normally not open to the public. To get documents from them requires a lot of effort, as is demonstrated by the files of the late Harold Weisberg, who had to file thousands of FOIA's to obtain, mainly heavily redacted, documents. Back in the 60's the FBI had no reason to assume that their files would end up in the public domain as soon as they did. So, there may not exist any documents where one FBI official writes to another "let's just withold this" but the results of their investigations themselves were documented nevertheless. Obviously, if you come across an investigative result that wasn't reported to the WC you have found what Pat has found.

[Charles Collins]

The lawyers working for the Commission took testimony from witnesses, but for the investigation they relied completely on the FBI.

No there isn't. Not for an investigative body as the FBI. As soon as the FBI became the investigators of the WC it was their legal obligation to turn over all the evidence they collected. Otherwise it would be the FBI who determined the outcome of the enquiry and not the Warren Commission.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what your argument is. Are you saying that the FBI would ensure that all records about an investigative result they did not want to share would be destroyed? If so, then I disagree.

The FBI is a massively burocratic institution and their files are normally not open to the public. To get documents from them requires a lot of effort, as is demonstrated by the files of the late Harold Weisberg, who had to file thousands of FOIA's to obtain, mainly heavily redacted, documents. Back in the 60's the FBI had no reason to assume that their files would end up in the public domain as soon as they did. So, there may not exist any documents where one FBI official writes to another "let's just withold this" but the results of their investigations themselves were documented nevertheless. Obviously, if you come across an investigative result that wasn't reported to the WC you have found what Pat has found.

Asking witnesses questions is considered investigating in my book. The Warren Commission requested the FBI to investigate many items that they normally wouldn’t have. And they hired independent experts to verify the FBI’s results whenever they felt the need. The WC did not have their hands tied.



We are talking about two different things. I am referring to the testimony of the experts. And their answering only the questions that are asked during that testimony. The actual written reports that are the results of the investigation should be complete. What we typically discuss here in the forum most often is what is in the testimony.

[Martin Weidmann]

Asking witnesses questions is considered investigating in my book. The Warren Commission requested the FBI to investigate many items that they normally wouldn’t have. And they hired independent experts to verify the FBI’s results whenever they felt the need. The WC did not have their hands tied.

Nobody said their hands were tied. All I am saying is that the FBI was already investigating the case before the WC was even formed. Hoover even issued a report of his own and wasn't happy that there would be an enquiry by a Presidential Committtee. Nevertheless, as soon as the FBI assumed the role of investigative body for the WC they were under a legal obligation to turn over all the evidence they collected. The mere fact that the WC also used other experts for certain parts of the investigation does not alter that.

We are talking about two different things. I am referring to the testimony of the experts. And their answering only the questions that are asked during that testimony. The actual written reports that are the results of the investigation should be complete. What we typically discuss here in the forum most often is what is in the testimony.

During testimony witnesses normally get asked questions to which either the prosecutor or defense already know the answer, as they generate their respective questions based on the evidence the investigators have brought them. Testimony is indeed a different setting as witnesses typically do not volunteer information and only answer the questions asked. That's the advise most lawyers give their witnesses.

However, the FBI, as a Government Agency is held to a different standard. They have to generate evidence but they do not get to decide what evidence is relevant or not. If, for instance, the FBI found evidence of Oswald's innocence and they wouldn't pass that on to the WC, that would be perversion of justice.

So, if the FBI had tested CE 151 for fiber evidence (and found a match) they would have had to inform the WC in advance of the testimony of an expert like Stombaugh. That they did not ask Stombaugh anything about a second shirt (in this case CE 151, which could have tentatively linked Oswald to the rifle on 11/22/63) is IMO a good indicator that no other shirt than CE 150 was tested for fibers.

[Charles Collins]

Nobody said their hands were tied. All I am saying is that the FBI was already investigating the case before the WC was even formed. Hoover even issued a report of his own and wasn't happy that there would be an enquiry by a Presidential Committtee. Nevertheless, as soon as the FBI assumed the role of investigative body for the WC they were under a legal obligation to turn over all the evidence they collected. The mere fact that the WC also used other experts for certain parts of the investigation does not alter that.

During testimony witnesses normally get asked questions to which either the prosecutor or defense already know the answer, as they generate their respective questions based on the evidence the investigators have brought them. Testimony is indeed a different setting as witnesses typically do not volunteer information and only answer the questions asked. That's the advise most lawyers give their witnesses.

However, the FBI, as a Government Agency is held to a different standard. They have to generate evidence but they do not get to decide what evidence is relevant or not. If, for instance, the FBI found evidence of Oswald's innocence and they wouldn't pass that on to the WC, that would be perversion of justice.

So, if the FBI had tested CE 151 for fiber evidence (and found a match) they would have had to inform the WC in advance of the testimony of an expert like Stombaugh. That they did not ask Stombaugh anything about a second shirt (in this case CE 151, which could have tentatively linked Oswald to the rifle on 11/22/63) is IMO a good indicator that no other shirt than CE 150 was tested for fibers.

  is IMO a good indicator that no other shirt than CE 150 was tested for fibers.

And some of the things that Pat Speer has on the webpage we have been discussing supports that opinion. I tend to agree.

However, this was not an adversarial court setting where say, a defense attorney would have access to the reports and would try to bring out anything that tended to muddy up the water and create doubt in the minds of the jury members. (This seems to be a big issue to most CTs, but LHO was dead. And there are no provisions for trials for the deceased.) So, the WC hearings are what they are. And if the FBI and/or WC believed that LHO was wearing CE 150 during the shooting, it would be expected that the fibers that matched CE 150 were the only ones that they (like any good prosecuting attorney) would bring out during the expert testimony. Nothing sinister, just typical procedures. In other words the expert isn’t required to start blabbing about anything that he isn’t asked during testimony to the WC. But he is required to furnish complete results in the written reports. The WC was charged with finding the facts and reporting them to the President. It was their duty to read the reports completely and ask the pertinent questions. However, their opinion of which questions are pertinent might be different than ours. But we have had 57-years of researching and second-guessing. The WC had any resource available to them. But they were pressed for time, mostly due to an upcoming election.