Post by Rob Caprio on Nov 29, 2021 21:54:38 GMT -5
All portions ©️Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.jfk-online.com/Curry2.jpg
1.bp.blogspot.com/-Dk1Lu834ook/URuV4-EVZoI/AAAAAAAAAUU/6s1lXoilZo8/s1600/gordon+shanklin.jpg
4.bp.blogspot.com/-qp_aL1yPv9c/U62FgdKAK6I/AAAAAAAA1kg/a0K4T0LHqMo/s1600/Commission-Document-787-Regarding-Paraffin-Tests.png
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) assassinated President John F. Kennedy (JFK), shot and killed Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT), wounded Texas Governor John B. Connally (JBC) and attempted to kill retired General Edwin Walker. The evidence supporting these claims is absent from the WC’s twenty-six volumes of exhibits and testimony however, therefore, this has left many questions for us today. I have asked so many questions in this series already, and now it is time for more.
*****************************************
Why did Chief Jesse Curry and FBI SAIC Gordon Shanklin claim that the paraffin test of Lee Harvey Oswald's (LHO) cheek showed a positive result when it didn't?
Dallas Police Department (DPD) Chief Jesse Curry told reporters the following during a press conference on November 23, 1963.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0391b.gif
Q. Chief, we understand you've had the results of the paraffin tests which were made to determine whether Oswald had fired a weapon. Can you tell us what those tests showed?
Chief Curry: I understand that it was positive.
Q. What did the tests find?
Q. What does that mean?
Curry: It only means that he fired a gun. (CE 2146, p. 766)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0391b.htm
Quote off
Chief Curry was very misleading here as he used the term “gun” to make it seem like LHO had tested positive for both his cheek and hands. A reporter asked him to clarify, but he said they just used the term gun instead of rifle or pistol. This was very sneaky since LHO was tested on his right cheek and both hands to determine if he had fired a rifle AND a pistol.
FBI Special Agent-in-Charge (SAIC) Gordon Shanklin gave an interview to the New York Times and was reported to have said the following.
Quote on
Gordon Shanklin, FBI agent in charge at Dallas, said today that...a paraffin test, used to determine whether a person has fired a weapon recently, was administered to Oswald shortly after he was apprehended Friday, one hour after the assassination. It showed that particles of gunpowder from a weapon, probably a rifle, remained on Oswald's cheek and hands. (New York Times, November 25, 1963)
Quote off
Either Shanklin was misquoted, and that is doubtful since this is the New York Times, or he was given incorrect information, or he lied to make it appear that LHO was guilty as claimed.
Even the WCR would say that there was NO reaction on LHO’s right cheek.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0292b.gif
During the course of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald following the assassination a paraffin test was performed by the Dallas police on both of his hands and his right cheek. The paraffin cast of Oswald's hands reacted positively to the test. The cast of the right cheek showed no reaction. (WCR, p 560)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0292b.htm
Quote off
Of course the WC claimed that, “…the test is completely unreliable in determining either whether a person has recently fired a weapon or whether he has not” (WCR, p. 561), but the issue in this post is not about the reliability of the test. It is about why Curry and Shanklin gave out information that did not accurately reflect the results of the test.
Let's be honest here. If the test was unreliable as claimed by the WC, why did the DPD, and countless other law enforcement agencies, bother to administer it? This reminds me of how lie detectors were also unreliable according to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) because they didn't reflect the results they wanted. If the paraffin test had tested positive for the right cheek I am sure the test would have been touted as being very reliable.
The WC tried to claim that Shanklin never said what the New York Times had attributed to him.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0336a.gif
Speculation, -- Gordon Shanklin, special agent in charge of the Dallas office of the FBI, stated that the paraffin test of Oswald's face and hands was positive and proved that he had fired a rifle.
Commission finding. – The paraffin tests were conducted by members of the Dallas Police Department and the technical examinations by members of the Dallas City-County Criminal Investigation Laboratory. The FBI had notified the Commission that neither Shanklin nor any other representative of the FBI ever made such a statement . The Commission has found no evidence that Special Agent Shanklin ever made this statement publicly. (WCR, p. 647)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0336a.htm
Quote off
This claim by the WC and the FBI is ludicrous. If it is correct then it would mean that the New York Times simply made this comment up and just arbitrarily assigned it to Shanklin. This is preposterous. The newspaper could have incurred legal action of some kind and would have destroyed their credibility by doing something like this. We are asked to believe that the New York Times did all this to misrepresent the results of a test that were not reliable anyway according to the WC? Please.
This misrepresentation of the results made LHO appear guilty of firing a rifle which helped the official claim, but we are asked to believe that the FBI had no interest in misleading the American people. No, only the New York Times was interested in this supposedly.
Of course the WC worded this in a way to give themselves an out if they ever needed it. They said, “The Commission has found no evidence that Special Agent Shanklin ever made this statement publicly.” Who said that he made it publicly? He simply could have told the New York Times reporter this in private and then it was published later on. No one said that Shanklin said this during a press conference.
Can any WC defender explain why both Curry and Shanklin made statements that made it seem like LHO had tested positive for firing a rifle when the actual tests showed that he had not?
We again see evidence that creates doubts for the WC claims, thus, there is doubt about their conclusion. This again means that their conclusion is sunk.
www.jfk-online.com/Curry2.jpg
1.bp.blogspot.com/-Dk1Lu834ook/URuV4-EVZoI/AAAAAAAAAUU/6s1lXoilZo8/s1600/gordon+shanklin.jpg
4.bp.blogspot.com/-qp_aL1yPv9c/U62FgdKAK6I/AAAAAAAA1kg/a0K4T0LHqMo/s1600/Commission-Document-787-Regarding-Paraffin-Tests.png
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) assassinated President John F. Kennedy (JFK), shot and killed Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit (JDT), wounded Texas Governor John B. Connally (JBC) and attempted to kill retired General Edwin Walker. The evidence supporting these claims is absent from the WC’s twenty-six volumes of exhibits and testimony however, therefore, this has left many questions for us today. I have asked so many questions in this series already, and now it is time for more.
*****************************************
Why did Chief Jesse Curry and FBI SAIC Gordon Shanklin claim that the paraffin test of Lee Harvey Oswald's (LHO) cheek showed a positive result when it didn't?
Dallas Police Department (DPD) Chief Jesse Curry told reporters the following during a press conference on November 23, 1963.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0391b.gif
Q. Chief, we understand you've had the results of the paraffin tests which were made to determine whether Oswald had fired a weapon. Can you tell us what those tests showed?
Chief Curry: I understand that it was positive.
Q. What did the tests find?
Q. What does that mean?
Curry: It only means that he fired a gun. (CE 2146, p. 766)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0391b.htm
Quote off
Chief Curry was very misleading here as he used the term “gun” to make it seem like LHO had tested positive for both his cheek and hands. A reporter asked him to clarify, but he said they just used the term gun instead of rifle or pistol. This was very sneaky since LHO was tested on his right cheek and both hands to determine if he had fired a rifle AND a pistol.
FBI Special Agent-in-Charge (SAIC) Gordon Shanklin gave an interview to the New York Times and was reported to have said the following.
Quote on
Gordon Shanklin, FBI agent in charge at Dallas, said today that...a paraffin test, used to determine whether a person has fired a weapon recently, was administered to Oswald shortly after he was apprehended Friday, one hour after the assassination. It showed that particles of gunpowder from a weapon, probably a rifle, remained on Oswald's cheek and hands. (New York Times, November 25, 1963)
Quote off
Either Shanklin was misquoted, and that is doubtful since this is the New York Times, or he was given incorrect information, or he lied to make it appear that LHO was guilty as claimed.
Even the WCR would say that there was NO reaction on LHO’s right cheek.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0292b.gif
During the course of the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald following the assassination a paraffin test was performed by the Dallas police on both of his hands and his right cheek. The paraffin cast of Oswald's hands reacted positively to the test. The cast of the right cheek showed no reaction. (WCR, p 560)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0292b.htm
Quote off
Of course the WC claimed that, “…the test is completely unreliable in determining either whether a person has recently fired a weapon or whether he has not” (WCR, p. 561), but the issue in this post is not about the reliability of the test. It is about why Curry and Shanklin gave out information that did not accurately reflect the results of the test.
Let's be honest here. If the test was unreliable as claimed by the WC, why did the DPD, and countless other law enforcement agencies, bother to administer it? This reminds me of how lie detectors were also unreliable according to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) because they didn't reflect the results they wanted. If the paraffin test had tested positive for the right cheek I am sure the test would have been touted as being very reliable.
The WC tried to claim that Shanklin never said what the New York Times had attributed to him.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0336a.gif
Speculation, -- Gordon Shanklin, special agent in charge of the Dallas office of the FBI, stated that the paraffin test of Oswald's face and hands was positive and proved that he had fired a rifle.
Commission finding. – The paraffin tests were conducted by members of the Dallas Police Department and the technical examinations by members of the Dallas City-County Criminal Investigation Laboratory. The FBI had notified the Commission that neither Shanklin nor any other representative of the FBI ever made such a statement . The Commission has found no evidence that Special Agent Shanklin ever made this statement publicly. (WCR, p. 647)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0336a.htm
Quote off
This claim by the WC and the FBI is ludicrous. If it is correct then it would mean that the New York Times simply made this comment up and just arbitrarily assigned it to Shanklin. This is preposterous. The newspaper could have incurred legal action of some kind and would have destroyed their credibility by doing something like this. We are asked to believe that the New York Times did all this to misrepresent the results of a test that were not reliable anyway according to the WC? Please.
This misrepresentation of the results made LHO appear guilty of firing a rifle which helped the official claim, but we are asked to believe that the FBI had no interest in misleading the American people. No, only the New York Times was interested in this supposedly.
Of course the WC worded this in a way to give themselves an out if they ever needed it. They said, “The Commission has found no evidence that Special Agent Shanklin ever made this statement publicly.” Who said that he made it publicly? He simply could have told the New York Times reporter this in private and then it was published later on. No one said that Shanklin said this during a press conference.
Can any WC defender explain why both Curry and Shanklin made statements that made it seem like LHO had tested positive for firing a rifle when the actual tests showed that he had not?
We again see evidence that creates doubts for the WC claims, thus, there is doubt about their conclusion. This again means that their conclusion is sunk.