Post by Rob Caprio on Oct 5, 2018 9:03:08 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.awesomestories.com/images/user/24220085be.gif
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed they found fibers from Lee Harvey Oswald's (LHO) shirt (Commission Exhibit (CE) 150) on the butt plate of the alleged murder weapon (CE 139). The issue is this -- which shirt? The WC claimed it was the shirt LHO was arrested in, but he said he changed shirts and there is some evidence for this. Let's just concede this point and go with the claim of the WC. What does that get us? NOT much according to the FBI's expert!
They could NOT match those fibers found in the butt plate of the Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) to LHO's shirt to the exclusion of ALL OTHER SIMILAR SHIRTS!
Again, the WC made a claim they COULD NOT support.
**************************************
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Stombaugh, I hand you a photograph which is labeled on the bottom "C 11, Commission Exhibit 150." It is a color photograph of a brownish textured shirt, long-sleeved, with a hole in the right elbow, and I ask you whether you recognize the shirt that is pictured in that photograph?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, I do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you see your mark anywhere on that?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, my mark is in red, initials "PMS" are in the collar of the shirt.
Mr. EISENBERG. "PMS" being your initials, Paul M. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.
We can clearly see they are discussing the shirt LHO was allegedly arrested in -- CE-150.
Look at this curious item. Even the WC attorney is shocked by this!
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the shirt to determine the presence of hairs or other debris?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, I didn't.
Mr. EISENBERG. You did not?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Neither then or at any subsequent time?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir.
Why not? Were they afraid of finding hair that belonged to SOMEONE ELSE on the shirt? Ditto the debris aspect.
This seems quite curious that they did NOT look for these items on the shirt, and surprisingly, we see even the WC's attorney is shocked by this omission. I'm NOT guessing here either as the NEXT question is this one.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you take a look at your notes on that, Mr. Stombaugh, to make sure about that?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; I did not remove the debris from the shirt. I noted in my notes the two buttons from the top were forcibly removed, the right elbow area was worn through, the bottom front inside of the shirt was ripped forcibly, and that I had made a known sample of this shirt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I had been under the impression you found some wax on that shirt.
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; down the face of the shirt I did find some wax adhering to it, and this wax I removed and delivered to the spectrographic unit for a spectrographic examination.
Why would LHO have wax on his shirt? Why did the FBI expert and the WC lawyer NOT tell us how this could happen? Was LHO into candles? This seems odd to me.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which prompted me to ask you the question. Did you find any body hairs on this shirt---or any hairs, I should say?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't look for hairs on this shirt. This type of examination had not been requested, It seemed unnecessary.
First of all, why would looking for hairs need to be requested? Isn't that the normal procedure here? Didn't they find LHO's pubic hair on something? Secondly, even IF it needed to be requested, why would it be deemed "NOT necessary?" Wouldn't finding LHO's hair on the shirt prove he was wearing it? I would think so, but conversely, IF they found someone else's hair that could open a can of worms! That seems the most likely reason they did "not" check for hairs. (I put quotes because we will never know if they did and found someone else's hair as they would NEVER tell us this.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, were you able to determine the quality of the shirt or did you form any opinion as to the quality of the shirt?
Mr. STOMBAUGH Yes; it was an inexpensive shirt. I found no labels in it indicating the manufacturer.
Mr. DULLES. Any indication that labels had been torn out?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Not that I recall, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to determine, Mr. Stombaugh, whether this was a domestic, whether this was of domestic or foreign origin?
Mr. STOMBAUGH.No; there are so many different shirt manufacturers in this country, that there is little value in trying to trace down a particular source unless we can find a manufacturer's marking in the shirt.
When was the last time you purchased a shirt with NO labels on or in it? I can't think of a time. Manufacturers ALWAYS put their labels in their clothes. That is just standard. So why did this shirt NOT have one? Again, we see a laissez-faire attitude here towards this evidence as they did NOT even try to see who could have made it and whether LHO really owned it or not. IT was just ASSUMED as usual that he did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Any laundry marks which you attempted to trace down?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found no laundry marks. The shirt was well worn and appeared, to have been hand laundered.
This is interesting because they would claim the jacket found near the Tippit murder scene was LHO's (and it has been shown it is NOT) and that it had a laundry tag in it. OF course they could not, or would not, find the laundry it was from.
What about that wax? The WC would try and tie it to the alleged bag they claimed LHO used to carry the broken down M-C into the TSBD with, but of course that did NOT work either!
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attach any significance to the body wax--or to the wax, I should say?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The wax particle I noticed, and I recalled having seen wax on the shirt, Exhibit No. 673, so therefore I put that aside for a spectrographic examination and comparison of the wax particle from the inside of the bag with the wax from the shirt.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what were the results?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. They were entirely different.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any analysis made of the wax in the bag as to its origin, do you know?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was examined by the spectrographic examiner and he found it was just common wax.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say common wax, do you mean the kind you wax a floor with?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; more like that which could have come from a candle, candle wax.
Mr. EISENBERG. What about the wax on the shirt as to origin?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was paraffin.
Oops! Did they get this on LHO when they tested him for firing the rifle? I doubt it since we see they took the shirt from LHO quite quickly as all the photos and films I have seen show him in just his T-shirt moving around the DPD headquarters. So how did paraffin get on the shirt then? Who knows as the WC lawyer quickly CHANGED THE SUBJECT!
Now, let's get to the main point.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any further information you would like to give us concerning your examinations of the paper bag, the rifle, the blanket, or the shirt which we have discussed this morning?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Just the fibers I removed.
Mr. DULLES. Are you going to go into the relationship of the fibers that were found in the jagged edge?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Mr. Stombaugh, did you attempt to determine the origin of the fibers which were caught in the butt plate of the rifle?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I did. I tried to match these fibers with the fibers in the blanket, and found that they had not originated from the blanket, because the cotton fibers were of entirely different colors. So I happened to think of the shirt and I made a known sample of the shirt fibers.
So let me get this straight, the rifle is wrapped in the blanket for some time supposedly, and yet, the fibers in the butt plate are NOT from the blanket? But we are supposed to believe that he presses it against his shirt a couple of times (allegedly to fire the weapon) and lo and behold, we have fibers from it in the butt plate? What?
Mr. EISENBERG. Just one further question. You said something like, "It was possible the fibers could have come from the shirt." Could you estimate the degree of probability that the fibers came from the shirt, the fibers in the butt plate?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is difficult because we don't know how many different shirts were made out of this same type of fabric, or for that matter how many identical shirts are in existence.
Especially so when you did NOT bother to learn the manufacturer of the shirt! See why this is basic and important now?
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I gather that, and correct me if I am wrong, that in your area as opposed to the fingerprint area, you prefer to present the facts rather than draw conclusions as to probabilities, is that correct?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. I have been asked this question many times. There are some experts who will say well, the chances are 1 in 1,000, this, that, and the other, and everyone who had said that and been brought to our attention we have been able to prove them wrong, insofar as application to our fiber problems is concerned.
IF only the WC was concerned with presenting the "facts" instead of guesses!
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean prove them wrong in terms of their mathematics?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."
Mr. EISENBERG. We appreciate your conservatism, but the Commission, of course, has to make an estimate, and what I am trying to find out is whether your conservatism, whether your conclusions, reflect the inability to draw mathematical determinations or conclusions, or reflect your own doubts?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us which that is?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt.
Once again we see the claim of the WC is a NOT supported with facts or evidence in any way! The truth of the matter is they could NOT show the fibers found in the butt plate where from CE-150 to the EXCLUSION of all other similar shirts. As is the case with the rifle, they did NOT even bother to show us CE-150 was actually LHO's in the first place, they just said it was his. Many witnesses would NOT be able to ID it as the shirt they saw him in. They totally FAILED to locate the manufacturer to see how many "other like shirts" we are dealing with. Is this how you run a murder investigation? Especially, when the victim is the POTUS?
Why did they NOT check for hairs? Or debris? Why was there PARAFFIN on the shirt?
Once again we see exploring the WC's OWN evidence leaves far more QUESTIONS than answers, but it does SHOW us that LHO was NOT guilty of what they claimed he did.
Since there is no evidence for the WC’s claim their conclusion is sunk again.
www.awesomestories.com/images/user/24220085be.gif
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed they found fibers from Lee Harvey Oswald's (LHO) shirt (Commission Exhibit (CE) 150) on the butt plate of the alleged murder weapon (CE 139). The issue is this -- which shirt? The WC claimed it was the shirt LHO was arrested in, but he said he changed shirts and there is some evidence for this. Let's just concede this point and go with the claim of the WC. What does that get us? NOT much according to the FBI's expert!
They could NOT match those fibers found in the butt plate of the Mannlicher-Carcano (M-C) to LHO's shirt to the exclusion of ALL OTHER SIMILAR SHIRTS!
Again, the WC made a claim they COULD NOT support.
**************************************
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Stombaugh, I hand you a photograph which is labeled on the bottom "C 11, Commission Exhibit 150." It is a color photograph of a brownish textured shirt, long-sleeved, with a hole in the right elbow, and I ask you whether you recognize the shirt that is pictured in that photograph?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, I do.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you see your mark anywhere on that?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, my mark is in red, initials "PMS" are in the collar of the shirt.
Mr. EISENBERG. "PMS" being your initials, Paul M. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.
We can clearly see they are discussing the shirt LHO was allegedly arrested in -- CE-150.
Look at this curious item. Even the WC attorney is shocked by this!
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you examine the shirt to determine the presence of hairs or other debris?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, I didn't.
Mr. EISENBERG. You did not?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Neither then or at any subsequent time?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir.
Why not? Were they afraid of finding hair that belonged to SOMEONE ELSE on the shirt? Ditto the debris aspect.
This seems quite curious that they did NOT look for these items on the shirt, and surprisingly, we see even the WC's attorney is shocked by this omission. I'm NOT guessing here either as the NEXT question is this one.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you take a look at your notes on that, Mr. Stombaugh, to make sure about that?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No, sir; I did not remove the debris from the shirt. I noted in my notes the two buttons from the top were forcibly removed, the right elbow area was worn through, the bottom front inside of the shirt was ripped forcibly, and that I had made a known sample of this shirt.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I had been under the impression you found some wax on that shirt.
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; down the face of the shirt I did find some wax adhering to it, and this wax I removed and delivered to the spectrographic unit for a spectrographic examination.
Why would LHO have wax on his shirt? Why did the FBI expert and the WC lawyer NOT tell us how this could happen? Was LHO into candles? This seems odd to me.
Mr. EISENBERG. Which prompted me to ask you the question. Did you find any body hairs on this shirt---or any hairs, I should say?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't look for hairs on this shirt. This type of examination had not been requested, It seemed unnecessary.
First of all, why would looking for hairs need to be requested? Isn't that the normal procedure here? Didn't they find LHO's pubic hair on something? Secondly, even IF it needed to be requested, why would it be deemed "NOT necessary?" Wouldn't finding LHO's hair on the shirt prove he was wearing it? I would think so, but conversely, IF they found someone else's hair that could open a can of worms! That seems the most likely reason they did "not" check for hairs. (I put quotes because we will never know if they did and found someone else's hair as they would NEVER tell us this.)
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, were you able to determine the quality of the shirt or did you form any opinion as to the quality of the shirt?
Mr. STOMBAUGH Yes; it was an inexpensive shirt. I found no labels in it indicating the manufacturer.
Mr. DULLES. Any indication that labels had been torn out?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Not that I recall, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to determine, Mr. Stombaugh, whether this was a domestic, whether this was of domestic or foreign origin?
Mr. STOMBAUGH.No; there are so many different shirt manufacturers in this country, that there is little value in trying to trace down a particular source unless we can find a manufacturer's marking in the shirt.
When was the last time you purchased a shirt with NO labels on or in it? I can't think of a time. Manufacturers ALWAYS put their labels in their clothes. That is just standard. So why did this shirt NOT have one? Again, we see a laissez-faire attitude here towards this evidence as they did NOT even try to see who could have made it and whether LHO really owned it or not. IT was just ASSUMED as usual that he did.
Mr. EISENBERG. Any laundry marks which you attempted to trace down?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found no laundry marks. The shirt was well worn and appeared, to have been hand laundered.
This is interesting because they would claim the jacket found near the Tippit murder scene was LHO's (and it has been shown it is NOT) and that it had a laundry tag in it. OF course they could not, or would not, find the laundry it was from.
What about that wax? The WC would try and tie it to the alleged bag they claimed LHO used to carry the broken down M-C into the TSBD with, but of course that did NOT work either!
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attach any significance to the body wax--or to the wax, I should say?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The wax particle I noticed, and I recalled having seen wax on the shirt, Exhibit No. 673, so therefore I put that aside for a spectrographic examination and comparison of the wax particle from the inside of the bag with the wax from the shirt.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what were the results?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. They were entirely different.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any analysis made of the wax in the bag as to its origin, do you know?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was examined by the spectrographic examiner and he found it was just common wax.
Mr. EISENBERG. When you say common wax, do you mean the kind you wax a floor with?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; more like that which could have come from a candle, candle wax.
Mr. EISENBERG. What about the wax on the shirt as to origin?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. It was paraffin.
Oops! Did they get this on LHO when they tested him for firing the rifle? I doubt it since we see they took the shirt from LHO quite quickly as all the photos and films I have seen show him in just his T-shirt moving around the DPD headquarters. So how did paraffin get on the shirt then? Who knows as the WC lawyer quickly CHANGED THE SUBJECT!
Now, let's get to the main point.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is there any further information you would like to give us concerning your examinations of the paper bag, the rifle, the blanket, or the shirt which we have discussed this morning?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Just the fibers I removed.
Mr. DULLES. Are you going to go into the relationship of the fibers that were found in the jagged edge?
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes. Mr. Stombaugh, did you attempt to determine the origin of the fibers which were caught in the butt plate of the rifle?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I did. I tried to match these fibers with the fibers in the blanket, and found that they had not originated from the blanket, because the cotton fibers were of entirely different colors. So I happened to think of the shirt and I made a known sample of the shirt fibers.
So let me get this straight, the rifle is wrapped in the blanket for some time supposedly, and yet, the fibers in the butt plate are NOT from the blanket? But we are supposed to believe that he presses it against his shirt a couple of times (allegedly to fire the weapon) and lo and behold, we have fibers from it in the butt plate? What?
Mr. EISENBERG. Just one further question. You said something like, "It was possible the fibers could have come from the shirt." Could you estimate the degree of probability that the fibers came from the shirt, the fibers in the butt plate?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is difficult because we don't know how many different shirts were made out of this same type of fabric, or for that matter how many identical shirts are in existence.
Especially so when you did NOT bother to learn the manufacturer of the shirt! See why this is basic and important now?
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I gather that, and correct me if I am wrong, that in your area as opposed to the fingerprint area, you prefer to present the facts rather than draw conclusions as to probabilities, is that correct?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. I have been asked this question many times. There are some experts who will say well, the chances are 1 in 1,000, this, that, and the other, and everyone who had said that and been brought to our attention we have been able to prove them wrong, insofar as application to our fiber problems is concerned.
IF only the WC was concerned with presenting the "facts" instead of guesses!
Mr. EISENBERG. You mean prove them wrong in terms of their mathematics?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is just no way at this time to be able to positively state that a particular small group of fibers came from a particular source, because there just aren't enough microscopic characteristics present in these fibers.
We cannot say, "Yes, these fibers came from this shirt to the exclusion of all other shirts."
Mr. EISENBERG. We appreciate your conservatism, but the Commission, of course, has to make an estimate, and what I am trying to find out is whether your conservatism, whether your conclusions, reflect the inability to draw mathematical determinations or conclusions, or reflect your own doubts?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us which that is?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt.
Once again we see the claim of the WC is a NOT supported with facts or evidence in any way! The truth of the matter is they could NOT show the fibers found in the butt plate where from CE-150 to the EXCLUSION of all other similar shirts. As is the case with the rifle, they did NOT even bother to show us CE-150 was actually LHO's in the first place, they just said it was his. Many witnesses would NOT be able to ID it as the shirt they saw him in. They totally FAILED to locate the manufacturer to see how many "other like shirts" we are dealing with. Is this how you run a murder investigation? Especially, when the victim is the POTUS?
Why did they NOT check for hairs? Or debris? Why was there PARAFFIN on the shirt?
Once again we see exploring the WC's OWN evidence leaves far more QUESTIONS than answers, but it does SHOW us that LHO was NOT guilty of what they claimed he did.
Since there is no evidence for the WC’s claim their conclusion is sunk again.