Post by Rob Caprio on Sept 15, 2019 19:52:46 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
static01.nyt.com/images/2011/11/13/books/review/13MORRIS/13MORRIS-jumbo.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself, but failed to produce evidence that supported this claim in their twenty-six volumes. We have looked at some odd evidence before in this series and now we will look at some more.
[Note: Please see posts #176 and #220 for more details.]
***************************************************
The crux of the claim made against LHO by the WC was that he acted ALONE and was a loner by nature. They claimed repeatedly that he had NO ties to anyone to speak of as they even claimed he was estranged from his wife and children most of the time. That is the pure irony for me, that a supposed loner had a wife and two children at all! Isn’t that the opposite of being a “loner”? I would think so.
Our first piece of evidence should have sent alarm bells to the WC, but as usual it was ignored and buried in the voluminous twenty-six volumes of evidence they published. If we go to Commission Exhibit (CE) 760 we will see this statement by Secret Service (SS) Special Agent in Charge Robert Bouck concerning information on LHO after the assassination.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0278b.gif
Shortly after 1:30 p.m., November 22, 1963, PRS [Protective Research Section] received word that President Kennedy had been shot. Information as to the identity of the assassin was unknown at that time. Early in the afternoon word was received that a Dallas police officer had been shot by a man named Lee Harvey Oswald, and that this man was a possible suspect in the assassination. A search of PRS files was made for any record of that name BUT NONE COULD BE FOUND. OTHER GOVERNMENT agencies were contacted and by mid afternoon we began RECEIVING INFORMATION from these sources. By the time information from Dallas began to indicate that Oswald was probably the assassin we had RECEIVED CONSIDERABLE BACKGROUND material on him from OTHER AGENCIES. The processing and organizing of information received on the assassin and the assassination has been continuing from that time. (CE 760, p. 530) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0278b.htm
Quote off
This paragraph is very telling for many reasons. First of all, he says the PRS files had NO information regarding LHO and this means he was NOT considered a threat to JFK or anyone else as that is the main job of the PRS group (for more details read the paragraphs above what I quoted). This means someone dropped the ball IF LHO shot JFK as claimed (and he didn’t based on the evidence given to us) since they did NOT make the SS aware of this possible threat.
Secondly, notice how “other agencies” of the government had a lot of information on LHO at their fingertips to pass on to them. Why is that if LHO was a “loner” as claimed? Why would the government on various levels be tracking a loner so well or at all? Also note that they received CONSIDERABLE BACKGROUND on LHO which means these agencies had been tracking LHO for some time and constructed his whole background from a certain point. Why bother if he was a LONE NUT as claimed? Do we spend money on this today tracking people who have NO ties to anything (as claimed)?
Thirdly, we have to ask, who were these other agencies? The mere use of the word “agencies” makes one conjure up thoughts of the CIA as the FBI is usually referred to as the “bureau.” Did a lot of this information on LHO come from the CIA or other like agencies like the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) or Army Intelligence? If so, why did they have this extensive information on a loner?
Finally, we come to the subtle shift in outlook in a very brief time. Right after he mentions the issue of Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit (JDT) being shot he refers to LHO as the “possible suspect” in the assassination, but by the last sentence quoted he says the information received on the “ASSASSIN” was continuing form that time. What made LHO go from the possible assassin to the assassin in such a short time in his report? What were these “other agencies” sending him to make him assume this? Keep in mind, this report by Bouck was dated December 3, 1963 so we are NOT talking about a long time after the assassination.
Can anyone shed more light on this for me, especially the WC defenders?
The next piece of evidence against LHO we will look at became known as the “backyard photographs” because they were allegedly taken in the backyard of the Neely Street apartment LHO was staying at when these photographs were allegedly taken of him.
[Note: For more information on this topic please see posts #4, #9, #93, #98, #190, #209, and #222. Also see this site for a breakdown of issues researcher Jack White had with the photographs: www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html]
In short, LHO was alleged to have posed for some photographs (officially two, but up to five photographs have emerged over time) depicting him with the alleged murder rifle and pistol and holding Communist literature (of diametrically opposed points of view). This according to the WC proved LHO was a cold killer and with the help of LIFE magazine they convinced quite a few Americans of his guilt when they published one of these photographs on the cover of their February 21, 1964, edition. They were trying to influence the minds of Americans before they even published their findings. The bottom line is this, even IF they are genuine (and they are not according to the evidence) they do NOT prove LHO shot and killed both JFK and JDT as claimed.
Unfortunately for the WC defenders, there are just too many issues with them to be considered genuine and the rifle depicted in them could NOT be positively identified as being the one found in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) by the WC’s own FBI expert! The main issue for me, and many others, is the chin depicted in them. The chin is square when LHO was known to have a cleft chin. I think the WC was worried about his too as look at how they published these two photographs (CE 133-A & CE 133-B).
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0267b.jpg
Could they have made them any smaller and less in light? Even the larger one (CE 134) has very little light and the person seems to be in a shadow to hide the chin area. Other photographs of LHO would be published by the WC like these taken at the Dallas police headquarters after he was arrested.
CE 1796 & 1797:
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pages/WH_Vol23_0225a.jpg
If you look at these photographs and the ones included on the site I gave a link to you will see LHO’s chin did NOT look like the chin depicted in the backyard photographs. The closest the WC could come to showing they were same chin was CE 1797. I don’t think it looks the same as the one seen in the backyard photographs, but the WC and some of its early followers claim it is the same (none of the current WC defenders ever mention this photograph because most of them are NOT even aware of the evidence in this case unless someone points it out to them so they probably don’t even know about this photograph). I don’t think so, but what do you think?
The link I gave you above will show blow-ups of the chin in the backyard photographs so you can judge much better and they do NOT show a chin that belonged to LHO IMO. Again, we were given evidence that could NOT be shown to be genuine and did NOT implicate LHO in anything.
Another strange piece of evidence that was used to show LHO was guilty was the clipboard he supposedly used on the day of the assassination. Why is it evidence you may ask against LHO’s guilt? Well because it was his clipboard (based on the orders and initials on them) and it was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, thus, the WC used it to show LHO had been up there to shoot JFK. This is of course nonsense since LHO’s job required him to go to the sixth floor, and does NOT mean he only went there to shoot JFK and set the clipboard down when doing so as alluded to by the WC.
We have some testimony on the discovery of this clipboard by the man that found it to look at. Here is Frankie Kaiser’s WC testimony regarding the clipboard.
Mr. BALL. Now, one day you found a clipboard, didn't you?
Mr. KAISER. Yes; it was about a week later. I went upstairs, you see, the corner I found it in--we keep a certain teacher's edition of Catholic handbooks.
Mr. BALL. On what floor?
Mr. KAISER. On the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL. Now, what part of the sixth floor is this Catholic edition located?
Mr. KAISER. It was in that corner.
Mr. BALL. And in what corner is that?
Mr. KAISER. Let's see---
Mr. BALL. Without saying north or south, was it near the elevator? Or the stairway?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was right in front of the elevator.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with reference to the stairway?
Mr. KAISER.. It was right next to the stairway--right in the corner.
Aha! It had to be LHO that left it there when he was preparing to shoot JFK, right? NOT so fast. Let’s read on for more details.
Mr. BALL. Now, what day did you find it, do you remember?
Mr. KAISER. I couldn't tell you. It was about a week or a week and a half, somewhere in there.
Mr. BALL. Now, this statement you gave to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the 2d of December 1963, says you talked to an agent named Pinkston; do you remember that?
Mr. KAISER. Well, I got my boss and the FBI to go upstairs and I showed it to them.
This is interesting as Kaiser says a number of times that he did NOT touch the clipboard and instead he went to get his boss (Shelley) instead.
Mr. BALL. When you saw the clipboard---
Mr. KAISER. I went downstairs and got my boss.
Mr. BALL. What is his name?
Mr. KAISER. William H. Shelley.
Mr. BALL. And then what happened?
Mr. KAISER. This FBI was standing there with me--he was standing there then and I told him I had a clipboard laying up there with the orders.
The FBI agent was named Nat Pinkston and he too was called by the WC. Here is what he said he was doing when Kaiser came down the stairs and mentioned the clipboard.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a fellow by the name of Frankie Kaiser?
Mr. PINKSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And Roy Truly?
Mr. PINKSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did they tell you when you came down there?
Mr. PINKSTON. To the best of my recollection I was there waiting to see Mr. Truly. He was somewhere else in the building, and I was waiting. for him on the occasion in question. Frankie Kaiser came down the stairs and said that he had found something on the sixth floor. I didn't--I then accompanied him back to the sixth floor where he pointed out on the floor near the entrance to the stair well, a clipboard with some orders on it, and--pardon me a second, do you want me to testify to what Kaiser told me, which is hearsay?
Mr. BALL. That is all right, but Kaiser told you that when you were downstairs, that something---didn't he? When he was--did Kaiser come downstairs?
Mr. PINKSTON. Yes: Kaiser came downstairs and took me back upstairs with him and pointed out the clipboard which he had left on the floor.
There are a couple of things of note here. First off, notice how WC counsel Ball tells him it is alright to pass on HEARSAY! Secondly, notice how he says Kaiser left the clipboard on the floor where he saw it. This is important to remember. He will confirm this here.
Mr. BALL. Did he say he had left it there?
Mr. PINKSTON. He had seen it there and did not bother it.
Mr. BALL. I see.
Mr. PINKSTON. He did not put it there..
Mr. BALL. I see. Kaiser told you and you went upstairs and Kaiser pointed out the clipboard?
Mr. PINKSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. First, the location of the clipboard.
Mr. PINKSTON. The clipboard was generally in the northwest corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. It was on the floor behind the books, against the wall of the stair well.
Mr. BALL. There were some book cartons in front of it, were there?
Mr. PINKSTON. Yes.
So it was found on the FLOOR and it was not bothered by Kaiser at all. Remember this as this is important to the official claim. We see by this comment (which is hearsay and Ball says this is alright again) they knew it was LHO’s because Kaiser had made it for him when he started at the TSBD.
Mr. BALL. Now, did Frankie Kaiser say something? That is hearsay, but I would like to hear what it was.
Mr. PINKSTON. He told me this clipboard was the one that he had made, and had given to Oswald when Oswald went to work at the School Book Depository.
Mr. BALL. Did you examine the clipboard?
Mr. PINKSTON. I did, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did it have anybody's name on it?
Mr. PINKSTON. It had quite a bit of scribbling on it, and I believe well, I am not in a position to say right now exactly what it had on it other than some orders.
Mr. BALL. It did have some orders on it?
Mr. PINKSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And did you examine the orders?
Mr. PINKSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Can you tell me the date of the orders and the general description of the orders?
Mr. PINKSTON. Three orders on this clipboard. Each order was dated November 22d…Each of these orders, as I say, were dated November 22, 1963.
So there we have it. Of course he would say he had NO idea what happened to the clipboard after he gave it to the FBI office (the orders were given to Mr. Truly to fill).
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the clipboard?
Mr. PINKSTON. I returned the clipboard to my office and made an exhibit as I recall.
Mr. BALL. Is it still an exhibit? It is an FBI exhibit?
Mr. PINKSTON. I believe so.
Mr. BALL. In the possession of the FBI?
Mr. PINKSTON. I haven't seen it since then.
Only in this case does evidence get turned over to people we have NO names for! This was it for Pinkston’s testimony so let’s head back to Kaiser’s. Here is how he said he found the clipboard and how it was laying when he saw it.
Mr. BALL. How did you happen to find the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. I was over there looking for the Catholic edition--teacher's edition.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the plain open boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and I just noticed it laying over there.
Mr. BALL. Laying. on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was laying on the floor.
Mr. BALL. It was on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. It was on the floor.
Mr. BALL. How close was it to the wall?
Mr. KAISER. It was about---oh--I would say, just guessing, about 5 or 6 inches, something like that.
Mr. BALL. From the wall and on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Laying on the floor.
Mr. BALL. And were there any boxes between the wall and the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. No, not between the wall and the clipboard--there wasn't.
Based on this description by Kaiser how in the world is the official photograph depicting the clipboard accurate in the least? Here it is.
CE 506: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0122b.jpg
NOTHING in this picture matches the way Kaiser said it was when he saw it! Kaiser says over and over again that he did NOT touch the clipboard, thus, he did NOT move it! Read his testimony to see this being said again and again like this.
Mr. KAISER. Did I examine those orders? No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You didn't examine the orders?
Mr. KAISER. No, sir; I just went down and got my boss and then they took it down.
Mr. BALL. Did you make any notes of the orders?
Mr. KAISER. I didn't, sir.
Mr. BALL. Of either the names on the orders or the date of the orders?
Mr. KAISER. No, sir; now, my boss may have.
Mr. BALL. I think that's all. Did you fill the orders, then, yourself?
Mr. KAISER. No, sir; not them, I didn't.
Mr. BALL. You turned these over to your boss?
Mr. KAISER. You see, I went down and got them and they went down and got them and they handled them.
Why was Ball trying so hard to get him to say he touched the clipboard when he kept saying he did NOT? Was it because he knew the way the clipboard is shown in CE 506 does NOT match the way Kaiser found it? The caption in CE 506 clearly says, “Position of clip board when discovered” too. Who discovered it this way? Certainly NOT Frankie Kaiser based on his testimony. Kaiser would say so when he was called back too! They refer to “Kaiser Exhibit A” which is the same picture as CE 506 and when shown this Kaiser said this.
Mr. BALL. Does this show the place where the clipboard was found, or do you know?
Mr. KAISER. It wasn't found there--it was found on the floor.
Mr. BALL. Where on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Behind these cartons--between there and the wall.
Mr. BALL. Which cartons--it was found behind--are the cartons in the picture--it wasn't found where it is circled there?
Mr. KAISER. It wasn't found where it circled--there--it was found on the floor.
He clearly tells them CE 506 is wrong, but they published it with the caption nonetheless. What is interesting in Kaiser Exhibit A is that Kaiser put an “X” on the carton he said the clipboard was behind (and on the floor) of. Here is for your review.
Kaiser Exhibit A:
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pages/WH_Vol20_0177b.jpg
This photograph clearly shows the clipboard was NOT where the WC claimed it was, and yet, they continued to say it was where the witness said it was not.
Kaiser would also have the luck of finding a jacket that belonged to LHO as well. He would find the blue jacket that the WC designated CE 163 in the northest corner of the Domino room (lunchroom) on the second floor. This is important as this shows LHO was in there at some time during the day and he claimed he was in there after noon eating his lunch. This is called corroboration unless you can show he would have either left it there earlier in the day or that someone else moved it there for him.
Mr. BALL. This is Commission Exhibit 163--do you recognize that blue jacket?
Mr. KAISER. That's the one I found.
Mr. BALL. Where did you find it--tell me first.
Mr. KAISER. It was in the window sill.
Mr. BALL. In what room?
Mr. KAISER. In the domino room.
Can the WC defenders show with evidence that LHO left this in that room in the morning or that someone moved it there for him? As with the clipboard the jacket too was not depicted the same in the official photograph (Kaiser Exhibit B) as it was found by Kaiser. (see link above for A).
Mr. BALL. There is a Jacket showing in that window, is that where the jacket was found?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, sir; but it was laying behind this in the window.
Mr. BALL. It wasn't found in the position of the jacket shown in the picture?
Mr. KAISER. No; it sure wasn't.
We were given Kaiser Exhibit C to show where the jacket was really found.
Kaiser Exhibit C:
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pages/WH_Vol20_0178a.jpg
Mr. BALL. I show you a picture which is marked Exhibit 18, does this show the place where the jacket was found?
Mr. KAISER. Right over in here.
Mr. BALL. Where--put an "X" there---it's in the window sill?
Mr. KAISER. Right.
(Marked diagram with an "X".)
We clearly see the jacket was put down on the windowsill of the room and this means LHO was in there at some point to do this. Why not at lunch time as he claimed? IF you disagree with this then show evidence that makes this claim wrong, otherwise, we have an alibi for LHO during the shooting as he was seen in this room by Carolyn Arnold and he named two other employees in there.
Again, we see evidence (as odd as you can get) that shows LHO was NOT guilty of the crime he was claimed to have committed, and thus, the WC’s conclusion is sunk.
static01.nyt.com/images/2011/11/13/books/review/13MORRIS/13MORRIS-jumbo.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) all by himself, but failed to produce evidence that supported this claim in their twenty-six volumes. We have looked at some odd evidence before in this series and now we will look at some more.
[Note: Please see posts #176 and #220 for more details.]
***************************************************
The crux of the claim made against LHO by the WC was that he acted ALONE and was a loner by nature. They claimed repeatedly that he had NO ties to anyone to speak of as they even claimed he was estranged from his wife and children most of the time. That is the pure irony for me, that a supposed loner had a wife and two children at all! Isn’t that the opposite of being a “loner”? I would think so.
Our first piece of evidence should have sent alarm bells to the WC, but as usual it was ignored and buried in the voluminous twenty-six volumes of evidence they published. If we go to Commission Exhibit (CE) 760 we will see this statement by Secret Service (SS) Special Agent in Charge Robert Bouck concerning information on LHO after the assassination.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0278b.gif
Shortly after 1:30 p.m., November 22, 1963, PRS [Protective Research Section] received word that President Kennedy had been shot. Information as to the identity of the assassin was unknown at that time. Early in the afternoon word was received that a Dallas police officer had been shot by a man named Lee Harvey Oswald, and that this man was a possible suspect in the assassination. A search of PRS files was made for any record of that name BUT NONE COULD BE FOUND. OTHER GOVERNMENT agencies were contacted and by mid afternoon we began RECEIVING INFORMATION from these sources. By the time information from Dallas began to indicate that Oswald was probably the assassin we had RECEIVED CONSIDERABLE BACKGROUND material on him from OTHER AGENCIES. The processing and organizing of information received on the assassin and the assassination has been continuing from that time. (CE 760, p. 530) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0278b.htm
Quote off
This paragraph is very telling for many reasons. First of all, he says the PRS files had NO information regarding LHO and this means he was NOT considered a threat to JFK or anyone else as that is the main job of the PRS group (for more details read the paragraphs above what I quoted). This means someone dropped the ball IF LHO shot JFK as claimed (and he didn’t based on the evidence given to us) since they did NOT make the SS aware of this possible threat.
Secondly, notice how “other agencies” of the government had a lot of information on LHO at their fingertips to pass on to them. Why is that if LHO was a “loner” as claimed? Why would the government on various levels be tracking a loner so well or at all? Also note that they received CONSIDERABLE BACKGROUND on LHO which means these agencies had been tracking LHO for some time and constructed his whole background from a certain point. Why bother if he was a LONE NUT as claimed? Do we spend money on this today tracking people who have NO ties to anything (as claimed)?
Thirdly, we have to ask, who were these other agencies? The mere use of the word “agencies” makes one conjure up thoughts of the CIA as the FBI is usually referred to as the “bureau.” Did a lot of this information on LHO come from the CIA or other like agencies like the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) or Army Intelligence? If so, why did they have this extensive information on a loner?
Finally, we come to the subtle shift in outlook in a very brief time. Right after he mentions the issue of Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit (JDT) being shot he refers to LHO as the “possible suspect” in the assassination, but by the last sentence quoted he says the information received on the “ASSASSIN” was continuing form that time. What made LHO go from the possible assassin to the assassin in such a short time in his report? What were these “other agencies” sending him to make him assume this? Keep in mind, this report by Bouck was dated December 3, 1963 so we are NOT talking about a long time after the assassination.
Can anyone shed more light on this for me, especially the WC defenders?
The next piece of evidence against LHO we will look at became known as the “backyard photographs” because they were allegedly taken in the backyard of the Neely Street apartment LHO was staying at when these photographs were allegedly taken of him.
[Note: For more information on this topic please see posts #4, #9, #93, #98, #190, #209, and #222. Also see this site for a breakdown of issues researcher Jack White had with the photographs: www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html]
In short, LHO was alleged to have posed for some photographs (officially two, but up to five photographs have emerged over time) depicting him with the alleged murder rifle and pistol and holding Communist literature (of diametrically opposed points of view). This according to the WC proved LHO was a cold killer and with the help of LIFE magazine they convinced quite a few Americans of his guilt when they published one of these photographs on the cover of their February 21, 1964, edition. They were trying to influence the minds of Americans before they even published their findings. The bottom line is this, even IF they are genuine (and they are not according to the evidence) they do NOT prove LHO shot and killed both JFK and JDT as claimed.
Unfortunately for the WC defenders, there are just too many issues with them to be considered genuine and the rifle depicted in them could NOT be positively identified as being the one found in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) by the WC’s own FBI expert! The main issue for me, and many others, is the chin depicted in them. The chin is square when LHO was known to have a cleft chin. I think the WC was worried about his too as look at how they published these two photographs (CE 133-A & CE 133-B).
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0267b.jpg
Could they have made them any smaller and less in light? Even the larger one (CE 134) has very little light and the person seems to be in a shadow to hide the chin area. Other photographs of LHO would be published by the WC like these taken at the Dallas police headquarters after he was arrested.
CE 1796 & 1797:
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pages/WH_Vol23_0225a.jpg
If you look at these photographs and the ones included on the site I gave a link to you will see LHO’s chin did NOT look like the chin depicted in the backyard photographs. The closest the WC could come to showing they were same chin was CE 1797. I don’t think it looks the same as the one seen in the backyard photographs, but the WC and some of its early followers claim it is the same (none of the current WC defenders ever mention this photograph because most of them are NOT even aware of the evidence in this case unless someone points it out to them so they probably don’t even know about this photograph). I don’t think so, but what do you think?
The link I gave you above will show blow-ups of the chin in the backyard photographs so you can judge much better and they do NOT show a chin that belonged to LHO IMO. Again, we were given evidence that could NOT be shown to be genuine and did NOT implicate LHO in anything.
Another strange piece of evidence that was used to show LHO was guilty was the clipboard he supposedly used on the day of the assassination. Why is it evidence you may ask against LHO’s guilt? Well because it was his clipboard (based on the orders and initials on them) and it was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, thus, the WC used it to show LHO had been up there to shoot JFK. This is of course nonsense since LHO’s job required him to go to the sixth floor, and does NOT mean he only went there to shoot JFK and set the clipboard down when doing so as alluded to by the WC.
We have some testimony on the discovery of this clipboard by the man that found it to look at. Here is Frankie Kaiser’s WC testimony regarding the clipboard.
Mr. BALL. Now, one day you found a clipboard, didn't you?
Mr. KAISER. Yes; it was about a week later. I went upstairs, you see, the corner I found it in--we keep a certain teacher's edition of Catholic handbooks.
Mr. BALL. On what floor?
Mr. KAISER. On the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL. Now, what part of the sixth floor is this Catholic edition located?
Mr. KAISER. It was in that corner.
Mr. BALL. And in what corner is that?
Mr. KAISER. Let's see---
Mr. BALL. Without saying north or south, was it near the elevator? Or the stairway?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was right in front of the elevator.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with reference to the stairway?
Mr. KAISER.. It was right next to the stairway--right in the corner.
Aha! It had to be LHO that left it there when he was preparing to shoot JFK, right? NOT so fast. Let’s read on for more details.
Mr. BALL. Now, what day did you find it, do you remember?
Mr. KAISER. I couldn't tell you. It was about a week or a week and a half, somewhere in there.
Mr. BALL. Now, this statement you gave to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the 2d of December 1963, says you talked to an agent named Pinkston; do you remember that?
Mr. KAISER. Well, I got my boss and the FBI to go upstairs and I showed it to them.
This is interesting as Kaiser says a number of times that he did NOT touch the clipboard and instead he went to get his boss (Shelley) instead.
Mr. BALL. When you saw the clipboard---
Mr. KAISER. I went downstairs and got my boss.
Mr. BALL. What is his name?
Mr. KAISER. William H. Shelley.
Mr. BALL. And then what happened?
Mr. KAISER. This FBI was standing there with me--he was standing there then and I told him I had a clipboard laying up there with the orders.
The FBI agent was named Nat Pinkston and he too was called by the WC. Here is what he said he was doing when Kaiser came down the stairs and mentioned the clipboard.
Mr. BALL. Did you see a fellow by the name of Frankie Kaiser?
Mr. PINKSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And Roy Truly?
Mr. PINKSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did they tell you when you came down there?
Mr. PINKSTON. To the best of my recollection I was there waiting to see Mr. Truly. He was somewhere else in the building, and I was waiting. for him on the occasion in question. Frankie Kaiser came down the stairs and said that he had found something on the sixth floor. I didn't--I then accompanied him back to the sixth floor where he pointed out on the floor near the entrance to the stair well, a clipboard with some orders on it, and--pardon me a second, do you want me to testify to what Kaiser told me, which is hearsay?
Mr. BALL. That is all right, but Kaiser told you that when you were downstairs, that something---didn't he? When he was--did Kaiser come downstairs?
Mr. PINKSTON. Yes: Kaiser came downstairs and took me back upstairs with him and pointed out the clipboard which he had left on the floor.
There are a couple of things of note here. First off, notice how WC counsel Ball tells him it is alright to pass on HEARSAY! Secondly, notice how he says Kaiser left the clipboard on the floor where he saw it. This is important to remember. He will confirm this here.
Mr. BALL. Did he say he had left it there?
Mr. PINKSTON. He had seen it there and did not bother it.
Mr. BALL. I see.
Mr. PINKSTON. He did not put it there..
Mr. BALL. I see. Kaiser told you and you went upstairs and Kaiser pointed out the clipboard?
Mr. PINKSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. First, the location of the clipboard.
Mr. PINKSTON. The clipboard was generally in the northwest corner of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. It was on the floor behind the books, against the wall of the stair well.
Mr. BALL. There were some book cartons in front of it, were there?
Mr. PINKSTON. Yes.
So it was found on the FLOOR and it was not bothered by Kaiser at all. Remember this as this is important to the official claim. We see by this comment (which is hearsay and Ball says this is alright again) they knew it was LHO’s because Kaiser had made it for him when he started at the TSBD.
Mr. BALL. Now, did Frankie Kaiser say something? That is hearsay, but I would like to hear what it was.
Mr. PINKSTON. He told me this clipboard was the one that he had made, and had given to Oswald when Oswald went to work at the School Book Depository.
Mr. BALL. Did you examine the clipboard?
Mr. PINKSTON. I did, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did it have anybody's name on it?
Mr. PINKSTON. It had quite a bit of scribbling on it, and I believe well, I am not in a position to say right now exactly what it had on it other than some orders.
Mr. BALL. It did have some orders on it?
Mr. PINKSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. And did you examine the orders?
Mr. PINKSTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Can you tell me the date of the orders and the general description of the orders?
Mr. PINKSTON. Three orders on this clipboard. Each order was dated November 22d…Each of these orders, as I say, were dated November 22, 1963.
So there we have it. Of course he would say he had NO idea what happened to the clipboard after he gave it to the FBI office (the orders were given to Mr. Truly to fill).
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the clipboard?
Mr. PINKSTON. I returned the clipboard to my office and made an exhibit as I recall.
Mr. BALL. Is it still an exhibit? It is an FBI exhibit?
Mr. PINKSTON. I believe so.
Mr. BALL. In the possession of the FBI?
Mr. PINKSTON. I haven't seen it since then.
Only in this case does evidence get turned over to people we have NO names for! This was it for Pinkston’s testimony so let’s head back to Kaiser’s. Here is how he said he found the clipboard and how it was laying when he saw it.
Mr. BALL. How did you happen to find the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. I was over there looking for the Catholic edition--teacher's edition.
Mr. BALL. Where did you see the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the plain open boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and I just noticed it laying over there.
Mr. BALL. Laying. on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was laying on the floor.
Mr. BALL. It was on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. It was on the floor.
Mr. BALL. How close was it to the wall?
Mr. KAISER. It was about---oh--I would say, just guessing, about 5 or 6 inches, something like that.
Mr. BALL. From the wall and on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Laying on the floor.
Mr. BALL. And were there any boxes between the wall and the clipboard?
Mr. KAISER. No, not between the wall and the clipboard--there wasn't.
Based on this description by Kaiser how in the world is the official photograph depicting the clipboard accurate in the least? Here it is.
CE 506: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0122b.jpg
NOTHING in this picture matches the way Kaiser said it was when he saw it! Kaiser says over and over again that he did NOT touch the clipboard, thus, he did NOT move it! Read his testimony to see this being said again and again like this.
Mr. KAISER. Did I examine those orders? No, sir.
Mr. BALL. You didn't examine the orders?
Mr. KAISER. No, sir; I just went down and got my boss and then they took it down.
Mr. BALL. Did you make any notes of the orders?
Mr. KAISER. I didn't, sir.
Mr. BALL. Of either the names on the orders or the date of the orders?
Mr. KAISER. No, sir; now, my boss may have.
Mr. BALL. I think that's all. Did you fill the orders, then, yourself?
Mr. KAISER. No, sir; not them, I didn't.
Mr. BALL. You turned these over to your boss?
Mr. KAISER. You see, I went down and got them and they went down and got them and they handled them.
Why was Ball trying so hard to get him to say he touched the clipboard when he kept saying he did NOT? Was it because he knew the way the clipboard is shown in CE 506 does NOT match the way Kaiser found it? The caption in CE 506 clearly says, “Position of clip board when discovered” too. Who discovered it this way? Certainly NOT Frankie Kaiser based on his testimony. Kaiser would say so when he was called back too! They refer to “Kaiser Exhibit A” which is the same picture as CE 506 and when shown this Kaiser said this.
Mr. BALL. Does this show the place where the clipboard was found, or do you know?
Mr. KAISER. It wasn't found there--it was found on the floor.
Mr. BALL. Where on the floor?
Mr. KAISER. Behind these cartons--between there and the wall.
Mr. BALL. Which cartons--it was found behind--are the cartons in the picture--it wasn't found where it is circled there?
Mr. KAISER. It wasn't found where it circled--there--it was found on the floor.
He clearly tells them CE 506 is wrong, but they published it with the caption nonetheless. What is interesting in Kaiser Exhibit A is that Kaiser put an “X” on the carton he said the clipboard was behind (and on the floor) of. Here is for your review.
Kaiser Exhibit A:
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pages/WH_Vol20_0177b.jpg
This photograph clearly shows the clipboard was NOT where the WC claimed it was, and yet, they continued to say it was where the witness said it was not.
Kaiser would also have the luck of finding a jacket that belonged to LHO as well. He would find the blue jacket that the WC designated CE 163 in the northest corner of the Domino room (lunchroom) on the second floor. This is important as this shows LHO was in there at some time during the day and he claimed he was in there after noon eating his lunch. This is called corroboration unless you can show he would have either left it there earlier in the day or that someone else moved it there for him.
Mr. BALL. This is Commission Exhibit 163--do you recognize that blue jacket?
Mr. KAISER. That's the one I found.
Mr. BALL. Where did you find it--tell me first.
Mr. KAISER. It was in the window sill.
Mr. BALL. In what room?
Mr. KAISER. In the domino room.
Can the WC defenders show with evidence that LHO left this in that room in the morning or that someone moved it there for him? As with the clipboard the jacket too was not depicted the same in the official photograph (Kaiser Exhibit B) as it was found by Kaiser. (see link above for A).
Mr. BALL. There is a Jacket showing in that window, is that where the jacket was found?
Mr. KAISER. Yes, sir; but it was laying behind this in the window.
Mr. BALL. It wasn't found in the position of the jacket shown in the picture?
Mr. KAISER. No; it sure wasn't.
We were given Kaiser Exhibit C to show where the jacket was really found.
Kaiser Exhibit C:
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pages/WH_Vol20_0178a.jpg
Mr. BALL. I show you a picture which is marked Exhibit 18, does this show the place where the jacket was found?
Mr. KAISER. Right over in here.
Mr. BALL. Where--put an "X" there---it's in the window sill?
Mr. KAISER. Right.
(Marked diagram with an "X".)
We clearly see the jacket was put down on the windowsill of the room and this means LHO was in there at some point to do this. Why not at lunch time as he claimed? IF you disagree with this then show evidence that makes this claim wrong, otherwise, we have an alibi for LHO during the shooting as he was seen in this room by Carolyn Arnold and he named two other employees in there.
Again, we see evidence (as odd as you can get) that shows LHO was NOT guilty of the crime he was claimed to have committed, and thus, the WC’s conclusion is sunk.