Post by Rob Caprio on Feb 9, 2020 21:54:40 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/warren-commission.jpg
It is time for more questions the Warren Commission (WC) defenders can’t/won’t refute with evidence.
****************************************
(1) Why did the WC bother to “investigate” the murder of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) when the FBI had already reached a verdict on who did it?
If we go to the WC’s Executive Session for January 27, 1964, we will see this exchange.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/pages/WcEx0127_0047a.gif
Mr. Rankin. Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they [FBI] have no problem. They have decided that it is Oswald who committed the assassination, they have decided that no one else was involved, they have decided—
Sen. Russell. They have tried the case and reached a VERDICT ON EVERY ASPECT.
Rep. Boggs. You have put your finger on it.
Mr. McCloy. They are a little less certain in the supplementals then they were in the first.
Mr. Rankin. Yes, but they are still there. THEY HAVE DECIDED THE CASE, and we are going to have maybe a thousand further inquiries that we say the Commission has to know all these things before it can pass on this.
And I think their reaction would probably be, “Why do you want all that. IT IS CLEAR.” (WC Executive Session 1/27/64, p. 33) (Emphasis added)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0047a.htm
Quote off
Why did the WC even bother given this state of affairs? It is very clear from reading this that the FBI had already found LHO guilty and the WC had NOT even begun their “investigation” yet! Why would the WC just take the FBI’s word for it? Oh, that is right, because J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) was good people.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/pages/WcEx0127_0034a.gif
Sen. Russell. There is no man in the employ of the Federal Government who stands higher in the opinion of the American people than J. Edgar Hoover.
Mr. Dulles. That is right.
Sen. Russell. Of course, we can get an affidavit from Mr. Hoover and put it in this record and go on and act on that but if we didn’t go any further than that, and we don’t pursue it down to Hudkins [reporter of story saying LHO was a FBI agent] or whoever it is, there would still be thousands of doubting Thomases who would believe this man was an FBI agent and you just didn’t try to clear it up and you just took Hoover’s word.
Personally, I would BELIEVE J. Edgar Hoover, I have a great deal of confidence in him.
Mr. Dulles. I do, too.
Sen. Russell. But the other people—I would believe, a simple statement as Holy Writ, this one statement without being under oath, but you can’t try cases that way, and you can’t base the conclusions of this Commission on that kind of material. (Ibid, p. 20) (Emphasis added)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0034a.htm
Quote off
It was nice that they had such confidence in JEH’s word, but he was dishonest while under oath before the WC. It also was not a matter of what Senator Russell and Allen Dulles thought, but rather a matter of conducting this investigation properly. We see however that from the beginning JEH was running the show.
Given this state of affairs, can any WC defender tell me why the WC even bothered to “investigate” these crimes? Or provide any evidence that shows the whole thing was not just a cover-up?
2) Why were LHO’s pubic hairs such a topic of discussion?
If we go to FBI Expert Paul Stombaugh’s WC testimony and do a search on “pubic hairs” we will see forty-three references to this topic? Why? It seems they were used to tie things to LHO. Here is an example.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what type of debris did you find, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found numerous foreign textile fibers of various types and colors, as well as a number of limb and pubic hairs.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you draw any conclusions as to those hairs upon your initial examination of them?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did. They all had originated from a person of the Caucasian race and I compared these hairs with hair samples obtained from Harvey Oswald----
Mr. EISENBERG. That is Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is, Lee Harvey Oswald, and I found that of the limb and pubic hairs I removed from the blanket, several matched Oswald's in all observable microscopic characteristics and could have originated from Oswald.
We see they were used, along with limb hairs, to try and match the blanket (Commission Exhibit (CE) 140) the alleged rifle, CE 139, was allegedly in when LHO allegedly took it on the morning of November 22, 1963. His mistake, if it was one, is intriguing as he says he compared the pubic hairs to "Harvey Oswald" and had to be corrected. Did he know there were TWO Oswalds? Just wondering. Also, you will note the usual "could have" game being played instead of a POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION being presented.
We were even given a comparison photograph showing the hair from the blanket to a known LHO pubic hair.
CE 672: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0178b.jpg
Mr. DULLES. That was taken from the blanket. The right-hand is taken from the blanket and the left-hand hairs were taken from Oswald himself?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; these are from Oswald.
Mr. DULLES. Yes.
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is a comparison shot. This photograph was taken through two microscopes simultaneously showing how this portion of a pubic hair from the blanket matched a pubic hair from Oswald, which is this portion of the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are pointing to the right side of the chart 672?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; this photograph was taken at 100 diameters and this photograph was taken at 400 diameters. There is a difference there also.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is Oswald's pubic hairs, a known sample?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; this is a general shot of his known sample.
Later on though Stombaugh made a startling comment (as startling as one can be when discussing pubic hairs) about LHO’s pubic hair.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle that with a pen, and mark it "A" on chart 672?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Here we see that it twists and it is very uneven. The shaft of the hair is generally very uneven in pubic hairs. However, in Oswald's pubic hairs we had very little of this. The hairs were very smooth. They lacked this nobbiness. The upper two-thirds were extremely smooth for pubic hairs. This was an unusual characteristic.
The tips of Oswald's pubic hairs were not worn. They had a very sharp tip and very clear. Ordinarily pubic hairs are rounded at the tips, and not pointed--this is from wearing against clothing -- at all. This would indicate to me that his pubic hairs were rather strong, much tougher than the average persons.
It would seem LHO had very “unusual” and “very strong” pubic hair. Again, this is what was used to supposedly match the blanket to LHO.
Mr. EISENBERG. You have been discussing the characteristics of Oswald's pubic hairs. In each case were the characteristics of the pubic hairs you found in the blanket the same as those you have noted as being present in Oswald's pubic hairs?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; they were all identical.
If this was LHO’s blanket, and that is still an if, then someone else also used it as Stombaugh said this later in his testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any characteristics in which they were not identical?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; not on the limb hair, as I found it matched. I did find limb hairs and pubic hairs and head hairs in this blanket which were dissimilar to Oswald's and definitely did not come from him but the hairs I have talked about here matched in all microscopical characteristics.
Mr. EISENBERG. The other hairs, Mr. Stombaugh, could you make a determination as to race?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; they were all Caucasian.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you make a determination as to sex or age?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; it is not possible to determine sex or age from an examination of a hair.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you make a determination as to the number of individuals who had contributed these hairs?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I couldn't. You would have to have a hair sample from any suspected person, and hairs vary tremendously. Even on the same individual head hairs from the same individual can vary from one head area to another.
Ah, here is a clue, why was Marina and her daughter June NOT tested to see if they matched these other hairs? That would have shown us if anyone else in the family used the blanket or if they came from someone outside the family. Despite the long discussion about pubic hairs the FBI could still NOT match the blanket to LHO via the pubic hair found on it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Stombaugh, are you able to say that the limb hairs and pubic hairs which you found in the blanket and which you have matched with Oswald's in observable microscopic characteristics came from Oswald to the exclusion of any other individual?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I couldn't say that. I could say that these hairs could have come from Oswald. I could not say they definitely came from him to the exclusion of all other Caucasian persons in the world.
In order to say this, one would have to take hair samples from all of these people and compare them and this, of course, is impossible.
Impossible, like all the WC’s attempts to make things tie in to LHO. Despite his answer the WC would try and make him give them a “probability” of the hairs having come from LHO. All this did was sink the WC’s attempt even more.
Mr. EISENBERG. What degree of probability do you think there is that these hairs came from Oswald? And without putting a precise number on it, let's suppose you took head hairs from 100 Caucasion individuals, how many matches would you expect to find among those hundred different hairs on the basis of your experience?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. On the basis of my experience I would expect to find only one match.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say that the 100 hairs would be different from each other?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is your experience, therefore, that the hairs of different individuals do not match in observable microscopic characteristics--within the basis of your experience?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Within the basis of my experience, I have examined thousands of hairs and I have never found Caucasian hairs from two different individuals that match.
Oops. This means the FACT they did NOT match to LHO shows the pubic hairs were NOT LHO’s, thus, the blanket was NOT used by LHO in all likelihood. This again shows the “could have” game of the WC is a waste of time. IF each person’s hair is unique and can be identified then the fact he could NOT identify the limb and pubic hairs found to be LHO’s then they were NOT his. All the fancy wording and game playing by the WC cannot change that.
Again we see LHO’s pubic hair is very unusual and you will see the importance of this in a moment.
Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. Oswald's hairs, where the nobbiness did appear was in the lower third, in other words, the area from the root out on the shaft approximately one-third. The remaining two-thirds of the hair shaft all the way out to the tip was relatively straight, no nobbiness at all present. This was characteristic. Ordinarily a pubic hair will have this nobbiness two-thirds to three-fourths of the way up. So this was a characteristic which exists in Oswald's pubic hairs which is different from the ordinary or average.
Mr. DULLES. And you found that both on the hairs taken from Oswald himself and on the hairs found in the blanket?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.
Since Stombaugh couldn’t identify the hairs allegedly found on CE 140 as LHO’s to the exclusion of everyone else, they were trying to find another way to show these were LHO’s. So they used “very different” characteristic of the pubic hair to try and show it was his.
You may be wondering why I even delved into this question, but the reason is when I was doing another post and looking at LHO’s autopsy report this jumped out at me.
Quote on
Hair distribution is normal. THE PUBIC AREA AS BEEN SHAVED. (LHO Autopsy Report) (Emphasis added)
texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337932/
Quote off
Since I doubt the folks at Parkland Hospital (PH) would bother to do this since he was NOT shot in the groin, who shaved LHO’s pubic area? Was it LHO himself? Some may say it was done at the autopsy, but why would they need to do this? And, if they did, why would they note it was shaved when they shaved it? In fact, if we check J.D. Tippit’s (JDT) autopsy notes we will NOT see this comment.
JDT's Autopsy Report:
texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338568/m1/1/
This shows the pubic area had been shaved prior to the autopsy. IF LHO had been shot in the lower abdomen I could see perhaps the staff at PH shaving this area, but he was shot high in the abdomen near the chest area. So what gives here?
Can any WC defender tell me if the hairs Stombaugh was given, and he did not know how they were collected, were LHO’s?
Mr. EISENBERG. Where did you get the known sample, Mr. Stombaugh, of Lee Oswald's hair?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. These were obtained and were sent to the laboratory by the FBI office in Dallas.
I do not know whether the agent in Dallas personally took the samples or had a member of the Dallas Police Department take the samples.
Given this poor chain of custody (in the other areas Stombaugh was able to say he took samples himself), how do we know these are truly samples of LHO’s?
Again, can any WC defender show me that the samples given to Stombaugh and claimed to be from LHO’s pubic region actually came from him? Also, can you explain when LHO’s pubic region was shaved and why?
3) Why did Senator Richard Russell and Allen Dulles have confidence in J. Edgar Hoover when Robert Kennedy thought he was “psycho?”
In Arthur Schlesinger’s book, Robert Kennedy And His Times, we see the following comments attributed to Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) regarding the FBI and JEH.
Quote on
Forty years later Anthony Lewis asked Robert Kennedy whether he thought Hoover a nasty person or truly dangerous. “No”, Kennedy replied. “I think he is dangerous.” (Interview with Anthony Lewis 1964)
“He’s rather a psycho,” he told John Bartlow Martin, “…I think it’s a very dangerous organization…and I think he’s…become senile and rather…frightening.” (Interview with John Bartlow Martin, 4/13/64 as cited in Robert Kennedy And His Times, by Arthur Schlesinger, p. 260; Also covered in Secrecy and Power, by Richard Powers, p. 397)
books.google.com/books?id=5L-EeG9djO4C&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=john+bartlow+martin+robert+kennedy+interview+hoover+psycho&source=bl&ots=_I2ygRvpgK&sig=hd8OnxlwXtJ3aQQyulOk_B5VpKQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MK7OU-elNoyiyATAwYG4Bw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=john%20bartlow%20martin%20robert%20kennedy%20interview%20hoover%20psycho&f=false
Quote off
RFK worked with JEH on a much closer basis (he was his boss) than Senator Russell or Allen Dulles, thus, he had a much better idea of his character and methods. RFK mentioned that JEH constantly sent things to him about him or his family as a reminder that he had access to all the information. This implied to RFK that JEH was saying he could keep it quiet or not based on how he was treated. In other words, he was reminding the Kennedys who was really in charge.
Now, if he was willing to keep things quiet that affected the Kennedys, and perhaps others, based on how he was treated, why is it a stretch to assume he would keep other secrets quiet if he was treated right? This along with his own character flaws made JEH an easy man to control IMO.
Can any WC defender explain why a “dangerous organization” headed by a “psycho” was deciding for us who killed JFK so fast?
I think we again see evidence in this post that calls into question the conclusion of the WC because they were told the outcome before they even started and showed no interest or initiative to find answers and follow leads that did NOT point to the final outcome decided on BEFORE they even begun.
Thus, their conclusion is sunk.
www.archives.gov/files/publications/prologue/2017/fall/images/warren-commission.jpg
It is time for more questions the Warren Commission (WC) defenders can’t/won’t refute with evidence.
****************************************
(1) Why did the WC bother to “investigate” the murder of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) when the FBI had already reached a verdict on who did it?
If we go to the WC’s Executive Session for January 27, 1964, we will see this exchange.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/pages/WcEx0127_0047a.gif
Mr. Rankin. Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they [FBI] have no problem. They have decided that it is Oswald who committed the assassination, they have decided that no one else was involved, they have decided—
Sen. Russell. They have tried the case and reached a VERDICT ON EVERY ASPECT.
Rep. Boggs. You have put your finger on it.
Mr. McCloy. They are a little less certain in the supplementals then they were in the first.
Mr. Rankin. Yes, but they are still there. THEY HAVE DECIDED THE CASE, and we are going to have maybe a thousand further inquiries that we say the Commission has to know all these things before it can pass on this.
And I think their reaction would probably be, “Why do you want all that. IT IS CLEAR.” (WC Executive Session 1/27/64, p. 33) (Emphasis added)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0047a.htm
Quote off
Why did the WC even bother given this state of affairs? It is very clear from reading this that the FBI had already found LHO guilty and the WC had NOT even begun their “investigation” yet! Why would the WC just take the FBI’s word for it? Oh, that is right, because J. Edgar Hoover (JEH) was good people.
Quote on
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/pages/WcEx0127_0034a.gif
Sen. Russell. There is no man in the employ of the Federal Government who stands higher in the opinion of the American people than J. Edgar Hoover.
Mr. Dulles. That is right.
Sen. Russell. Of course, we can get an affidavit from Mr. Hoover and put it in this record and go on and act on that but if we didn’t go any further than that, and we don’t pursue it down to Hudkins [reporter of story saying LHO was a FBI agent] or whoever it is, there would still be thousands of doubting Thomases who would believe this man was an FBI agent and you just didn’t try to clear it up and you just took Hoover’s word.
Personally, I would BELIEVE J. Edgar Hoover, I have a great deal of confidence in him.
Mr. Dulles. I do, too.
Sen. Russell. But the other people—I would believe, a simple statement as Holy Writ, this one statement without being under oath, but you can’t try cases that way, and you can’t base the conclusions of this Commission on that kind of material. (Ibid, p. 20) (Emphasis added)
historymatters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0127/html/WcEx0127_0034a.htm
Quote off
It was nice that they had such confidence in JEH’s word, but he was dishonest while under oath before the WC. It also was not a matter of what Senator Russell and Allen Dulles thought, but rather a matter of conducting this investigation properly. We see however that from the beginning JEH was running the show.
Given this state of affairs, can any WC defender tell me why the WC even bothered to “investigate” these crimes? Or provide any evidence that shows the whole thing was not just a cover-up?
2) Why were LHO’s pubic hairs such a topic of discussion?
If we go to FBI Expert Paul Stombaugh’s WC testimony and do a search on “pubic hairs” we will see forty-three references to this topic? Why? It seems they were used to tie things to LHO. Here is an example.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what type of debris did you find, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found numerous foreign textile fibers of various types and colors, as well as a number of limb and pubic hairs.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you draw any conclusions as to those hairs upon your initial examination of them?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did. They all had originated from a person of the Caucasian race and I compared these hairs with hair samples obtained from Harvey Oswald----
Mr. EISENBERG. That is Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is, Lee Harvey Oswald, and I found that of the limb and pubic hairs I removed from the blanket, several matched Oswald's in all observable microscopic characteristics and could have originated from Oswald.
We see they were used, along with limb hairs, to try and match the blanket (Commission Exhibit (CE) 140) the alleged rifle, CE 139, was allegedly in when LHO allegedly took it on the morning of November 22, 1963. His mistake, if it was one, is intriguing as he says he compared the pubic hairs to "Harvey Oswald" and had to be corrected. Did he know there were TWO Oswalds? Just wondering. Also, you will note the usual "could have" game being played instead of a POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION being presented.
We were even given a comparison photograph showing the hair from the blanket to a known LHO pubic hair.
CE 672: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0178b.jpg
Mr. DULLES. That was taken from the blanket. The right-hand is taken from the blanket and the left-hand hairs were taken from Oswald himself?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; these are from Oswald.
Mr. DULLES. Yes.
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is a comparison shot. This photograph was taken through two microscopes simultaneously showing how this portion of a pubic hair from the blanket matched a pubic hair from Oswald, which is this portion of the photograph.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are pointing to the right side of the chart 672?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; this photograph was taken at 100 diameters and this photograph was taken at 400 diameters. There is a difference there also.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is Oswald's pubic hairs, a known sample?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; this is a general shot of his known sample.
Later on though Stombaugh made a startling comment (as startling as one can be when discussing pubic hairs) about LHO’s pubic hair.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you circle that with a pen, and mark it "A" on chart 672?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Here we see that it twists and it is very uneven. The shaft of the hair is generally very uneven in pubic hairs. However, in Oswald's pubic hairs we had very little of this. The hairs were very smooth. They lacked this nobbiness. The upper two-thirds were extremely smooth for pubic hairs. This was an unusual characteristic.
The tips of Oswald's pubic hairs were not worn. They had a very sharp tip and very clear. Ordinarily pubic hairs are rounded at the tips, and not pointed--this is from wearing against clothing -- at all. This would indicate to me that his pubic hairs were rather strong, much tougher than the average persons.
It would seem LHO had very “unusual” and “very strong” pubic hair. Again, this is what was used to supposedly match the blanket to LHO.
Mr. EISENBERG. You have been discussing the characteristics of Oswald's pubic hairs. In each case were the characteristics of the pubic hairs you found in the blanket the same as those you have noted as being present in Oswald's pubic hairs?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; they were all identical.
If this was LHO’s blanket, and that is still an if, then someone else also used it as Stombaugh said this later in his testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were there any characteristics in which they were not identical?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; not on the limb hair, as I found it matched. I did find limb hairs and pubic hairs and head hairs in this blanket which were dissimilar to Oswald's and definitely did not come from him but the hairs I have talked about here matched in all microscopical characteristics.
Mr. EISENBERG. The other hairs, Mr. Stombaugh, could you make a determination as to race?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; they were all Caucasian.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you make a determination as to sex or age?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; it is not possible to determine sex or age from an examination of a hair.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you make a determination as to the number of individuals who had contributed these hairs?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I couldn't. You would have to have a hair sample from any suspected person, and hairs vary tremendously. Even on the same individual head hairs from the same individual can vary from one head area to another.
Ah, here is a clue, why was Marina and her daughter June NOT tested to see if they matched these other hairs? That would have shown us if anyone else in the family used the blanket or if they came from someone outside the family. Despite the long discussion about pubic hairs the FBI could still NOT match the blanket to LHO via the pubic hair found on it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Stombaugh, are you able to say that the limb hairs and pubic hairs which you found in the blanket and which you have matched with Oswald's in observable microscopic characteristics came from Oswald to the exclusion of any other individual?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I couldn't say that. I could say that these hairs could have come from Oswald. I could not say they definitely came from him to the exclusion of all other Caucasian persons in the world.
In order to say this, one would have to take hair samples from all of these people and compare them and this, of course, is impossible.
Impossible, like all the WC’s attempts to make things tie in to LHO. Despite his answer the WC would try and make him give them a “probability” of the hairs having come from LHO. All this did was sink the WC’s attempt even more.
Mr. EISENBERG. What degree of probability do you think there is that these hairs came from Oswald? And without putting a precise number on it, let's suppose you took head hairs from 100 Caucasion individuals, how many matches would you expect to find among those hundred different hairs on the basis of your experience?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. On the basis of my experience I would expect to find only one match.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is to say that the 100 hairs would be different from each other?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is your experience, therefore, that the hairs of different individuals do not match in observable microscopic characteristics--within the basis of your experience?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Within the basis of my experience, I have examined thousands of hairs and I have never found Caucasian hairs from two different individuals that match.
Oops. This means the FACT they did NOT match to LHO shows the pubic hairs were NOT LHO’s, thus, the blanket was NOT used by LHO in all likelihood. This again shows the “could have” game of the WC is a waste of time. IF each person’s hair is unique and can be identified then the fact he could NOT identify the limb and pubic hairs found to be LHO’s then they were NOT his. All the fancy wording and game playing by the WC cannot change that.
Again we see LHO’s pubic hair is very unusual and you will see the importance of this in a moment.
Mr. STOMBAUGH. That is correct. Oswald's hairs, where the nobbiness did appear was in the lower third, in other words, the area from the root out on the shaft approximately one-third. The remaining two-thirds of the hair shaft all the way out to the tip was relatively straight, no nobbiness at all present. This was characteristic. Ordinarily a pubic hair will have this nobbiness two-thirds to three-fourths of the way up. So this was a characteristic which exists in Oswald's pubic hairs which is different from the ordinary or average.
Mr. DULLES. And you found that both on the hairs taken from Oswald himself and on the hairs found in the blanket?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; I did.
Since Stombaugh couldn’t identify the hairs allegedly found on CE 140 as LHO’s to the exclusion of everyone else, they were trying to find another way to show these were LHO’s. So they used “very different” characteristic of the pubic hair to try and show it was his.
You may be wondering why I even delved into this question, but the reason is when I was doing another post and looking at LHO’s autopsy report this jumped out at me.
Quote on
Hair distribution is normal. THE PUBIC AREA AS BEEN SHAVED. (LHO Autopsy Report) (Emphasis added)
texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337932/
Quote off
Since I doubt the folks at Parkland Hospital (PH) would bother to do this since he was NOT shot in the groin, who shaved LHO’s pubic area? Was it LHO himself? Some may say it was done at the autopsy, but why would they need to do this? And, if they did, why would they note it was shaved when they shaved it? In fact, if we check J.D. Tippit’s (JDT) autopsy notes we will NOT see this comment.
JDT's Autopsy Report:
texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338568/m1/1/
This shows the pubic area had been shaved prior to the autopsy. IF LHO had been shot in the lower abdomen I could see perhaps the staff at PH shaving this area, but he was shot high in the abdomen near the chest area. So what gives here?
Can any WC defender tell me if the hairs Stombaugh was given, and he did not know how they were collected, were LHO’s?
Mr. EISENBERG. Where did you get the known sample, Mr. Stombaugh, of Lee Oswald's hair?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. These were obtained and were sent to the laboratory by the FBI office in Dallas.
I do not know whether the agent in Dallas personally took the samples or had a member of the Dallas Police Department take the samples.
Given this poor chain of custody (in the other areas Stombaugh was able to say he took samples himself), how do we know these are truly samples of LHO’s?
Again, can any WC defender show me that the samples given to Stombaugh and claimed to be from LHO’s pubic region actually came from him? Also, can you explain when LHO’s pubic region was shaved and why?
3) Why did Senator Richard Russell and Allen Dulles have confidence in J. Edgar Hoover when Robert Kennedy thought he was “psycho?”
In Arthur Schlesinger’s book, Robert Kennedy And His Times, we see the following comments attributed to Robert F. Kennedy (RFK) regarding the FBI and JEH.
Quote on
Forty years later Anthony Lewis asked Robert Kennedy whether he thought Hoover a nasty person or truly dangerous. “No”, Kennedy replied. “I think he is dangerous.” (Interview with Anthony Lewis 1964)
“He’s rather a psycho,” he told John Bartlow Martin, “…I think it’s a very dangerous organization…and I think he’s…become senile and rather…frightening.” (Interview with John Bartlow Martin, 4/13/64 as cited in Robert Kennedy And His Times, by Arthur Schlesinger, p. 260; Also covered in Secrecy and Power, by Richard Powers, p. 397)
books.google.com/books?id=5L-EeG9djO4C&pg=PA260&lpg=PA260&dq=john+bartlow+martin+robert+kennedy+interview+hoover+psycho&source=bl&ots=_I2ygRvpgK&sig=hd8OnxlwXtJ3aQQyulOk_B5VpKQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MK7OU-elNoyiyATAwYG4Bw&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=john%20bartlow%20martin%20robert%20kennedy%20interview%20hoover%20psycho&f=false
Quote off
RFK worked with JEH on a much closer basis (he was his boss) than Senator Russell or Allen Dulles, thus, he had a much better idea of his character and methods. RFK mentioned that JEH constantly sent things to him about him or his family as a reminder that he had access to all the information. This implied to RFK that JEH was saying he could keep it quiet or not based on how he was treated. In other words, he was reminding the Kennedys who was really in charge.
Now, if he was willing to keep things quiet that affected the Kennedys, and perhaps others, based on how he was treated, why is it a stretch to assume he would keep other secrets quiet if he was treated right? This along with his own character flaws made JEH an easy man to control IMO.
Can any WC defender explain why a “dangerous organization” headed by a “psycho” was deciding for us who killed JFK so fast?
I think we again see evidence in this post that calls into question the conclusion of the WC because they were told the outcome before they even started and showed no interest or initiative to find answers and follow leads that did NOT point to the final outcome decided on BEFORE they even begun.
Thus, their conclusion is sunk.