Post by Rob Caprio on Apr 13, 2020 19:07:27 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 Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry give the alleged murder weapon, and all the other evidence, to the FBI when they had NO jurisdiction in the murder of President John F. Kennedy (JFK)?
I have covered this topic many times before in this series, but if we go to Commission Exhibit (CE) 2147 we will see Jesse Curry admit he handed over the rifle to the FBI when they had NO jurisdiction!
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0398b.gif
Q. What is the FBI office view on the rifle?
Curry. Well, you see there was an FBI agent [who] TOOK THE WEAPON FROM US so that we---see, we have to establish this continuous chain of possession, so in order not to have too many people in it we TURNED THIS WEAPON OVER to an FBI agent here in Dallas. He flew this to Washington and stayed with the evidence while they were examining the evidence, and then when they finished their examination he brought it back to Dallas and he will bring it back to us and return it to us. That way we will only have this---we’ll only have to establish that we gave him the evidence and he gave it back to us.
Q. Never out of his sight?
Curry. Never out of his sight.
Q. When do you expect to get it back?
Curry. Well, I say never out of his sight, and right now it’s in the vault, but I mean he can testify that it was in his possession all this time. (CE 2147--Press Conference of Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, November 23, 1963, KLRD-TV, Reel 15, p. 14)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0398b.htm
There is a lot to notice in this exchange. Firstly, notice how Curry said the FBI TOOK THE RIFLE FROM THEM, but then he quickly amended it to they GAVE THE RIFLE TO THE FBI. Curry was ordered to turn over everything to the FBI as this was NOT his idea since the FBI had NO jurisdiction in this murder. The killing of a president in 1963 was NOT a federal crime, thus, the FBI had no legal right to take anything. The same goes for the Secret Service (SS) who took the presidential limousine and the president’s body on November 22, 1963.
Mr. HUBERT - Do you remember anything about any FBI request coming to your attention indirectly that the FBI investigation would not be revealed?
Chief CURRY - What part of the investigation?
Mr. HUBERT - Any part. I mean was there any such communication, that you remember, at all from the FBI?
Chief CURRY - I had a lot of communications from local FBI who inferred that these orders were coming out of Washington, or the questions were coming out of Washington about various things, insisting that the evidence be shipped up there immediately, and the fact that we shouldn't show anything on television.
Secondly, this FBI agent (Vincent Drain) had NO jurisdiction to take the evidence to the bathroom in the Dallas Police Department (DPD) headquarters, let alone all the way to Washington, D.C. When evidence is given to someone with NO jurisdiction then the CHAIN OF POSSESSION OR CUSTODY is BROKEN and this means the evidence cannot be used in a court of law then since the defense team will just argue it could have been tampered with. Furthermore, Curry said the evidence was never out of the sight of FBI SA Drain, but then he said it was locked in a vault where Drain no longer had custody of it or could see it.
Chief Curry would say that the DPD had jurisdiction in his WC testimony.
Mr. DULLES - Another general question: Have you any comments or anything you would like to say about the cooperation between the Dallas police, the Secret Service, and the FBI during this period immediately following, prior to and immediately following the assassination?
Mr. CURRY - No, sir. We have always had the best of cooperation between both of these Federal units, and all other units of the Federal and State government. I feel sure that they thought this information was important to us, they probably would have given it to us. But we certainly have not had any trouble with the FBI or with the Secret Service in any of our past associations.
Mr. DULLES - Was there any problem created because of the possible not conflict of authority, but question as to who had responsibility of particular areas here as between you as chief of police and the Secret Service and the FBI?
Mr. CURRY - Now, subsequent to that, we felt this, that this was a murder that had been committed in the county, city and county of Dallas, and that we had prior, I mean we had jurisdiction over this. The FBI actually had no jurisdiction over it, the Secret Service actually had no jurisdiction over it. But in an effort to cooperate with these agencies we went all out to do whatever they wanted us to do that we could do to let them observe what was taking place, but actually we knew that this was a case that happened in Dallas, Tex., and would have to be tried in Dallas, Tex., and it was our responsibility to gather the evidence and present the evidence.
We kept getting calls from the FBI. They wanted this evidence up in Washington, in the laboratory, and there was some discussion, Fritz told me, he says, "Well, I need the evidence here, I need to get some people to try to identify the gun, to try to identify this pistol and these things, and if it is in Washington how can I do it?"
But we finally, the night, about midnight of Friday night, we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and when they were finished with it to return it to us.
This shows the DPD were bullied into releasing the evidence to a group, the FBI, who had NO jurisdiction in the crime, and thus, had NO right to the evidence. At this point the same result would be reached if the DPD had given the evidence to the Mafia. The SS also violated the law by taking the limousine and body of JFK at gunpoint. If the crime was truly the work of a lone gunman what was the rush to judgment that trampled on the law and ruined the evidence then?
We will see in the WC Report (WCR) that the FBI and SS had NO legal jurisdiction too IF a lone gunman was the culprit.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0239b.gif
There was NO Federal criminal jurisdiction over the assassination of President Kennedy. Had there been reason to believe that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy, Federal jurisdiction could have been asserted; it long has been a Federal law to conspire to injure any Federal officer, on account of, or while he is engaged in, the lawful discharge of the duties of his office. Murder of a President has NEVER been covered by Federal law, however, so that once it became reasonably clear that the killing was an act of a single person, the state of Texas had EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction.” (WCR, p.454) (Emphasis mine)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0239b.htm
Quote off
This shows us IF Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) acted alone and the FBI and SS in Washington, D.C. believed this then they VIOLATED THE LAW by taking all the evidence on November 22 and November 23, 1963. However, IF they believed a CONSPIRACY was involved in the murder of JFK then they had the right to take all the evidence since this entered their area of jurisdiction.
Their actions leave us with ONLY two conclusions and they BOTH point to a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK. Firstly, they believed a conspiracy was involved, and secondly, they enacted a COVER-UP to hide the fact a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK. There is NO reason for them to act like this IF they believed JFK was murdered by a lone gunman as claimed. This one point shows us a conspiracy took place in the assassination of JFK.
The above quoted passage of the WCR also shows that Texas had the sole legal jurisdiction of the crime IF a single person was involved. This means the following:
(1) If the FBI and SS thought a conspiracy was involved in the murder of JFK on the day of November 22, 1963, then they would have been justified in taking the evidence;
(2) However, since LHO was pronounced guilty by no later than 11:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963 of killing JFK all alone, they had neither the right to demand the evidence or they had legal obligation to RETURN what they took (i.e. limousine and body of JFK)!
And yet, we saw they did neither. Why NOT? Allen Dulles would ask this question of Chief Curry regarding who took the evidence and who accompanied it to Washington, D.C.
Mr. CURRY - …But we finally, the night, about midnight of Friday night, we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and when they were finished with it to return it to us.
Mr. DULLES - An agent of the police force, you mean?
Mr. CURRY - An agent of the FBI.
Mr. DULLES - FBI?
Mr. CURRY - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - There was no agent of the Dallas police that went to Washington with the evidence?
Mr. CURRY - Not to my knowledge.
This says it all! He said about “midnight of Friday night…we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence…”, but as I just said it was determined at 11:30 p.m. that LHO was the SOLE KILLER of JFK, thus, based on what the WC itself wrote the FBI was NOT ENTITLED to the evidence in accordance with the law! To add insult to injury, the DPD then sent the evidence the FBI had NO legal right to without anyone from the jurisdiction with legal right (i.e. city of Dallas and state of Texas) accompanying it! The state of Texas just sunk their entire case with this action as the chain of possession/custody was broken for every piece of evidence. Then add in the fact that the FBI did NOT return all the evidence and changed some (i.e. Minox camera became a “light meter”) and you have NO credible expectation of the courts of Texas accepting any of this.
The only reason they would do this IMO is that they knew NO trial would be taking place anyway. Otherwise, they would have been committing suicide as LHO would have walked on both charges.
Can anyone tell me why the DPD would give evidence to a group that had NO jurisdiction in the crime, and thus, destroy their own chances at a trial? Also, if you don’t believe that the FBI and SS acted the way they did because they thought the crime was committed by a conspiracy (then they would have acted accordingly) then explain why they would have done this if they thought the crime was committed by one person. Surely, they knew this was NOT a legal way to handle things.
[Note: President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) would give the FBI and SS jurisdiction legally on November 26, 1963, when he signed a presidential decree making them in charge of this murder. Why did they just NOT wait until then to take the evidence? What was the rush? Or conversely, why did NOT LBJ not issue this decree sooner?]
2) Why did WC FBI Expert Robert Frazier say a bullet fragment NOT seen by Secret Service (SS) Agent Roy Kellerman caused the dent in the windshield chrome frame? Also, which bullet did this fragment come from?
When Robert Frazier was asked about the dent to the windshield chrome he said a fragment from the head shot could have caused it. He said the dent could have been caused by one of the two fragments found in the limousine (but NOT seen by the man sitting in the front passenger seat -- Roy Kellerman).
Mr. DULLES - I wonder if I could go back just a moment to the indentation in the chrome around the windshield at the top of the windshield, but on the inside, could that have been caused by a fragment of a bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it very easily could have. It would not have been caused, for instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its full velocity from a rifle, but merely from a fragment traveling at fairly high velocity which struck the inside surface of the chrome.
Mr. DULLES - Could that have been caused by any of the fragments that you have identified as having been found on the front seat or near the front seat of the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I believe it could have by either, in fact, of the two fragments of rifle bullets found in the front seat.
How could this be when SS Agent Roy Kellerman said he did NOT even see any bullet fragments and he was sitting in the front passenger seat?
Mr. SPECTER. But aside from the portions of President Kennedy's head which you have already testified about, you observed nothing detectable as being bullet fragments or bullets?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Richocheting off any part of the car?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And did you ever observe any bullet fragments in the car at rest after the shooting?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
So how could a bullet fragment cause the dent in the chrome of the windshield guard and land at Agent Kellerman’s feet again?
Also, why was Frazier unable to say which bullet the fragments came from OR if they came from the same bullet?
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0051a.gif
All these bullet fragments were found to be SIMILAR in metallic composition, but it was NOT POSSIBLE to determine whether two or more of the fragments CAME FROM THE SAME BULLET. It is possible for the fragments from the front seat to have been a part of the same bullet as the three fragments found near the left jump seat, since a whole bullet of this type weighs 160-161 grains. (WCR, p. 77) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0051a.htm
Quote off
Notice the trickery of the WC here as they say “All these bullet fragments were found to be similar in metallic composition…”, but that means they were NOT a match since SIMILAR is NOT what you are looking for in a scientific test. You are looking for IDENTICAL and they admit themselves these fragments did NOT match when they said, “…but it was NOT POSSIBLE to determine whether two or more fragments came from the same bullet.” Supposedly, this was the WHOLE PURPOSE of Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) to do this kind of testing and comparison. This opens the door for more than three bullets being involved since they could NOT show all these fragments were limited to the head shot bullet since this was the ONLY one that all of these fragments could have come from. Why?
Well, the one shot MISSED THE LIMOUSINE COMPLETELY, thus, it could NOT leave fragments of itself in the limousine. The other non-fatal shot that supposedly went through both JFK and Governor John B. Connally (JBC) is missing at most 3 or 4 grains so there is NO way the bullet fragments allegedly found near the front passenger seat could have come from that as one weighed 44.6 grains and the other weighed 21 grains. The issue now is, can the WC show that the head shot broke into this many pieces and all the pieces that they found came from the SAME BULLET?
CE 567: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0141b.jpg
CE 569: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0142a.jpg
Robert Frazier would say he was UNABLE to determine if these two fragments came from the same bullet or not in his WC testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together. However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that they could be parts of one.
I would be challenged on this by a supposed CTer named Ben Holmes on the board “ACJ” and he would employ the same tactics that would make people like Bill Brown so proud and happy. He took the stance just because the FBI could NOT show these two fragments did NOT come from the same bullet did NOT mean they did NOT! He would argue for many months that it was possible they did come from the same bullet and even went so far as to say “the odds favored it.” The point is that NAA was SUPPOSED to make this identification according to the FBI as this was their new “wonder weapon” in crime fighting, but even with that, they could NOT show these fragments all came from the same bullet. This would mean a fourth shot was fired that day as the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) said in 1979.
When you have the BURDEN OF PROOF, as the WC had and a prosecutor would have had, the “could have”, “might have” and “possibly” arguments are NOT good enough. If we used the WC standard NOTHING would be eliminated since no matter what the results were (usually NEGATIVE for the WC’s claims) they would still say, “It could have happened the way we said anyway.”
Ben Holmes said this and seemed to fail to comprehend that this was a DOUBLE MURDER case and not some hobby he was discussing at his local McDonalds.
Quote on
You don't seem to understand just what is happening here... let's imagine a bullet ... lengthen it out to a pencil.
The 'pencil' is now the object that struck JFK's head.
All that's left is the sharpened end of the pencil - one inch worth...and the eraser connected to one inch of the wood pencil.
So all we have is two one-inch pieces of the original 8-inch pencil...
It is now IMPOSSIBLE to state authoritatively, that the two pieces once formed the same pencil.
If, on the other hand, the pencil was broken along its axis, such that a sliver of wood from the eraser side can be matched to a vacant spot on the sharpened end of the pencil - THERE WOULD BE THE INDISPUTABLE PROOF THAT THE TWO PIECES INDEED WERE ORIGINALLY FROM THE SAME PENCIL.
Both Frazier and Nicols were making this point. You seem to believe that this means that there *MUST HAVE BEEN* two bullets.
That's simply not true. Being unable to prove that the two pieces of pencil were originally *one* pencil DOES NOT PROVE THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN TWO PENCILS.
Just how difficult is this to understand? (Ben Holmes, 11/28/07)
Quote off
Based on his innocuous and UNRELATED analogy I was having trouble understanding according to him. Why? Because bullets are made of lead and other metals that NAA was supposed to be able to test and determine if they came from the SAME SOURCE or not. Who has created the same test for a number 2 pencil? He also couldn’t comprehend (or was not there to comprehend) that in a court of law or a legal procession you can’t claim something is possible when YOU can’t show it is. The FBI had their normal ballistic tests and NAA and still could NOT SAY the fragments came from the SAME BULLET. Game over. But not for Ben Holmes and WC defenders as they simply use the “could have” card. His last statement is classic as in a court of law or a legal procession IF I said the fragments came from ONE bullet and then UTTERLY FAILED TO SUPPORT THAT by showing they did then of course I would expect others to think they came from more than one bullet since I failed to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that they came from one bullet. Heck, in this case the WC failed to prove beyond the smallest doubt since they did NOT show the fragments DID COME FROM ONE BULLET. This alone sinks the WC’s whole conclusion and that is why WC defenders (and some posing as CTers IMO) fight this point so hard.
My response to the quote above by Ben Holmes was this.
Quote on
Not at all, you are saying you can't prove the two pieces came from one pencil, but you are also saying you can't say they are from two pencils. So what are you saying? You have to reach a conclusion. Either both fragments come from the same source or they don't. Period.
Quote off
This reminds me of the Eddy Benavides discussion where Bill Brown insisted that he and his brother Domingo Benavides may NOT have looked alike, but also admitted he was not sure as they could have looked alike! It is the SAME argument used over and over again by some people.
Scientific tests are meant to CONCLUDE with a result. NO case would ever go to court relying on the “inconclusive” result (which is the way the WC hid the NEGATIVE result) as much as the WC did. That is simply the truth.
More dishonesty came from Ben Holmes as he tried to claim that a mythical “middle part” of the bullet weighing something like 96 grains could have caused the dent in the chrome so even if CE 567 or CE 569 could NOT have done it the same bullet doing it was still possible.
Quote on
161-(44+21)=96
A fragment as large as 96 grains - or more than TWICE the size of the two remaining fragments - could have hit the chrome and bounced out of the limo. (obviously, I'm not accounting for the smaller fragments - but this would not make a huge difference to the 96 grain size)
So not only did Frazier SPECIFICALLY state that either of the two larger fragments, 44 & 21 grain fragments, could have caused the chrome damage, you can't handle the basic math to realize that if you needed something bigger – IT WAS THERE. (Ben Holmes, 11/28/07)
Quote off
Where was it? The mythical “middle part” is NOT in the evidence as far as I know. Also, the whole “middle part” was an invention of Ben Holmes since he kept claiming CE 567 and CE 569 could have come from the SAME BULLET, but this was NEVER supported with a scientific test as the ONLY determination reached is that they COULD NOT BE SHOWN TO HAVE COME FROM THE SAME BULLET. The funny thing is Robert Frazier NEVER mentioned this mythical “middle part” either as the WCR wrote the following about this issue.
Quote on
Although there is some uncertainty whether the dent in the chrome on the windshield was present prior to the assassination, Frazier testified to the dent “had been caused by some projectile which struck the chrome on the inside surface.” If it was caused by a shot during the assassination, Frazier stated that it would not have been caused by a bullet traveling at full velocity, but rather by a fragment traveling at a “fairly high velocity.” It could have been caused by either fragment found in the front seat of the limousine. (Ibid.)
Quote off
There is NO mention of a “middle part” possibly causing this damage as Ben Holmes alluded to in order to save the WC’s precarious position IMO.
The bottom line is that SS Agent Kellerman testified to seeing NO bullet fragments at his feet and there is NO chain of custody for them. FBI Expert Robert Frazier never showed if a bullet fragment caused the damage to the chrome in the windshield frame or not so when we consider the evidence, we see the possibility of more than three shots is very likely since the FBI and WC failed to show the limousine fragments all came from the SAME bullet.
Can anyone answer these questions and provide evidence to help the WC and FBI (and Ben Holmes) out?
(3) Based on this testimony by FBI Expert Paul Stombaugh (hair and fiber expert), how could he find fibers from the shirt worn by LHO on November 22, 1963, AND fibers from the blanket that the rifle was allegedly wrapped in on the alleged murder weapon (CE 139)?
It should be noted right away that LHO said he changed shirts when he went to his rooming house (and this is supported by the FBI) around 1:00 p.m. so this would mean the shirt he was arrested in was NOT the shirt he was wearing at work, but let’s put that aside at this time.
Here is some testimony from Stombaugh that got me thinking.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you made that examination?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. The gun was to be treated for latent fingerprints also, so I wore a pair of white cotton gloves to protect any latents that might be present on the gun. I placed the gun under a low-powered microscope and examined the gun from the end of the barrel to the end of the stock, removing what fibers I could find from crevices adhering to the gun.
I noticed immediately upon receiving the gun that this gun had been dusted for latent fingerprints prior to my receiving it. Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun; it was pretty well dusted off, and at the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if there would be any fibers adhering to the outside of this gun--I possibly might find some in a crevice some place--because when the latent fingerprint man dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use a little brush to dust with they would have dusted any fibers off the gun at the same time; so this I noted before I ever started to really examine the gun.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you unhappy at all about that?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I was; however, it is not uncommon for fingerprint processing to be given priority consideration. They wanted to know whether or not the gun contained any fibers to show that it had been stored in this blanket, and with all the obstructions and the crevices on the metal parts of this gun, ordinarily a fiber would adhere pretty well, unless you take a brush and brush it off, and then you brush it on the floor and it is lost.
Mr. EISENBERG. Who was "they," you said "they" wanted to know?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is our Dallas office. They sent the gun in wanting to know this fact.
Based on this testimony it seems the rifle was “brushed for prints” and this would knock any fibers on the rifle loose. He even said this, “…with all the obstructions and the crevices on the metal parts of this gun, ordinarily a fiber would adhere pretty well, UNLESS YOU TAKE A BRUSH AND BRUSH IT OFF, and then you brush it on the floor and it is lost.” Despite the rifle being dusted with a brush pretty thoroughly we are asked to believe there were still fibers found on it in the butt plate!
Mr. EISENBERG. Let's get that a little more specific if we can. Can you point to that again?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. In this area, the butt plate of the stock, this is a metal butt plate, you can see the jagged edge on it.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is on the left side of the butt plate?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. It is on the left side; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. In approximately in the middle there is a jagged edge, jagged inside edge, where the butt plate comes into contact with the wood, is that what you are referring to?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; there is a jagged edge there. This area right here, according to my notes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed. These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide, and marked this particular slide "No. 2," because this little group of fibers--little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh.
The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old.
You can look at a fiber and tell whether it has been beaten around or exposed much. These appeared to be fairly fresh.
Notice how he said the remaining fibers on the gun that managed to survive the brushing were either adhering to a “greasy, oily deposit” or jammed into a crevice and were dirty and apparently very old. I have to ask again, if the gun was this OILY why was NO oil found on the alleged bag it was carried in earlier in the morning of November 22, 1963? We are asked to believe that the person dusting this rifle with a brush did NOT knock the fibers off the butt plate so they could be found by Stombaugh when he had said it was customary for the fibers to be knocked loose. Is this just another coincidence? These few fresh fibers were linked to the blanket the rifle was allegedly wrapped in, but Stombaugh said all other fibers were older and could have been there for some time.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, returning once more to this question of freshness. Would you say they had been placed there within 1 hour, or 1 day, or 1 week of the time when you received the rifle or longer?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I couldn't say in that regard to any period of time. I refer, by saying they appeared fresh, to the fact that the other fibers I removed from this gun were greasy, mashed, and broken, where these were fairly good long fibers. They were not dirty, with the exception of a little bit of fingerprint powder on them which I cleaned off, and the color was good. They were in good shape, not fragmented. They could conceivably have been put on 10 years ago and then the gun put aside and remain the same. Dust would have settled on them, would have changed their color a little bit, but as far as when they got on the gun, I wouldn't be able to say. This would just be speculation on my part.
This shows the "fresh" fibers could have been put on the rifle a month before or more since he could NOT say they were put there that day as the WC wanted. This again shows the WC had NO evidence for their claims.
Only one set of fibers that were of value were found, and he would say this later on regarding what they were from in his opinion.
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.
Mr. EISENBERG. What does that mean?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I removed fibers from the shirt to determine the composition of it and also the colors. I found that the shirt was composed of dark-blue, grayish-black, and orangish-yellow cotton fibers, and that these were the same shades of fibers I had found on the butt plate of the gun.
Mr. DULLES. Did you find all three shades?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. All three shades; yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. All three shades were found on the fragments that were found in the butt of the gun?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. On the basis of these examinations, did you draw a conclusion as to the probability of the cotton fibers found in the butt plate having come from the shirt pictured in Exhibit 673?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; it was my opinion that these fibers could easily have come from the shirt…. [but] 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."
CE 673: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0178b.jpg
This shows us the ONLY fresh and valuable fibers found, based on Stombaugh’s testimony, where for the shirt LHO was likely NOT even wearing at the time of the assassination! Is this just another coincidence? Furthermore, this could NOT be proven since he could NOT "positively state" that the fibers came from that shirt to the exclusion of all other similar shirts.
Can any WC defender tell me why the ONLY fresh and valuable fibers found on the alleged murder weapon matched the colors of a shirt LHO was possibly NOT even wearing at the time of the assassination? Furthermore, can you explain why the WC and its defenders claim the fibers found on the gun matched the blanket (CE 140) when there were NO fibers to match according to this testimony? He would even admit that no fibers from the blanket were found on the gun in this testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I asked you a hypothetical question before concerning whether the rifle could have been a mechanism for transferring fibers from the blanket into the paper bag, and as I recall you said it could have. Now, is it inconsistent with that answer that no fibers were found on the gun which matched the fibers in the blanket[/i]?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; because the gun was dusted for fingerprints and any fibers that were loosely adhering to it could have been dusted off.
The only reason, I feel, that these fibers remained on the butt plate is because they were pulled from the fabric by the jagged edge and adhered to the gun and then the fingerprint examiner with his brush, I feel, when brushing and dusting this butt plate, stroked them down into that crevice where they couldn't be knocked off. In time these fibers would have undoubtedly become dislodged and fallen off the gun.
So the ONLY viable fibers found “could have” come from a shirt LHO was NOT wearing at the time of the assassination! But, NO WC defender, can claim blanket fibers were also found on the rifle. The WC would try and get around this issue by claiming the fibers on the rifle from the blanket fell off when it was put in the alleged bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, let me ask you a hypothetical question, Mr. Stombaugh. First, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139, which consists of a rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I ask you, if the rifle had lain in the blanket, which is 140, and were then put inside the bag, 142, could it have picked up fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.
Hypothetical indeed, as this was ALL the WC had to work with once again. WC defenders need to stop claiming that blanket and shirt fibers were found on the rifle or in the bag as neither is true since NO positive match was ever made for these claims.
Once again we see ample evidence that shows the WC’s conclusions are false, thus, they are sunk again.
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 Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry give the alleged murder weapon, and all the other evidence, to the FBI when they had NO jurisdiction in the murder of President John F. Kennedy (JFK)?
I have covered this topic many times before in this series, but if we go to Commission Exhibit (CE) 2147 we will see Jesse Curry admit he handed over the rifle to the FBI when they had NO jurisdiction!
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pages/WH_Vol24_0398b.gif
Q. What is the FBI office view on the rifle?
Curry. Well, you see there was an FBI agent [who] TOOK THE WEAPON FROM US so that we---see, we have to establish this continuous chain of possession, so in order not to have too many people in it we TURNED THIS WEAPON OVER to an FBI agent here in Dallas. He flew this to Washington and stayed with the evidence while they were examining the evidence, and then when they finished their examination he brought it back to Dallas and he will bring it back to us and return it to us. That way we will only have this---we’ll only have to establish that we gave him the evidence and he gave it back to us.
Q. Never out of his sight?
Curry. Never out of his sight.
Q. When do you expect to get it back?
Curry. Well, I say never out of his sight, and right now it’s in the vault, but I mean he can testify that it was in his possession all this time. (CE 2147--Press Conference of Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, November 23, 1963, KLRD-TV, Reel 15, p. 14)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0398b.htm
There is a lot to notice in this exchange. Firstly, notice how Curry said the FBI TOOK THE RIFLE FROM THEM, but then he quickly amended it to they GAVE THE RIFLE TO THE FBI. Curry was ordered to turn over everything to the FBI as this was NOT his idea since the FBI had NO jurisdiction in this murder. The killing of a president in 1963 was NOT a federal crime, thus, the FBI had no legal right to take anything. The same goes for the Secret Service (SS) who took the presidential limousine and the president’s body on November 22, 1963.
Mr. HUBERT - Do you remember anything about any FBI request coming to your attention indirectly that the FBI investigation would not be revealed?
Chief CURRY - What part of the investigation?
Mr. HUBERT - Any part. I mean was there any such communication, that you remember, at all from the FBI?
Chief CURRY - I had a lot of communications from local FBI who inferred that these orders were coming out of Washington, or the questions were coming out of Washington about various things, insisting that the evidence be shipped up there immediately, and the fact that we shouldn't show anything on television.
Secondly, this FBI agent (Vincent Drain) had NO jurisdiction to take the evidence to the bathroom in the Dallas Police Department (DPD) headquarters, let alone all the way to Washington, D.C. When evidence is given to someone with NO jurisdiction then the CHAIN OF POSSESSION OR CUSTODY is BROKEN and this means the evidence cannot be used in a court of law then since the defense team will just argue it could have been tampered with. Furthermore, Curry said the evidence was never out of the sight of FBI SA Drain, but then he said it was locked in a vault where Drain no longer had custody of it or could see it.
Chief Curry would say that the DPD had jurisdiction in his WC testimony.
Mr. DULLES - Another general question: Have you any comments or anything you would like to say about the cooperation between the Dallas police, the Secret Service, and the FBI during this period immediately following, prior to and immediately following the assassination?
Mr. CURRY - No, sir. We have always had the best of cooperation between both of these Federal units, and all other units of the Federal and State government. I feel sure that they thought this information was important to us, they probably would have given it to us. But we certainly have not had any trouble with the FBI or with the Secret Service in any of our past associations.
Mr. DULLES - Was there any problem created because of the possible not conflict of authority, but question as to who had responsibility of particular areas here as between you as chief of police and the Secret Service and the FBI?
Mr. CURRY - Now, subsequent to that, we felt this, that this was a murder that had been committed in the county, city and county of Dallas, and that we had prior, I mean we had jurisdiction over this. The FBI actually had no jurisdiction over it, the Secret Service actually had no jurisdiction over it. But in an effort to cooperate with these agencies we went all out to do whatever they wanted us to do that we could do to let them observe what was taking place, but actually we knew that this was a case that happened in Dallas, Tex., and would have to be tried in Dallas, Tex., and it was our responsibility to gather the evidence and present the evidence.
We kept getting calls from the FBI. They wanted this evidence up in Washington, in the laboratory, and there was some discussion, Fritz told me, he says, "Well, I need the evidence here, I need to get some people to try to identify the gun, to try to identify this pistol and these things, and if it is in Washington how can I do it?"
But we finally, the night, about midnight of Friday night, we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and when they were finished with it to return it to us.
This shows the DPD were bullied into releasing the evidence to a group, the FBI, who had NO jurisdiction in the crime, and thus, had NO right to the evidence. At this point the same result would be reached if the DPD had given the evidence to the Mafia. The SS also violated the law by taking the limousine and body of JFK at gunpoint. If the crime was truly the work of a lone gunman what was the rush to judgment that trampled on the law and ruined the evidence then?
We will see in the WC Report (WCR) that the FBI and SS had NO legal jurisdiction too IF a lone gunman was the culprit.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0239b.gif
There was NO Federal criminal jurisdiction over the assassination of President Kennedy. Had there been reason to believe that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy, Federal jurisdiction could have been asserted; it long has been a Federal law to conspire to injure any Federal officer, on account of, or while he is engaged in, the lawful discharge of the duties of his office. Murder of a President has NEVER been covered by Federal law, however, so that once it became reasonably clear that the killing was an act of a single person, the state of Texas had EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction.” (WCR, p.454) (Emphasis mine)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0239b.htm
Quote off
This shows us IF Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) acted alone and the FBI and SS in Washington, D.C. believed this then they VIOLATED THE LAW by taking all the evidence on November 22 and November 23, 1963. However, IF they believed a CONSPIRACY was involved in the murder of JFK then they had the right to take all the evidence since this entered their area of jurisdiction.
Their actions leave us with ONLY two conclusions and they BOTH point to a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK. Firstly, they believed a conspiracy was involved, and secondly, they enacted a COVER-UP to hide the fact a conspiracy was involved in the assassination of JFK. There is NO reason for them to act like this IF they believed JFK was murdered by a lone gunman as claimed. This one point shows us a conspiracy took place in the assassination of JFK.
The above quoted passage of the WCR also shows that Texas had the sole legal jurisdiction of the crime IF a single person was involved. This means the following:
(1) If the FBI and SS thought a conspiracy was involved in the murder of JFK on the day of November 22, 1963, then they would have been justified in taking the evidence;
(2) However, since LHO was pronounced guilty by no later than 11:30 p.m. on November 22, 1963 of killing JFK all alone, they had neither the right to demand the evidence or they had legal obligation to RETURN what they took (i.e. limousine and body of JFK)!
And yet, we saw they did neither. Why NOT? Allen Dulles would ask this question of Chief Curry regarding who took the evidence and who accompanied it to Washington, D.C.
Mr. CURRY - …But we finally, the night, about midnight of Friday night, we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they said they would bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and when they were finished with it to return it to us.
Mr. DULLES - An agent of the police force, you mean?
Mr. CURRY - An agent of the FBI.
Mr. DULLES - FBI?
Mr. CURRY - Yes.
Mr. DULLES - There was no agent of the Dallas police that went to Washington with the evidence?
Mr. CURRY - Not to my knowledge.
This says it all! He said about “midnight of Friday night…we agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence…”, but as I just said it was determined at 11:30 p.m. that LHO was the SOLE KILLER of JFK, thus, based on what the WC itself wrote the FBI was NOT ENTITLED to the evidence in accordance with the law! To add insult to injury, the DPD then sent the evidence the FBI had NO legal right to without anyone from the jurisdiction with legal right (i.e. city of Dallas and state of Texas) accompanying it! The state of Texas just sunk their entire case with this action as the chain of possession/custody was broken for every piece of evidence. Then add in the fact that the FBI did NOT return all the evidence and changed some (i.e. Minox camera became a “light meter”) and you have NO credible expectation of the courts of Texas accepting any of this.
The only reason they would do this IMO is that they knew NO trial would be taking place anyway. Otherwise, they would have been committing suicide as LHO would have walked on both charges.
Can anyone tell me why the DPD would give evidence to a group that had NO jurisdiction in the crime, and thus, destroy their own chances at a trial? Also, if you don’t believe that the FBI and SS acted the way they did because they thought the crime was committed by a conspiracy (then they would have acted accordingly) then explain why they would have done this if they thought the crime was committed by one person. Surely, they knew this was NOT a legal way to handle things.
[Note: President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) would give the FBI and SS jurisdiction legally on November 26, 1963, when he signed a presidential decree making them in charge of this murder. Why did they just NOT wait until then to take the evidence? What was the rush? Or conversely, why did NOT LBJ not issue this decree sooner?]
2) Why did WC FBI Expert Robert Frazier say a bullet fragment NOT seen by Secret Service (SS) Agent Roy Kellerman caused the dent in the windshield chrome frame? Also, which bullet did this fragment come from?
When Robert Frazier was asked about the dent to the windshield chrome he said a fragment from the head shot could have caused it. He said the dent could have been caused by one of the two fragments found in the limousine (but NOT seen by the man sitting in the front passenger seat -- Roy Kellerman).
Mr. DULLES - I wonder if I could go back just a moment to the indentation in the chrome around the windshield at the top of the windshield, but on the inside, could that have been caused by a fragment of a bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, it very easily could have. It would not have been caused, for instance, by a bullet which was traveling at its full velocity from a rifle, but merely from a fragment traveling at fairly high velocity which struck the inside surface of the chrome.
Mr. DULLES - Could that have been caused by any of the fragments that you have identified as having been found on the front seat or near the front seat of the car?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes; I believe it could have by either, in fact, of the two fragments of rifle bullets found in the front seat.
How could this be when SS Agent Roy Kellerman said he did NOT even see any bullet fragments and he was sitting in the front passenger seat?
Mr. SPECTER. But aside from the portions of President Kennedy's head which you have already testified about, you observed nothing detectable as being bullet fragments or bullets?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Richocheting off any part of the car?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And did you ever observe any bullet fragments in the car at rest after the shooting?
Mr. KELLERMAN. No, sir.
So how could a bullet fragment cause the dent in the chrome of the windshield guard and land at Agent Kellerman’s feet again?
Also, why was Frazier unable to say which bullet the fragments came from OR if they came from the same bullet?
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0051a.gif
All these bullet fragments were found to be SIMILAR in metallic composition, but it was NOT POSSIBLE to determine whether two or more of the fragments CAME FROM THE SAME BULLET. It is possible for the fragments from the front seat to have been a part of the same bullet as the three fragments found near the left jump seat, since a whole bullet of this type weighs 160-161 grains. (WCR, p. 77) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0051a.htm
Quote off
Notice the trickery of the WC here as they say “All these bullet fragments were found to be similar in metallic composition…”, but that means they were NOT a match since SIMILAR is NOT what you are looking for in a scientific test. You are looking for IDENTICAL and they admit themselves these fragments did NOT match when they said, “…but it was NOT POSSIBLE to determine whether two or more fragments came from the same bullet.” Supposedly, this was the WHOLE PURPOSE of Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) to do this kind of testing and comparison. This opens the door for more than three bullets being involved since they could NOT show all these fragments were limited to the head shot bullet since this was the ONLY one that all of these fragments could have come from. Why?
Well, the one shot MISSED THE LIMOUSINE COMPLETELY, thus, it could NOT leave fragments of itself in the limousine. The other non-fatal shot that supposedly went through both JFK and Governor John B. Connally (JBC) is missing at most 3 or 4 grains so there is NO way the bullet fragments allegedly found near the front passenger seat could have come from that as one weighed 44.6 grains and the other weighed 21 grains. The issue now is, can the WC show that the head shot broke into this many pieces and all the pieces that they found came from the SAME BULLET?
CE 567: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0141b.jpg
CE 569: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0142a.jpg
Robert Frazier would say he was UNABLE to determine if these two fragments came from the same bullet or not in his WC testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG - Can you determine whether this bullet fragment, 567; and 569 are portions of the originally same bullet?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - You cannot?
Mr. FRAZIER - There is not enough of the two fragments in unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together. However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that they could be parts of one.
I would be challenged on this by a supposed CTer named Ben Holmes on the board “ACJ” and he would employ the same tactics that would make people like Bill Brown so proud and happy. He took the stance just because the FBI could NOT show these two fragments did NOT come from the same bullet did NOT mean they did NOT! He would argue for many months that it was possible they did come from the same bullet and even went so far as to say “the odds favored it.” The point is that NAA was SUPPOSED to make this identification according to the FBI as this was their new “wonder weapon” in crime fighting, but even with that, they could NOT show these fragments all came from the same bullet. This would mean a fourth shot was fired that day as the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) said in 1979.
When you have the BURDEN OF PROOF, as the WC had and a prosecutor would have had, the “could have”, “might have” and “possibly” arguments are NOT good enough. If we used the WC standard NOTHING would be eliminated since no matter what the results were (usually NEGATIVE for the WC’s claims) they would still say, “It could have happened the way we said anyway.”
Ben Holmes said this and seemed to fail to comprehend that this was a DOUBLE MURDER case and not some hobby he was discussing at his local McDonalds.
Quote on
You don't seem to understand just what is happening here... let's imagine a bullet ... lengthen it out to a pencil.
The 'pencil' is now the object that struck JFK's head.
All that's left is the sharpened end of the pencil - one inch worth...and the eraser connected to one inch of the wood pencil.
So all we have is two one-inch pieces of the original 8-inch pencil...
It is now IMPOSSIBLE to state authoritatively, that the two pieces once formed the same pencil.
If, on the other hand, the pencil was broken along its axis, such that a sliver of wood from the eraser side can be matched to a vacant spot on the sharpened end of the pencil - THERE WOULD BE THE INDISPUTABLE PROOF THAT THE TWO PIECES INDEED WERE ORIGINALLY FROM THE SAME PENCIL.
Both Frazier and Nicols were making this point. You seem to believe that this means that there *MUST HAVE BEEN* two bullets.
That's simply not true. Being unable to prove that the two pieces of pencil were originally *one* pencil DOES NOT PROVE THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN TWO PENCILS.
Just how difficult is this to understand? (Ben Holmes, 11/28/07)
Quote off
Based on his innocuous and UNRELATED analogy I was having trouble understanding according to him. Why? Because bullets are made of lead and other metals that NAA was supposed to be able to test and determine if they came from the SAME SOURCE or not. Who has created the same test for a number 2 pencil? He also couldn’t comprehend (or was not there to comprehend) that in a court of law or a legal procession you can’t claim something is possible when YOU can’t show it is. The FBI had their normal ballistic tests and NAA and still could NOT SAY the fragments came from the SAME BULLET. Game over. But not for Ben Holmes and WC defenders as they simply use the “could have” card. His last statement is classic as in a court of law or a legal procession IF I said the fragments came from ONE bullet and then UTTERLY FAILED TO SUPPORT THAT by showing they did then of course I would expect others to think they came from more than one bullet since I failed to PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that they came from one bullet. Heck, in this case the WC failed to prove beyond the smallest doubt since they did NOT show the fragments DID COME FROM ONE BULLET. This alone sinks the WC’s whole conclusion and that is why WC defenders (and some posing as CTers IMO) fight this point so hard.
My response to the quote above by Ben Holmes was this.
Quote on
Not at all, you are saying you can't prove the two pieces came from one pencil, but you are also saying you can't say they are from two pencils. So what are you saying? You have to reach a conclusion. Either both fragments come from the same source or they don't. Period.
Quote off
This reminds me of the Eddy Benavides discussion where Bill Brown insisted that he and his brother Domingo Benavides may NOT have looked alike, but also admitted he was not sure as they could have looked alike! It is the SAME argument used over and over again by some people.
Scientific tests are meant to CONCLUDE with a result. NO case would ever go to court relying on the “inconclusive” result (which is the way the WC hid the NEGATIVE result) as much as the WC did. That is simply the truth.
More dishonesty came from Ben Holmes as he tried to claim that a mythical “middle part” of the bullet weighing something like 96 grains could have caused the dent in the chrome so even if CE 567 or CE 569 could NOT have done it the same bullet doing it was still possible.
Quote on
161-(44+21)=96
A fragment as large as 96 grains - or more than TWICE the size of the two remaining fragments - could have hit the chrome and bounced out of the limo. (obviously, I'm not accounting for the smaller fragments - but this would not make a huge difference to the 96 grain size)
So not only did Frazier SPECIFICALLY state that either of the two larger fragments, 44 & 21 grain fragments, could have caused the chrome damage, you can't handle the basic math to realize that if you needed something bigger – IT WAS THERE. (Ben Holmes, 11/28/07)
Quote off
Where was it? The mythical “middle part” is NOT in the evidence as far as I know. Also, the whole “middle part” was an invention of Ben Holmes since he kept claiming CE 567 and CE 569 could have come from the SAME BULLET, but this was NEVER supported with a scientific test as the ONLY determination reached is that they COULD NOT BE SHOWN TO HAVE COME FROM THE SAME BULLET. The funny thing is Robert Frazier NEVER mentioned this mythical “middle part” either as the WCR wrote the following about this issue.
Quote on
Although there is some uncertainty whether the dent in the chrome on the windshield was present prior to the assassination, Frazier testified to the dent “had been caused by some projectile which struck the chrome on the inside surface.” If it was caused by a shot during the assassination, Frazier stated that it would not have been caused by a bullet traveling at full velocity, but rather by a fragment traveling at a “fairly high velocity.” It could have been caused by either fragment found in the front seat of the limousine. (Ibid.)
Quote off
There is NO mention of a “middle part” possibly causing this damage as Ben Holmes alluded to in order to save the WC’s precarious position IMO.
The bottom line is that SS Agent Kellerman testified to seeing NO bullet fragments at his feet and there is NO chain of custody for them. FBI Expert Robert Frazier never showed if a bullet fragment caused the damage to the chrome in the windshield frame or not so when we consider the evidence, we see the possibility of more than three shots is very likely since the FBI and WC failed to show the limousine fragments all came from the SAME bullet.
Can anyone answer these questions and provide evidence to help the WC and FBI (and Ben Holmes) out?
(3) Based on this testimony by FBI Expert Paul Stombaugh (hair and fiber expert), how could he find fibers from the shirt worn by LHO on November 22, 1963, AND fibers from the blanket that the rifle was allegedly wrapped in on the alleged murder weapon (CE 139)?
It should be noted right away that LHO said he changed shirts when he went to his rooming house (and this is supported by the FBI) around 1:00 p.m. so this would mean the shirt he was arrested in was NOT the shirt he was wearing at work, but let’s put that aside at this time.
Here is some testimony from Stombaugh that got me thinking.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you tell us how you made that examination?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir. The gun was to be treated for latent fingerprints also, so I wore a pair of white cotton gloves to protect any latents that might be present on the gun. I placed the gun under a low-powered microscope and examined the gun from the end of the barrel to the end of the stock, removing what fibers I could find from crevices adhering to the gun.
I noticed immediately upon receiving the gun that this gun had been dusted for latent fingerprints prior to my receiving it. Latent fingerprint powder was all over the gun; it was pretty well dusted off, and at the time I noted to myself that I doubted very much if there would be any fibers adhering to the outside of this gun--I possibly might find some in a crevice some place--because when the latent fingerprint man dusted this gun, apparently in Dallas, they use a little brush to dust with they would have dusted any fibers off the gun at the same time; so this I noted before I ever started to really examine the gun.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you unhappy at all about that?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I was; however, it is not uncommon for fingerprint processing to be given priority consideration. They wanted to know whether or not the gun contained any fibers to show that it had been stored in this blanket, and with all the obstructions and the crevices on the metal parts of this gun, ordinarily a fiber would adhere pretty well, unless you take a brush and brush it off, and then you brush it on the floor and it is lost.
Mr. EISENBERG. Who was "they," you said "they" wanted to know?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, this is our Dallas office. They sent the gun in wanting to know this fact.
Based on this testimony it seems the rifle was “brushed for prints” and this would knock any fibers on the rifle loose. He even said this, “…with all the obstructions and the crevices on the metal parts of this gun, ordinarily a fiber would adhere pretty well, UNLESS YOU TAKE A BRUSH AND BRUSH IT OFF, and then you brush it on the floor and it is lost.” Despite the rifle being dusted with a brush pretty thoroughly we are asked to believe there were still fibers found on it in the butt plate!
Mr. EISENBERG. Let's get that a little more specific if we can. Can you point to that again?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. In this area, the butt plate of the stock, this is a metal butt plate, you can see the jagged edge on it.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is on the left side of the butt plate?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. It is on the left side; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. In approximately in the middle there is a jagged edge, jagged inside edge, where the butt plate comes into contact with the wood, is that what you are referring to?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; there is a jagged edge there. This area right here, according to my notes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes.
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed. These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide, and marked this particular slide "No. 2," because this little group of fibers--little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh.
The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old.
You can look at a fiber and tell whether it has been beaten around or exposed much. These appeared to be fairly fresh.
Notice how he said the remaining fibers on the gun that managed to survive the brushing were either adhering to a “greasy, oily deposit” or jammed into a crevice and were dirty and apparently very old. I have to ask again, if the gun was this OILY why was NO oil found on the alleged bag it was carried in earlier in the morning of November 22, 1963? We are asked to believe that the person dusting this rifle with a brush did NOT knock the fibers off the butt plate so they could be found by Stombaugh when he had said it was customary for the fibers to be knocked loose. Is this just another coincidence? These few fresh fibers were linked to the blanket the rifle was allegedly wrapped in, but Stombaugh said all other fibers were older and could have been there for some time.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, returning once more to this question of freshness. Would you say they had been placed there within 1 hour, or 1 day, or 1 week of the time when you received the rifle or longer?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I couldn't say in that regard to any period of time. I refer, by saying they appeared fresh, to the fact that the other fibers I removed from this gun were greasy, mashed, and broken, where these were fairly good long fibers. They were not dirty, with the exception of a little bit of fingerprint powder on them which I cleaned off, and the color was good. They were in good shape, not fragmented. They could conceivably have been put on 10 years ago and then the gun put aside and remain the same. Dust would have settled on them, would have changed their color a little bit, but as far as when they got on the gun, I wouldn't be able to say. This would just be speculation on my part.
This shows the "fresh" fibers could have been put on the rifle a month before or more since he could NOT say they were put there that day as the WC wanted. This again shows the WC had NO evidence for their claims.
Only one set of fibers that were of value were found, and he would say this later on regarding what they were from in his opinion.
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.
Mr. EISENBERG. What does that mean?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I removed fibers from the shirt to determine the composition of it and also the colors. I found that the shirt was composed of dark-blue, grayish-black, and orangish-yellow cotton fibers, and that these were the same shades of fibers I had found on the butt plate of the gun.
Mr. DULLES. Did you find all three shades?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. All three shades; yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. All three shades were found on the fragments that were found in the butt of the gun?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. On the basis of these examinations, did you draw a conclusion as to the probability of the cotton fibers found in the butt plate having come from the shirt pictured in Exhibit 673?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; it was my opinion that these fibers could easily have come from the shirt…. [but] 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."
CE 673: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pages/WH_Vol17_0178b.jpg
This shows us the ONLY fresh and valuable fibers found, based on Stombaugh’s testimony, where for the shirt LHO was likely NOT even wearing at the time of the assassination! Is this just another coincidence? Furthermore, this could NOT be proven since he could NOT "positively state" that the fibers came from that shirt to the exclusion of all other similar shirts.
Can any WC defender tell me why the ONLY fresh and valuable fibers found on the alleged murder weapon matched the colors of a shirt LHO was possibly NOT even wearing at the time of the assassination? Furthermore, can you explain why the WC and its defenders claim the fibers found on the gun matched the blanket (CE 140) when there were NO fibers to match according to this testimony? He would even admit that no fibers from the blanket were found on the gun in this testimony.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Stombaugh, I asked you a hypothetical question before concerning whether the rifle could have been a mechanism for transferring fibers from the blanket into the paper bag, and as I recall you said it could have. Now, is it inconsistent with that answer that no fibers were found on the gun which matched the fibers in the blanket[/i]?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; because the gun was dusted for fingerprints and any fibers that were loosely adhering to it could have been dusted off.
The only reason, I feel, that these fibers remained on the butt plate is because they were pulled from the fabric by the jagged edge and adhered to the gun and then the fingerprint examiner with his brush, I feel, when brushing and dusting this butt plate, stroked them down into that crevice where they couldn't be knocked off. In time these fibers would have undoubtedly become dislodged and fallen off the gun.
So the ONLY viable fibers found “could have” come from a shirt LHO was NOT wearing at the time of the assassination! But, NO WC defender, can claim blanket fibers were also found on the rifle. The WC would try and get around this issue by claiming the fibers on the rifle from the blanket fell off when it was put in the alleged bag.
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, let me ask you a hypothetical question, Mr. Stombaugh. First, I hand you Commission Exhibit 139, which consists of a rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I ask you, if the rifle had lain in the blanket, which is 140, and were then put inside the bag, 142, could it have picked up fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the bag?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes.
Hypothetical indeed, as this was ALL the WC had to work with once again. WC defenders need to stop claiming that blanket and shirt fibers were found on the rifle or in the bag as neither is true since NO positive match was ever made for these claims.
Once again we see ample evidence that shows the WC’s conclusions are false, thus, they are sunk again.