JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[kookbreaker]

Now you are grasping at straws. Lawsuit? Your comment is laughable. JD Tippit was not breathing, he had a Coup de Grace given to him. What would be the reason for the lawsuit? The crime scene was tainted by removing the single biggest piece of evidence.

Put me on the list of people who are glad you are not an EMT.

 

[Tolls]

Let's try to figure out where the bag/sack was found.

Yes, let's:

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Well, sir, as I say, there was a lot of boxes and there was a sack and there was this pieces of chicken.

Mr. MONTGOMERY. It would be the southeast corner of the building there where the shooting was.

...

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.


Hey, those look like descriptions of the same thing!
A room with lots of boxes...storage room. Yep, that's a match.

Where was this room? The south-east corner of the building. Yep, that's a match too.

Your attempt to paint Mr Studebaker's use of the term "storage room" as somehow odd is, frankly, bizarre.

 

[ladmo]

No. President Kennedy's stretcher was accounted for. So by the process of elimination it had to be Connally's.




I answered your question, will you answer one of mine on the same subject:
Out of all the stretchers in the hospital, doesn't it seem strange to you that the conspirators could find one stretcher - on a totally different floor than Connally was on -- that could be the Governor's?

All the best,
Hank

Your explanation has been discounted a number of times due to the timing of when JFK was pronounced dead, Jackie visiting him, the discarding of the linen and when Connally's stretcher along with JFK's stretcher left their respective operating theaters.

 

[Mudcat]

Put me on the list of people who are glad you are not an EMT.

This. A thousand times this.

 

[Stamuel]

First, you feel that the FBI comes up with a technique to lift fingerprints that the Dallas Police cannot accomplish. The "silver nitrate" method is only another method, not some sort of miracle cure. If this method was so much better than the Dallas Police Department; then why doesn't the Dallas Police Department use silver nitrate all the time? What is even more troublesome is that the print, the bag, or anything to do with the bag is now destroyed. Nobody got to see the "print". The chain of custody was broken from the outset as no photograph was ever taken of the bag at the crime scene. There is absolutely zero evidence that this bag was ever used for anything outside of a prop.

The accusation here is apparently that the explanation involving silver nitrate is a random, ad hoc excuse to explain away the initial failure to find the print. Someone more knowledgeable in this area can correct me if I am wrong, but here is my take.

First, I do not know much about fingerprinting techniques, and what I am about to say comes from some simple search engining. Every description of silver nitrate fingerprint identification I found says that it is good for lifting prints from porous surfaces, many sources specifically listing paper as an example. Powder, on the other hand, is best for smooth surfaces. I have no idea about the reliability of this site, but this quote summarizes what every source I looked at said:

Powders should be selected when the surface is smooth, while chemicals for soft and porous surfaces. When attempting to utilize all of the chemical methods of development, one should use iodine fuming first, ninhydrin second, then silver nitrate, and finally super glue fuming if it applies.

http://www.bxscience.edu/publications/forensics/articles/fingerprinting/f-fing03.htm

Also, you can use powders in the field: just apply the dust. However, chemical techniques like silver nitrate cannot be applied so easily.

This tells us a few things:

1. It is to be expected that powder will not reveal prints on paper.
2. It is to be expected that silver nitrate will not be applied first.
3. One can't apply silver nitrate in the field, it is done in a lab.

Thus, the story told about the print is exactly what we should expect given the nature of prints and techniques used to recover them. There is nothing suspicious here, any more than it is suspicious that they did not perform the autopsy in the limo on the way to the hospital.

(Again, I am not an expert on this, so if someone can link to a more definitive source or correct misunderstanding, that would be good.)

[...]
WOW and we thought a 19 year old Wes Frazier didn't pay attention. This is a Detective that is at the crime scene of the biggest murder in the history of the United States and Detective Sims comes up with these responses??

[...]

We had 4 of Dallas' finest at the scene when the bag/sack/wrapping was found and all four of them have different recollections.

It is not surprising that, in a search that turned up a rifle and three bullet casings, the exact location and movements of a paper bag were not indelibly burned into the memories of everyone on the scene.

Also, one thing you will notice is that none of these men deny the existence of a paper bag, or that it was found on the sixth floor during their search. The testimony of four police officers confirms that they found a bag. What do they disagree about? They disagree about whether it was photographed where it was found. And one called it "wrappings" rather than a "bag" or "sack". Tiny differences. It is not as if one officer said they found it in the Paine's' garage, and another said it was taken from Oswald's pocket as he shouted, "Give me back my gun bag!" The discrepancies are minor.

I am not even sure where this argument is supposed to lead us. The testimony is only evidence of a cover-up if this kind of mistakes are more likely due to faking/planting evidence rather than different recollections of the event. Since the exact movements of the bag were about the 100th most important things that happened during the initial investigation of the TSBD, minor mistakes in recall are expected.

If the bag never existed, there is no chance they would bother to make it up. Just say, "Oswald must have thrown the bag away." On the other hand, if they found one bag but then switched bags, that means they found a real bag. If they really found a real bag, the mistakes pointed out here are then just mistakes. I just don't see how any conclusion other than minor mistakes is remotely reasonable.

Are we just supposed to think that failure to have absolute witness consistency about the movements of a paper bag proves the DPD is so incompetent that they may have inadvertently framed Oswald and let the conspiracy get away? Because I just don't see it.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Put me on the list of people who are glad you are not an EMT.

This is another one of those things where his layman idea of what emergency personnel should do is at odds with what they actually do. Fortunately, actuality triumphs.

 

[Belz...]

It's important because in any case you decide on the evidence and you try it on the evidence. There is no evidence that any of Oswald's fingerprints or palm prints were on that Italian rifle. From all accounts that type of Italian rifle was pretty useless anyway.

You know, for conspirators who managed to kill a US president and get away scot-free, they're pretty incompetent.

 

[Belz...]

I can't copy and paste that information because of the risk of being banned on this forum.

Yeah, that's credible. I believe you now.

 

[Belz...]

I'm deeply suspicious of the Warren report. There was a CIA representative for a start and I think some kind of Pentagon historian, which immediately raises my eybrows.

Of course it does: you suspect the CIA already, so anything connected to them is suspicious. However you have no reason to suspect th CIA other than the fact that they tend to be shady, which gets your imagination going, and is exciting. It's more fun than the official conclusion, so you prefer that hypothesis based on emotion rather than evidence or lack thereof.

Not a very skeptical things to do, mind you, but understandable. Now all you have to do is admit it.

 

[I Ratant]

This is another one of those things where his layman idea of what emergency personnel should do is at odds with what they actually do. Fortunately, actuality triumphs.

.
Yes sir,... EMTs have to KNOW what they're doing and how to do it, rather than just rail away from a street corner at the passing traffic.

 

[Belz...]

I agree with ladmo.

No **** ?

 

[I Ratant]

Yeah, that's credible. I believe you now.

.
I can paraphrase that bannable information:
"slfmowjnlvinoeirjlknoiy
tpouoiujvlkkljnewlfnsdklvnkjd htp;w[tpowe[tirolgjndfxkc
jvnkjnvkjnkdsngfv, xcmnvklsejfrlskmvxclvnltjurotjlrjflds
vm,nglkjkljlkj your momma."

 

[Regnad Kcin]

There is absolutely zero evidence that this bag was ever used for anything outside of a prop.

Buried in your wall o' text is the little nugget above. I know this is probably futile to ask, but maybe today's the day someone surprises me: do you have proof of what you suggest is a planted prop?

 

[thedopefishlives]

Buried in your wall o' text is the little nugget above. I know this is probably futile to ask, but maybe today's the day someone surprises me: do you have proof of what you suggest is a planted prop?

No, but you don't have any eyewitnesses that saw Oswald pull the rifle out of that bag, so CONSPIRACY.

 

[HSienzant]

Now you are grasping at straws.

Hardly. You are a drowning man grasping for anything to stay afloat, and you just grabbed ahold of this anchor.

You cautioned us to read the testimony, but it appears you're not even familiar with it, except for the parts quoted out of context by conspiracy sites and books.

Lawsuit? Your comment is laughable. JD Tippit was not breathing, he had a Coup de Grace given to him. What would be the reason for the lawsuit? The crime scene was tainted by removing the single biggest piece of evidence.

It appears you feel that the crime scene was tainted by the removal of Tippit's body, but you weren't there, and you've provided no reason to doubt the judgment of the ambulance crew that Tippit should be transported to Methodist Hospital immediately. You simply drop the unsupported allegation that taking Tippit to the hospital in an effort to keep him alive taints the crime scene - as if that is why ambulance crews are dispatched to crime scenes in the first place and they did something wrong. Let me assure you that ambulances are not dispatched to secure the crime scene, but to pick up injured and dying and get them the appropriate treatment as soon as possible. I doubt highly if you were a shooting victim, you'd be arguing with the ambulance crew to leave you there until the crime lab techs arrived to document the crime scene. You'd want to be transported to the hospital ASAP. That's point one on this silly, absurd argument you advance about the removal of Tippit's body (there are three in all).

Secondly, and contrary to your claim above, Tippit was NOT dead immediately. He was declared dead upon arrival at the hospital.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0201b.htmbecause

Not before. (As an aside, you really should familiarize yourself with the contents of the Warren Commission 26 volumes of evidence).

Thirdly, and this is important, if you are saying that transporting Tippit to the hospital was tainting the crime scene, then you are likewise arguing that Secret Service Agent Bill Greer should NOT have sped off to Parkland once JFK was struck in the head, but should have slammed on the brakes and stopped to "preserve the crime scene". After all, JFK's head wound was much more severe than Tippit's in the amount of brain loss (Tippit had a small entry wound but no exit). This alone exposes your argument for the theatre of the absurd argument it is, because to suggest that preserving any crime scene takes precedence over attempting to save the life of a mortally wounded man - be he President, police officer, or skid row bum - is simply beyond the pale.

But that's where you are. Do you have any other anchors you wish to attempt to grab onto?

I've got several on my boat I can toss you.

All the best,
Hank
(more to follow).

 

[HSienzant]

First, you feel that the FBI comes up with a technique to lift fingerprints that the Dallas Police cannot accomplish. The "silver nitrate" method is only another method, not some sort of miracle cure. If this method was so much better than the Dallas Police Department; then why doesn't the Dallas Police Department use silver nitrate all the time?

All that is explained in Latona's testimony, and was pointed out by another poster from his independent research using Google. Did you ever read the testimony you implored us to read? It appears not.

Mr. EISENBERG. Can you briefly explain the action of the silver nitrate?
Mr. LATONA. Silver nitrate solution in itself is colorless, and it reacts with the sodium chloride, which is ordinary salt which is found in the perspiration or sweat which is exuded by the sweat pores.
This material covers the fingers. When it touches a surface such as an absorbent material, like paper, it leaves an outline on the paper.
When this salt material, which is left by the fingers on the paper, is immersed in the silver nitrate solution, there is a combining, an immediate combining of--the elements themselves will break down, and they recombine into silver chloride and sodium nitrate. We know that silver is sensitive to light. So that material, after it has been treated with the silver nitrate solution, is placed under a strong light. We utilize a carbon arc lamp, which has considerable ultraviolet light in it. And it will immediately start to discolor the specimen. Wherever there is any salt material, it will discolor it, much more so than the rest of the object, and show exactly where the latent prints have been developed. It is simply a reaction of the silver nitrate with the sodium chloride.

So to develop the print, the specimen has to be immersed in a silver nitrate solution and exposed to a strong light source for some amount of time - how much time is unclear (and it may vary on a case by case basis). Is it your argument that this type of work is best done in the field, and not the lab? If so, can you please provide a citation to a legitimate source of crime detection techniques that says that?

What is even more troublesome is that the print, the bag, or anything to do with the bag is now destroyed. Nobody got to see the "print".

ABSOLUTELY, CATEGORICALLY UNTRUE!

This was pointed out a few days back:

Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether any legible prints were found by any other means or any other place?
Mr. DAY. There is a legible print on it now. They were on there when it was returned to me from the FBI on November 24.

Day confirmed he saw a print or prints on the bag ("a legible print..."; They were on there...").

Do you recall who initially quoted that testimony here? YOU DID!
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9674603&postcount=4816

And the bag existed after the tests:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0154a.htm

Can you provide a citation for your apparent false claim that the bag was destroyed?

And the prints were photographed on the bag, and the photos still exist.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0156b.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0157a.htm

And Latona testified (as previously quoted to you) that those prints were Oswald's:

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you attempt to identify the palmprint and fingerprint?
Mr. LATONA. The ones that I developed; yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were you able to identify these prints?
Mr. LATONA. I--the ones I developed, I did identify.
Mr. EISENBERG. Whose prints did you find them to be?
Mr. LATONA. They were identified as a fingerprint and a palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The chain of custody was broken from the outset as no photograph was ever taken of the bag at the crime scene.

You have a, well, 'non-standard' view of what chain of custody is. Most likely colored by your reading from conspiracy sites and books. There is nothing wrong with the chain of custody of the bag. It wasn't photographed in place, but it was handled correctly from that point forward. And "the print, the bag, or anything to do with the bag" wasn't destroyed, another assertion of yours that is shown to be untrue by the quote above that you yourself posted. Even Latona said further testing needed to be done on it, so certain portions weren't exposed to the silver nitrate test (are you SURE you've read this testimony?):

Mr. LATONA. Yes. The dark portions of the paper bag are where the silver nitrate has taken effect. And the light portions of the bag are where we did not process the bag at that time, because additional examinations were to be made, and we did not wish the object to lose its identity as to what it may have been used for. Certain chemical tests were to be made after we finished with it. And we felt that the small section that was left in itself would not interfere with the general overall examination of the bag itself.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is, the small section of light brown corresponds to the color which the bag had when you received it?
Mr. LATONA. That is the natural color of the wrapper at the time we received it.
Mr. EISENBERG. And the remaining color is caused by the silver nitrate process?
Mr. LATONA. That is correct.

Are you certain you read Latona's testimony instead of relying on cherry-picked quotes from conspiracy sources?

There is absolutely zero evidence that this bag was ever used for anything outside of a prop.

Since all your points leading up to this conclusion have been shown to be false, this conclusion is therefore not proven.

All the Best,
Hank
(more to follow)

 

[HSienzant]

Let's relive some testimony but I am sure you are familiar with it:

Deletia... ( you quote the testimony of Montgomery, Day, Studebaker, and Sims, attempting to show... well, exactly what is unclear. Much of this was handled by another poster already, so I won't respond in detail).

All you've shown by the cited testimony is that these men are human (they don't have perfect recall, no) and that they are not in collusion (if they were, their stories would match up better).

You yourself, given the benefit of 50 years of hindsight, make a few errors of recollection in the same post.

You quote Montgomery as saying "Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was." [emphasis added]

But then you sum up this as "I am sure someone took the picture because Det. Montgomery said so..."

No, Montgomery only said one of those pictures "might show" it.

He himself was unsure. You are apparently much more certain of what Montgomery said than he himself expressed.

What no photograph? But Det. Montgomery said either Day or Studebaker took a picture.

No, he didn't. Read it again. "Might show". Not "Does show".

WOW and we thought a 19 year old Wes Frazier didn't pay attention.

No, I think that, because of the ten times by my count (you never did provide your count) Frazier said he wasn't paying attention.
You think his estimate is spot-on for the length of the bag despite his disclaimer that he wasn't paying attention to it.

Hank, go ahead and hang your hat on this type of investigative work. Go ahead and attempt to be smug in your ability to put me down and think you are the smartest man in the room but the end result is that you would rather believe all of the above statements instead of questioning them.

I at one time questioned them as you are doing. Then I read all the testimony. At least twice. I'll urge you to read it to, because it's pretty apparent that you're just recycling old claims gleaned from some conspiracy and already proven to be bogus based on research to my own satisfaction decades ago. You aren't raising new points of your own. You're just recycling old ones that aren't true, and can be shown easily to be not true. I wouldn't be so smug if all this nonsense wasn't already dealt with decades ago.

We had 4 of Dallas' finest at the scene when the bag/sack/wrapping was found and all four of them have different recollections.

Yep. Proving they are human and not in collusion. Thanks for quoting all that. It saved me the trouble.

Nothing associated with the bag would had been permissible in court...

This is another absolute falsehood by you, gleaned not from books on proper investigative work but merely regurgitating something you read from a conspiracy source. Your claim is nonsense. All you would need to make it admissible is Studebaker's admission that this was the bag he picked up before it was photographed in place, and then testimony from Day and Latona that this is bag that went from Studebaker to Day to Latona. Chain of possession established and the bag is admissible.

... but many on this forum don't feel it is necessary to have that level of integrity.

I think you meant to write "many on this forum don't swallow and regurgitate as much nonsense from conspiracy sources as I do."

The bag is missing,

FALSE.

...chain of custody was broken,

FALSE.

...procedures were not followed,

Except for Studebaker picking the bag up prematurely and inadvertently, FALSE.

...prints appear out of nowhere,

FALSE. Prints appeared after being emersed in a silver nitrate solution and exposed to bright light. There is nothing surprising about this.

...too many different accounts of who did what and when they did it...

Nothing out of the ordinary. People are human, by definition. The four people quoted by you are therefore human. You are expecting perfection, and claiming because it wasn't present, that is suspicious. That's another absurdity by you.

...and finally... no photographs were taken.

Asked and answered. Studebaker picking the bag up prematurely and inadvertently meant the bag should not be placed BACK into the crime scene and photographed there. Once the initial mistake was made, the bag was handled perfectly correctly. But the bag exists, it was photographed (although not in the crime scene), fingerprints were developed, the prints are Oswald's, confirming he handled the bag, the photos of the prints still exist, the prints on the bag were attested to by Latona and (independently) J.C.Day, and the prints are Oswald's. And the bag is big enough to hold the disassembled rifle and it was found right near the sniper's nest window where three shells traceable to Oswald's rifle were found.

Thanks for helping me to delineate just some of the evidence against Oswald. You've done great, and I thank you and commend you for your hard work in this regard. I couldn't have done it without you.

There is absolutely no evidence that the bag they took out of the TSBD had anything to do with the assassination.

Except all the evidence you dismiss for one bogus reason or another.

If that bag was a fake, why didn't they put it into the crime scene and photograph it there? They they could claim that is where they found it and you would have no argument. But they didn't do that. Any idea why the conspirators didn't do that?

Here's one for consideration: Because there were no conspirators.

All the Best,
Hank

 

[HSienzant]

There is nothing suspicious here, any more than it is suspicious that they did not perform the autopsy in the limo on the way to the hospital...

Ah, but remember that David Lifton alleges a "pre-autopsy" (to alter the wounds) before the legit one based on the discrepancies between some Parkland doctors account of the head wound and the autopsy account of the same wound at Bethesda.

This means there must have been a pre-"pre-autopsy" as well, and this could only have been performed in the limo, as there are severe discrepancies between the Dealey Plaza witnesses (Mrs Newman and Abraham Zapruder said the large head wound was in the right side of the head) and some of the Parkland doctors (who put it in the back of the head).

So the conspiracy is even bigger and more complex than we thought. There was not one pre-autopsy - but TWO!

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

No, but you don't have any eyewitnesses that saw Oswald pull the rifle out of that bag, so CONSPIRACY.

Well, the above takes my personal award for biggest non-sequitur of the year.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Hardly. You are a drowning man grasping for anything to stay afloat, and you just grabbed ahold of this anchor.

You cautioned us to read the testimony, but it appears you're not even familiar with it, except for the parts quoted out of context by conspiracy sites and books.




It appears you feel that the crime scene was tainted by the removal of Tippit's body, but you weren't there, and you've provided no reason to doubt the judgment of the ambulance crew that Tippit should be transported to Methodist Hospital immediately. You simply drop the unsupported allegation that taking Tippit to the hospital in an effort to keep him alive taints the crime scene - as if that is why ambulance crews are dispatched to crime scenes in the first place and they did something wrong. Let me assure you that ambulances are not dispatched to secure the crime scene, but to pick up injured and dying and get them the appropriate treatment as soon as possible. I doubt highly if you were a shooting victim, you'd be arguing with the ambulance crew to leave you there until the crime lab techs arrived to document the crime scene. You'd want to be transported to the hospital ASAP. That's point one on this silly, absurd argument you advance about the removal of Tippit's body (there are three in all).

Secondly, and contrary to your claim above, Tippit was NOT dead immediately. He was declared dead upon arrival at the hospital.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0201b.htmbecause

Not before. (As an aside, you really should familiarize yourself with the contents of the Warren Commission 26 volumes of evidence).

Thirdly, and this is important, if you are saying that transporting Tippit to the hospital was tainting the crime scene, then you are likewise arguing that Secret Service Agent Bill Greer should NOT have sped off to Parkland once JFK was struck in the head, but should have slammed on the brakes and stopped to "preserve the crime scene". After all, JFK's head wound was much more severe than Tippit's in the amount of brain loss (Tippit had a small entry wound but no exit). This alone exposes your argument for the theatre of the absurd argument it is, because to suggest that preserving any crime scene takes precedence over attempting to save the life of a mortally wounded man - be he President, police officer, or skid row bum - is simply beyond the pale.

But that's where you are. Do you have any other anchors you wish to attempt to grab onto?

I've got several on my boat I can toss you.

All the best,
Hank
(more to follow).

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0201b.htm

Corrected link for point two about Tippit above.

Hank