Frederic Whitehurst?
HistorianDetective
call what I heard a debate and discussion is stretching it a tad as
well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKU1pv2vMq8
With that aside, how the heck can the name Frederic Whitehurst enter a
discussion on the JFK assassination? He was an FBI supervisory special
agent (1986-1998) for the FBI crimelab and whistleblower to
various FBI crimelab flaws that were unrelated to the JFK
assassination. His whistleblowing did not refute any evidence pertaining
to the JFK assassination and anayzed by the FBI in 1963.
JM/HD
PS...Listened to the discussion while installing new hardwood flooring in
the kitchen. Regarding the B/R discussion: Some parts were rather comical.
Like the Frederic Whitehurst reference to support a conspiracy theory. And
the Parafin Test statement by Rossley that the negative results proved
Oswald did not fire a weapon that day. Perhaps Mr Rossley should study
Parafin Tests more closely and realize that a negative result does not
mean that a person did not fire a weapon just prior to the test.
Pat Speer
being mentioned seems incredibly silly. Whitehurst, along with Bill Tobin.
blew the whistle not only on their fellow FBI crime lab employees but on
the culture in place at the FBI--a culture stretching back to its very
beginnings. Crime lab employees rose from the ranks of field agents, who
are conditioned to feel that their primary role is to catch bad guys, not
help them escape justice when the evidence fails to support their guilt.
This is a slippery slope, and leads ultimately to a tainting of the
evidence.
This was all detailed in the Justice Dept. Inspector General's report on
the crime lab scandal. As I recall, it recommended that the FBI change its
culture by hiring scientists for its crime lab, and not agents. Do you
recall anything different?
On Nov 29, 7:14 pm, HistorianDetective <historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
HistorianDetective
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pat,
I repeat.....Whitehurst's whistleblowing did not refute any evidence
pertaining to the
JFK assassination and anayzed by the FBI in 1963.
If you, or anyone else believe otherwise, feel free to post what
evidence has been refuted
based on Whitehurst's whistleblowing almost thirty years later.
JM/HD
John Blubaugh
wrote:
Actually it cast a shadow on all of the FBI's lab work in all years. Most
of the evidence was allowed to become contaminated so new tests are
useless.
JB
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 30, 12:01 am, Pat Speer<groovyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What? While I didn't hear the debate, your outrage over Whitehurst's name
>> being mentioned seems incredibly silly. Whitehurst, along with Bill Tobin.
>> blew the whistle not only on their fellow FBI crime lab employees but on
>> the culture in place at the FBI--a culture stretching back to its very
>> beginnings. Crime lab employees rose from the ranks of field agents, who
>> are conditioned to feel that their primary role is to catch bad guys, not
>> help them escape justice when the evidence fails to support their guilt.
>> This is a slippery slope, and leads ultimately to a tainting of the
>> evidence.
>>
>> This was all detailed in the Justice Dept. Inspector General's report on
>> the crime lab scandal. As I recall, it recommended that the FBI change its
>> culture by hiring scientists for its crime lab, and not agents. Do you
>> recall anything different?
>>
>> On Nov 29, 7:14 pm, HistorianDetective<historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Listened to the Bigdog/Rossley Discussion Part 2 . Sorry, but I can't
>>> call what I heard a debate and discussion is stretching it a tad as
>>> well.
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKU1pv2vMq8
>>
>>> With that aside, how the heck can the name Frederic Whitehurst enter a
>>> discussion on the JFK assassination? He was an FBI supervisory special
>>> various FBI crimelab flaws that were unrelated to the JFK???
>>> assassination. His whistleblowing did not refute any evidence pertaining
>>> to the JFK assassination and anayzed by the FBI in 1963.
>>
>>> JM/HD
>>
>>> PS...Listened to the discussion while installing new hardwood flooring in
>>> the kitchen. Regarding the B/R discussion: Some parts were rather comical.
>>> Like the Frederic Whitehurst reference to support a conspiracy theory. And
>>> the Parafin Test statement by Rossley that the negative results proved
>>> Oswald did not fire a weapon that day. Perhaps Mr Rossley should study
>>> Parafin Tests more closely and realize that a negative result does not
>>> mean that a person did not fire a weapon just prior to the test.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Pat,
>
> I repeat.....Whitehurst's whistleblowing did not refute any evidence
> pertaining to the
> JFK assassination and anayzed by the FBI in 1963.
>
> If you, or anyone else believe otherwise, feel free to post what
> evidence has been refuted
> based on Whitehurst's whistleblowing almost thirty years later.
>
> JM/HD
>
>
>
>
In case you didn't realize it the WC investigation was not the only one
related to the JFK assassination. In the mid 1970s there were other
investigations. One was the HSCA. The HSCA hired Guinn to analyze the
bullets and fragments to see if they could prove which shot hit which man
when. And Whitehurst's whistleblowing destroyed the scientific basis for
Guinn's conclusions.
HistorianDetective
RE:
> Actually it cast a shadow on all of the FBI's lab work in all years. Most
> of the evidence was allowed to become contaminated so new tests are
> useless.
It certainly did cast a shadow to a degree, but it did not refute any
analysis
and conclusions made to any piece of evidence handled by the FBI back
in 1963 regarding the JFK Assassination or the Officer Tippit slaying.
JM/HD
bigdog
wrote:
The reference to Whitehurst was another example of Rossley going outside
the realm of "official records" to find something to bolster his weak
position. I was just playing back his McAdams debates and he actually said
he only quotes official sources. His references to Frederic Whitehurst,
Robert Paterniti, and Doug Horne can in no way be considered official
sources since that were not acting in any official capacity in making the
claims which Rossley cites. While Doug Horne did serve 3 years on the
ARRB, the books he wrote were a private enterprise and not part of any
official record. I would love to hear Rossley's definition of official
records.
HistorianDetective
>
> - Show quoted text -
Tony,
Do you ever bother to actually read & comprehend people's posts before
blurting out unrelated innuendos?
Whitehurst's whistleblowing did not refute any evidence pertaining to the
JFK assassination and anayzed by the FBI in 1963.
Feel free to post what evidence has been refuted pertaining to the JFK
assassination that was anayzed by the FBI in 1963 and which that
refutation stemmed from Whitehurst's whistleblowing.
I'll give you a head start. Nada! Zilch! Zero! None!
Why is that so difficult to comprehend?
JM/HD
HistorianDetective
>
> - Show quoted text -
I couldn't agree more.
JM/HD
Anthony Marsh
> blurting out unrelated innuendos?
>
Can't you pay attention?
> Whitehurst's whistleblowing did not refute any evidence pertaining to the
> JFK assassination and anayzed by the FBI in 1963.
>
I never said it did.
> Feel free to post what evidence has been refuted pertaining to the JFK
> assassination that was anayzed by the FBI in 1963 and which that
> refutation stemmed from Whitehurst's whistleblowing.
>
No, because that is not what I said.
John Blubaugh
If LHO had been lived and been convicted and given a life sentence (all
might big "ifs") and he was in prison at the time, I think how the FBI
handled evidence would have been grounds for a new trial with that
evidence excluded. The fact that LHO was killed was the only reason this
didn't become a bigger issue. If you believe that they way the FBI handled
the evidence in the assassination case was correct, I would like to talk
to you about some ocean front property in Oklahoma.
JB
bigdog
It's easy to make abstract claims. Why don't you be more specific about
evidence the FBI mishandled?
HistorianDetective
Not interested in discussing pointless hypotheticals like the ones you
posted, except for this: If you examine the attitude of Dallas, Texas in
'63-'64 a little more closely, you would conclude instead that the greater
possibilty is that LHO would have been given the death sentence.
>If you believe that they way the FBI handled the evidence in the assassination
>case was correct,
I believe in many instances that the handling could have been performed
better. And it didn' take me a Whtehurst to point them out.
>I would like to talk to you about some ocean front property in Oklahoma.
>
And yet another hypothetical? Sorry. I'll pass on this one.
JM/HD
John Blubaugh
>
Why bother? I have been over it all with several times. If you want to
look at our old posts about them, you can google them. I am not into
playing the chasing your tail game.
JB
Anthony Marsh
YFI, John Hunt goes even farther and accused Frazier of concealing and
destroying evidence.
claviger
> YFI, John Hunt goes even farther and accused Frazier of concealing and
> destroying evidence.
In the JFK case? What evidence would that be?
bigdog
Your standard dodge when asked to substantiate claims for which you
have no evidence. It's easy to make things when you don't have to back
them up.
Anthony Marsh
Mixup in the listing of the evidence. Making some bullet found in the
limo disappear.
HistorianDetective
> On 12/2/2010 8:37 AM, claviger wrote:
>
> > Anthony,
>
> >> YFI, John Hunt goes even farther and accused Frazier of concealing and
> >> destroying evidence.
> > In the JFK case? What evidence would that be?
>
RE:
> Mixup in the listing of the evidence.
Which mixup are you referring to?
No evidence exists to support that there was any mixup intentionally
performed to conceal.
>Making some bullet found in the limo disappear.
Another magic bullet? This one vanishing?
Is this your VBT? Vanishing Bullet Theory?
JM/HD
John Blubaugh
wrote:
How can you still think it is a coincidence or accidental when there
is so much evidence of screw-ups and destruction of evidence? The
nutter fanatics belief in coincidence boggles the mind.
JB
bigdog
You were asked before to cite examples of this destruction of evidence and
declined. Why does anyone need to respond to baseless allegations such as
yours.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
You and I have discussed the FBI's destruction of evidence many times.
You know what they are and if you have a problem, google our old posts
about it. I don't give a rat's ass if you respond to the FACT (not
allegations) that the FBI mishandled and destroyed evidence so that it
was useless to independent labs. It was their standard operating
procedure at the time to make sure their evidence could not be refuted
by experts.
JB
bigdog
> You know what they are and if you have a problem, google our old posts
> about it. I don't give a rat's ass if you respond to the FACT (not
> allegations) that the FBI mishandled and destroyed evidence so that it
> was useless to independent labs. It was their standard operating
> procedure at the time to make sure their evidence could not be refuted
> by experts.
>
You don't have to substantiate your silly claims for my benefit. I would
think you would want to do that for the benefit of the lurkers and the
undecideds who read your posts. Otherwise they will probably come to the
conclusion that you are talking out your ass.
HistorianDetective
RE:
> You and I have discussed the FBI's destruction of evidence many times.
Perhaps, but you and I have not.
> You know what they are
I do not know what they are.
What evidence do you consider to have been destroyed by the FBI?
JM/HD
John Blubaugh
> > You know what they are and if you have a problem, google our old posts
> > about it. I don't give a rat's ass if you respond to the FACT (not
> > allegations) that the FBI mishandled and destroyed evidence so that it
> > was useless to independent labs. It was their standard operating
> > procedure at the time to make sure their evidence could not be refuted
> > by experts.
>
> You don't have to substantiate your silly claims for my benefit. I would
> think you would want to do that for the benefit of the lurkers and the
> undecideds who read your posts. Otherwise they will probably come to the
>
I doubt there are any undecideds and I have no interest in what they
decide anyway but I will save them all a lot of time. No matter what the
government did to cover-up, mishandle evidence or outright lie to the
public, the big soup hound will say that it didn't effect the
investigation and since it happened, it really doesn't matter. It is just
like the botched autopsy. He will simply say that every other competent
forensic specialists who has looked at the evidence reached the same
conclusion. What he won't tell you is the first autopsy was made to make
sure it looked there was a lone assassin and they even ignored the entry
wound in JFK's temple.
There, now you don't have to comment at all and if they want to see the
previous discussions, they can google it. I'm not here to do busy work so
you can spout your inane crap.
JB
bigdog
They didn't ignore anything. Because they were competent and got to see
the medical evidence, it was quite easy for them to determine without
question that the wound in the temple was an exit. Since you had neither
of those going for you, you came to the opposite conclusion. Gee, I wonder
who we should believe?
> There, now you don't have to comment at all and if they want to see the
> previous discussions, they can google it. I'm not here to do busy work so
> you can spout your inane crap.
No, your function here is to demonstrate how silly conspiracy theories are
and that none of them can be supported by any hard evidence. In that role,
you are doing a bang up job. You really are the LNs' best friend. On
behalf of my colleagues, I wish to thank you for your efforts.
Anthony Marsh
More than that he says that the wound being in the cowlick area is
exactly the same thing as the wound being near the EOP.
John Blubaugh
How can they make conclusions when the evidence is flawed? Did they
dissect the back wound? Why is there still argument about where the wound
in the back of the head is really located or if it is located there. If
these experts were being honest, they would make no conclusions when the
autopsy was botched like that.
You are welcome if it helps you. You guys have never shown me anything but
arguing for the sake of arguing and trying to get CTs to produce the same
research over and over again.
JB
Anthony Marsh
We can make conclusions based on other evidence regardless of how
botched the autopsy was.
And of course they were not honest, but they were also just following
orders from their military superiors.
bigdog
Because they know their shit. It is silly to take the position that
because the evidence is flawed, they can't make use of the information
they do have. Paleontologists are able to determine cause of death of
dinosaurs from more than 65 million years ago with far less evidence than
the FPP had. Why would anybody take the position that because we don't
have everything, we can't figure out anything. Why do you adhere to such
an all or nothing position.
> Did they
> dissect the back wound? Why is there still argument about where the wound
> in the back of the head is really located or if it is located there.
There is no argument among the experts as to the direction of head
shot. It was elementary stuff.
> If
> these experts were being honest, they would make no conclusions when the
> autopsy was botched like that.
>
If you were being honest, you would admit you don't know what the hell
you are talking about.
> You are welcome if it helps you. You guys have never shown me anything but
> arguing for the sake of arguing and trying to get CTs to produce the same
> research over and over again.
>
We have tried over and over again to get you to substantiate your
positions because you have never done so. Saying you have doesn't make it
so.
HistorianDetective
RE:
> We have tried over and over again to get you to substantiate your
> positions because you have never done so. Saying you have doesn't make it
> so.
Ditto.
With that aside and getting back to the topic of this thread, I'm still
waiting to read what evidence handled by the FBI & pertaining to the JFK
assassination was refuted via Whitehurst's Whistleblowing.
That claim was made by Mr Rossley during your discussion with him and was
made by him to support his conspiracy argument.
It's a very weak reference for support in that regard, as no evidence has
been refuted via Whitehurst's whistleblowing.
It further reflects upon the very weak argument Mr Rossley presents via
his other internet discussions, his website and this forum.
JM/HD
John Blubaugh
You already know my position on everything about this case. We had argued
for years. So, if you want to see what I have said, you can google it. I
have substantiated many things, many times.
JB
Anthony Marsh
Except for the fact that better science may prove them wrong.