10/12/2025, 21:35

Changes made to fix missed typos, and to provide further clarification and source material on the archival and legal significance (and loopholes provided by) the terminology used in the Task Force Committee request. There is clear need for more legal force to be used.


New petition description:

On April 8 this year, the Task Force on the Declassification of Federal Secrets sent a letter to NBC requesting the Darnell and Weigman films. That letter can be viewed here.

It is our view that the letter inadvertently left loopholes that would allow NBC to fulfill the request by providing copies of the films which will be inadequate for the purpose they are being requested.

The problematic phrasing is The Task Force, therefore, requests access to any original video, audio, or photographic evidence ....

Here is the Legal Interpretation of “Access to Original Evidence”• “Access” is a broad term in legal and archival contexts. It typically includes the right to view, study, or analyze the material. It doesn’t necessarily mean physical possession of the original artifact.• “Original” refers to the source material, but requesting access to it often implies the ability to examine it in a usable format—especially if the original is fragile, proprietary, or logistically difficult to handle.

The only usable format here is the original films as handed in on the day by the two cameramen to their employer, but the request made is vague enough in a legal sense for NBC to simply send multigenerational copies on the grounds of alleged fragility of the originals (or possibly even an alleged inability to locate them). The originals are needed to obtain the highest possible resolution scans to identify a person standing on the steps of the Dallas Book Depository at around the time of the shots. This person resembles Oswald and is placed where he said he was, according to the interrogation notes of FBI Agent James Hosty.

NBC has been asked several times over the last 10 years for access to the films for study. They admitted having the films but refused to release them on grounds of preservation - the very thing that scanning would provide.

If the scans show it is Oswald, that means the case must be reopened. If they do not show it, the worst that has happened is that historical footage has been properly preserved.

The names on this petition will be sent along with a letter to the Task Force asking that they make a second request for the films using more precise language.

AddendumTo reiterate - the words "access" and "original" have particular meaning in archival terms. The use of those words in the JFK Act does not guarantee any requested access to the originals need be fulfilled with what what Weigman and Darnell handed over to NBC. The International Council on Archives states Access means making materials available to users in a usable format, while preserving the integrity of the originals.

For anyone looking to dig further into the context of the meanings in archival terms, here are further resources

lucidea.com/blog/original-order-and-provenancehttps://thisvsthat.io/original-evidence-vs-real-evidencelucidea.com/blog/original-order-and-provenancehttps://thisvsthat.io/original-evidence-vs-real-evidencehttps://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_1001

From the latter (d) An “original” of a writing or recording means the writing or recording itself or any counterpart intended to have the same effect by the person who executed or issued it. For electronically stored information, “original” means any printout — or other output readable by sight — if it accurately reflects the information. An “original” of a photograph includes the negative or a print from it.

That the JFK Act specifies a merely a preference for originals, is itself providing wiggle room not to. What is needed here is that NBC are compelled to provide the in-camera originals, by force of subpoena if necessary.