text:
Dallas police chief Jesse Curry on the origin of the shots
283 Comments / Assassination, Video / By Jefferson Morley
(H/T Tree Frog)
1) 21 JFK cops who heard a grassy knoll shot (JFK Facts, Sept. 24, 2013).
2) Was there a gunshot from the grassy knoll? (JFK Facts, March 20, 2013)
If you like this kind of coverage, "like" JFK Facts on Facebook or Tweet a blurb about us to your followers.
Help JFK Facts bring complete historical record about the JFK story to the Internet and social media
283 thoughts on "Dallas police chief Jesse Curry on the origin of the shots"
Willy Whitten
'Retired Dallas police chief, Jesse Curry reveals his personal JFK assassination file' – 1969
by Jesse E Curry (Author)
Quotes from the book:
>"The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts do not clearly indicate what took place on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Speculative magazine and newspaper reports led the public to believe that numerous eyewitnesses positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the sniper in the sixth floor window. The testimony of the people who watched the motorcade was much more confusing than either the press or the Warren Commission seemed to indicate." When witnesses told of seeing two men in the Depository window to the FBI, "No statement about the 'second man' or mention of an accomplice appeared in the FBI report."
>"Dr Malcolm Perry at Parkland Hospital had maintained that the President had been shot from the front. Investigators were awaiting the results of the autopsy with the naive assurance that the government would release a detailed autopsy which could be used in the investigation. The photographs and autopsy evidence was never released by the government. Apparently portions of the material have even been destroyed. The Warren Commission yielded to political pressure and never examined the autopsy photographs."
>"The evidence gathered during the assassination weekend was dispersed in many directions. The FBI had already begun to seize evidence at the scene. Secret Service Agents had seized the President's body before the required autopsy could be performed. Although most of the evidence was gathered by the Dallas Police Department, it did not remain in our hands very long. Early Friday evening [11/22/63] FBI Agents were anxious to have all physical evidence released to them." "Although Captain Fritz in the Dallas Homicide Bureau should have been soley in charge of the interrogation of Oswald, an orderly and private interrogation proved impossible. Because of the constant pressure from other investigative agencies, Captain Fritz was never allowed to carry out an orderly private interview with Lee Harvey Oswald. I have also wondered whether or not Captain Fritz could have obtained crucial information from Oswald if he had been allowed to spend two to three hours alone with him under normal interrogative conditions."
>"…the motorcycle officers on each side of the rear of the Presidential car knew that he was hurt and hurt badly…A red sheet of blood and brain tissue exploded backward from Kennedy's head into the face of Officer Hargis. The trajectory must have appeared to Hargis to have come from just ahead and to the right of the motorcade." "The physical security arrangements provided by the Dallas Police Force for the Secret Service were carried out exactly as they requested. In my opinion, all police officers involved gave their complete and whole-hearted co-operation. Yet the Dallas Police Department was never given any information or asked to cooperate with the FBI or Secret Service in any attempt to locate possible conspirators. The Dallas Police Department was never informed of the presence of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas."
\\][//
Continued from above — Jesse Curry's book:
>"Witnesses to the shooting wondered if there wasn't a gleam of recognition in Oswald's eye when Ruby stepped out from the newsmen. Police investigation was never able to turn up a definite link between the two men." He believes the "Secret Service" agent at the Grassy Knoll "must have been bogus – certainly the suspicion would point to the man as being involved, some way or other, in the shooting, since he was in an area immediately adjacent to where the shots were – and the fact that he had a badge that purported him to be Secret Service would make it seem all the more suspicious."
"IMO he likely walks and that's why it's hard for me personally to assign sole guilt to LHO as alot of the key evidence has either reasonable to substantial doubt, meaning he is not guilty in a court of law."
DB February 28
IMO Oswald would have been convicted of the murder of President John F. Kennedy if it had gone to trial.
I however strongly agree with you that alot of the key evidence raised reasonable to substantial doubt.
There was never ever going to be a trial.
We all know what happened on Sunday, Nov 24/63.
The trial never happened as was the plotters design.
Many people of course think it was not a perfect crime as Oswald perhaps was supposed to have been killed on Nov 22.
At this point, we will be lucky if we ever find out in our lifetimes who were the men who fired the shots, and who exactly plotted to kill President John F. Kennedy.
It was not a perfect crime but the Coverup has stood the test of time very well as much as you or I dont like that situation.
These plotters were masterful!
There was never ever going to be a trial and we perhaps will never know who did it.
It was already decided over fifty years ago what was best for us and them (the plotters)!
I also think any jurors in a Oswald Trial that never was would have feared for their lives to vote to acquit.
I tend to agree with you MDG
I guess I was thinking more along the lines of with all the information available today, including last years CIA report. I personally could not convict him for the actual shooting.
He had to be silenced, but probably more so because of what he would say.
I tend to believe LHO was at least aware of the plot but didn't do the actual shooting himself, but that's speculation on my part
Much could be gleaned from what LHO had to say. It was very evident in his answers to interrogators and the press, that he would answer the claims made against him, that he would defend himself. He sounded so unlike the character being portrayed in the newspapers. Establishment were very fearful of what he might reveal. As such, his requests for legal representation were ignored, his right to be deemed innocent until proven guilty denied, and Jack Ruby would be allowed to do the bidding of so many with dark secrets to hide. Curry knew there wasn't much they could hang their hats on.
Chuck Schwartz
It was probably DAP who told LHO to go to the Texas Theatre. DAP then told Dulles where LHO was and Dulles told Charles Cabell to tell his brother (Earle Cabell) to go arrest the killer in the Texas Theatre with as many Policeman as could be mustered. Since LHO said he was just a patsy, he had to be killed since he could point his finger at DAP. So, another lone nut, Jack Ruby, killed LHO and as LBJ once said, "there will not be a trial of Lee Harvey Oswald – not now, not ever."
I think some of the Dallas Police tried to tell the truth. But they were under the direction of the Mayor of Dallas, who, in 11/63, was Earle Cabell. Earle's brother , Charles Cabell, was fired by JFK (along with Allen Dulles) for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Dulles' man in Dallas was DAP (David Atlee Phillips), who was the handler for LHO. Dulles guided DAP during the "Big Event", as E. Howard Hunt said the conspirators called the day JFK was murdered. Charles Cabell worked for Dulles for 9 yrs. in the CIA. It was Charles who guided Earle, who in turn directed the Dallas Police in 11/63. There blips in flow of the information, such as the time the high level Wade explained that LHO worked for an anti-Castro group , but Jack Ruby was at that press conference and corrected Wade by saying LHO worked for a pro-Castro group called the Free Play for Cuba. The Wade press conference with Jack Ruby making that comment in on tape.
11/22/63 is a 1960s time capsule.
It takes you right back to Dallas before the Ambush in Dealey Plaza.
Stephen King put in a year of solid research before writing the book. He was in Dallas.
I gather he has wondered all his life also who killed JFK.
We see JFK speaking in Dallas sometime after he got elected.
It is nice to time travel back with King and contemplate if only the whole bloody thing hadnt happened.
We have all thought about that.
It is very well done in terms of set design but in other respects also.
It is infused with all the doubts of the Kennedy Mystery.
In the book, there is a last chapter about if the assassin and/or assassins had not been successful.
It is a wonderful thought to contemplate.
Jean Davison
In both quotes (1963 and 1969) Curry was stating his opinion about what the evidence showed. Curry opinion isn't evidence, it's only his opinion. My point was that you usually hear about one of his statements, but not the other.
leslie sharp
On the surface that's a respectful attempt at clarification, but at best it is illogical and begs the question: Why was it important for you to introduce Curry's contradictory statement if in fact you consider it mere opinion? Are you arguing that when the highest authority of the Dallas Police Department spoke, he was presenting "his opinion"? And if so, did the media qualify everything Dallas authorities said with "in their opinion"? I think not. I think when the DPD Chief spoke officially, especially related to evidence he was collecting, the public took him at his word and never thought twice to ask – "is that just your opinion, Jesse, or is it fact"? And I think had the DA been allowed to pursue the case to trial in Texas, he would have used DPD Chief Curry's evidence, not based on Jesse's opinion, but Jesse's facts.
Curry could have simply said to the public "the investigation is ongoing". Instead, he made the elaborate and detailed statement you linked to, hardly qualifying it as opinion. He was enumerating facts about the investigation, full stop, that would have been introduced into evidence.
You are wittingly or not distracting from the pertinent question: Did Curry rely on Brennan's affidavit to place Oswald in the window? Why did Brennan identify a 30 something yr old weighing 165-170 lbs. and Curry accept that testimony as proof that Oswald was in the window when in fact he knew that Oswald was 10 years younger and 35 to 40 lbs. lighter.
Without Brennan's affidavit, how did Curry have Oswald in that window?
John McAdams
Why was it important for you to introduce Curry's contradictory statement if in fact you consider it mere opinion?
Jean can speak for herself, but if his opinion expressed in one instance is actually evidence, his opinion expressed in another instance is evidence too.
But you folks want only opinions that you find convenient to count. You dismiss the others.
Sort of like real evidence, where any that tends to exculpate Oswald counts, and any that inculpates him is faked, forged or tampered with.
'Jean can speak for herself, but if his opinion expressed in one instance is actually evidence, his opinion expressed in another instance is evidence too.'
John, as you know, Jean commented that Curry was offering his 'opinion', not evidence. So while your position is valid – Curry was presenting facts that would end up as evidence – it is irrelevant to the exchange with Jean and it's up to her to pursue the question.
Responding to your position however, (drum roll please) I agree: if Curry said "we can't put him in that window with that weapon" and in another statement said, "we can put him in that window" then he presented conflicting facts to the public about the evidence he had. He had the opportunity to state 'the investigation is in progress', and he also had the opportunity to qualify further statements with, "I have updated information for the American people", but he did neither and set in motion the propaganda that took hold and denied Oswald his right to innocent until proven guilty in the court of public opinion. Happens all the time, right?
'But you folks want only opinions that you find convenient to count. You dismiss the others.'
Nothing about this discussion is 'convenient' for 'either side'; in fact this is an attempt to bring the spotlight on both of Curry's statements for further analysis, not promote one over the other; perhaps that's beyond your remit.
You choose not to engage in a serious analysis, refusing to respond to the specific questions about Brennan's affidavit and how Curry used it to place Oswald in the window and instead you trudge out your tired antics: 'But you folks want only opinions that you find convenient . . .Sort of like real evidence, where any that tends to . . . '
Do you mean the 'real evidence' that Brennan described the man in the window in one way and Curry and Dallas law enforcement interpreted that description in another way? That is evidence having nothing to do with Lee Oswald and everything to do with the colossal failure of the investigation in the most critical, first 24 hours.
You continue to double down on the notion that Curry's mere opinions are evidence.
They aren't.
Why is that so hard for you to understand?
You want to argue with his opinion when he inculpates Oswald, and blindly tout his opinion when he seems to let Oswald off.
But neither opinion matters.
Do you mean the 'real evidence' that Brennan described the man in the window in one way and Curry and Dallas law enforcement interpreted that description in another way? That is evidence having nothing to do with Lee Oswald and everything to do with the colossal failure of the investigation in the most critical, first 24 hours. LESLIE
I read this post by Leslie and IMO it is a very accurate statement. I wish several of the LHO acted alone supporters would look at evidence more objectively, engage in civil discussions with board members in the hopes of gaining more information and knowledge and factual evidence for all of us, regardless of whether it supports a particular theory.
I just don't understand the instant desire to attack any and everything that does not support their LHO acted alone. How is that trying to discover more of the truth?
Almost all the LHO physical evidence has material issues, so taking such an instant dismissive approach makes no attempt at everyone ultimate goal of determining what happened and the motivation of LHO and all the characters around him.
The reality is this approach just leads me to skip reading their posts, as you know exactly what the post will state, the posts do little to stimulate anyone's mind as their will be zero effort made to think thru and analyze the information, the post every time will be to dismiss this information no matter how compelling, likely having the opposite effect of the authors intent – having board members read and analyze their comments.
I'm sure their are conspiracy supporters that show similar behavior but I personally have not met any such supporters instantly dismiss all information that does not support their theory. Sure some show bias and dismiss contradictory evidence but I have yet to see a WR supporter show any flexibility with evidence that does not support their views.
Do you mean the 'real evidence' that Brennan described the man in the window in one way and Curry and Dallas law enforcement interpreted that description in another way?
This statement only makes sense if you think cops interpret descriptions as being precisely true, with all ages accurate to within a year or two, and weights accurate to within five pounds, and all heights accurate to within an inch or two.
Cops don't do that. They are way smarter than buffs.
within a year or two, and weights accurate to within five pounds,
Who was described within "a year or two", "weighing within five pounds", John?
The discrepancy was in fact 8-10 years and 35-40 lbs.
So your argument is that essentially, law enforcement did not actually have a description of the shooter in the window? Yet Brennan's affidavit described him as nice looking? How did he know that?
So your argument is that essentially, law enforcement did not actually have a description of the shooter in the window?
They did, but the description would have fit a huge number of young nondescript white males.
Which is why Oswald probably did something suspicious to provoke Tippit to stop him. The description along would not have been sufficient.
Yet Brennan's affidavit described him as nice looking? How did he know that?
Why do you object to that?
What "nice looking" means is highly subjective, but Oswald was typically clean and reasonably well-groomed. He didn't look like a movie star, but he didn't look like a bum either.
'So your argument is that essentially, law enforcement did not actually have a description of the shooter in the window?'
No John, that's your argument. You and Jean say Brennan's description fit a vast majority of individuals and in essence law enforcement were chasing their tails in those first 45 minutes, right? Yet the dispatcher and the Julia Postal record is supposed to suggest otherwise -maybe Brennan's description mattered, maybe it didn't – that's all a bit vague isn't it John and Jean – and when it suits your agenda, there was a likelihood that the shooter in Dealey Plaza as described by Howard Brennan was in fact in Oak Cliff? When the description is brought under the microscope, you argue 'it really didn't mater'. Which is it?
And here we are, again:
'They did, but the description would have fit a huge number of young nondescript white males. Which is why Oswald probably did something suspicious to provoke Tippit to stop him. The description along would not have been sufficient.'
Huh???
'Why do you object to that?'
Why do I call attention to Brennan describing the shooter as nice looking? Because Brennan could not possibly have seen a white male to the degree of describing him as 'nice looking' and yet define him as 10 years older and 35-40 lbs heavier ….I'm not challenging whether or not Oswald was nice looking; I'm challenging Brennan's ability to make that assessment. You, like Jean Davison are arguing from the position of reflection – Brennan described someone and then Oswald was arrested and the facts were commingled. Law enforcement made NO effort to tease out the discrepancies, and after the fact – after Oswald was murdered on their watch – the Warren Commission members did not have the intellectual fortitude yet alone the moral courage to "ASK THE QUESTIONS".
That ploy has run it's course John, because most following this site recognize the methodology.
The discussion about Brennan's description of 'the shooter has NO RELEVANCE until Oswald was arrested; you now flail about with 'He didn't look like a movie star, but he didn't look like a bum either' – after the fact – which everyone knows is meaningless to the investigation.
Oswald wasn't arrested because he fit Brennan's description to a T but because Brewer saw him ducking the cops and because when confronted he hit a policeman and pulled out a gun. That behavior doesn't arouse your suspicion at all, Ms. Sharp?
Think of it this way. If someone other than Oswald had done the same thing and the police *hadn't* arrested him, you'd be outraged, wouldn't you? Suppose they'd let him go and then discovered his prints were found on the boxes in the SN window? If his name wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald, would you still give him a pass?
Also, your math is off. When Oswald was arrested he gave his weight as 140 pounds. His autopsy weight was an estimated 150 pounds. That's not 35-40 pounds less than 165, the weight that was broadcast. The age broadcast was 30, not "early 30s," and that's not "10 years older." Other witnesses saw the man in the SN and described him as younger than 30 and slender.
The FBI agent who rode with Westbrook was apparently Barrett, not Odum. My mistake. But you haven't shown that it makes any difference whatsoever how Odum got to the Texas Theater or what he did that day. No one "rushed" directly from the Depository to the theater, though.
Did you find anything to support the idea that Odum knew the Paines before 11/22 or is this just another CT fable?
'On the day of his arrest, he weighed 131 pounds (9 stones, 5 pounds; 59 kg; Warren Commission Hearings, vol.17, p.285 [Commission Exhibit 630[).
PD Scott picked up on this and expanded:
[22] Lee Harvey Oswald fingerprint card, 17 WH 308. The heaviest Oswald actually weighed was 150 pounds, when he left the Marines in 1959 (19 WH 584, 595).
"Dallas '63: The First Deep State Revolt Against the White …"
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=150401989X
FBI Agent Clements interviewed Oswald for the express purpose of gathering identification specifics:
Mr. CLEMENTS. . . . and there I saw one of our other agents, James Bookhout, and I asked him if anyone had, to his knowledge, taken a detailed physical description and detailed background information from Oswald. He told me that such description and background data had not been obtained, and suggested that I do it. . . .
Mr. STERN. Will you now tell, Mr. Clements, as much as you can recall of your interrogation of Oswald at that time?
Mr. CLEMENTS. I informed him of the purpose of my interview. He made no objection. I proceeded to get his name in full. I asked him questions as to his date and place of birth, height, weight, color of his hair and eyes, and as to the existence of any permanent scars or marks.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Olds.pdf
11:00 – 11:20 P.M. "Talked To" by Police Officer John Adamcik and FBI Agent M. Clements
"I was in Russia two years and liked it in Russia. . . . I am 5 ft. 9 in., weigh 140 lb., have brown hair, blue-gray eyes, and have no tattoos or permanent scars."
The record of his arrest in NOLA indicates he weighed 140 lbs.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_2895.pdf
So we have an official document indicating he weighed 131 lbs. when he was arrested, his own claim that he weighed 140 lbs. and another official document stating that when he was arrested in NOLA months earlier he weighed 140 lbs; and one assertion that he weighed 150 lbs. in 1957. (did the autopsy pick up on this record?)
This resolves one aspect of your smoke and mirrors argument: the official record of November 22, 1963, indicates he was at the very least 34 lbs. lighter than the description broadcast.
If we give you the margin of doubt and accept that he weighed 140 in spite of the official record stating he weighed 131 lbs., the difference is 25 lbs. . . . hardly a close match would you say?
"Also, your math is off. When Oswald was arrested he gave his weight as 140 pounds. His autopsy weight was an estimated 150 pounds. That's not 35-40 pounds less than 165, the weight that was broadcast." — Jean Davison
Law enforcement made NO effort to tease out the discrepancies, and after the fact – after Oswald was murdered on their watch – the Warren Commission members did not have the intellectual fortitude yet alone the moral courage to "ASK THE QUESTIONS".
What question were they supposed to ask?
"Why was Brennan's description a few pounds and a few years off?"
"Why did Brennan describe the shooter as 'nice looking?'"
Those are stupid questions!
Anybody with any sophistication would know that witness descriptions are not that precise.
Just what is your theory anyway? (I ask knowing I won't get a coherent answer.)
That Brennan saw no shooter, and just made the whole thing up?
That he never described any shooter, and the cops just made up his description?
That he saw and accurately described a shooter other than Oswald.
What is your theory??!!
And I know why you won't give a coherent answer. It's because you don't have any coherent theory. You just like to huff and puff about things you think are "suspicious."
I don't see Leslie having answered this.
Until I see evidence to the contrary, this goes into the "factoid" file.
John, it's strange that you seem to closely follow my discussions with Jean. Are you the "point man" for her when she is taking a breather?
'What question were they supposed to ask?'
Warren Commission scenario: "So Howard Brennan's description of a shooter in the window at TSBD was relayed to a a dispatcher and as a result some highly intuitive DPD officers followed their noses to the Texas Theatre – along with Federal Agent Bardwell Odum – and arrested Lee Oswald — NOT for the assassination of President Kennedy but for the shooting of a Dallas police officer. This, in spite of the fact that one of the officers shouted "kill the president will you" you are telling us that Oswald's arrest was based on the suspicion of Johnny Brewer who saw someone duck into the theatre without paying, and Julia Postal at his behest called the police – who, by the way, should have been immersed in pursuit of the assassin of our president, and in the mix the dispatcher determined the description of someone acting weird near the Texas Theatre might be related to events in Dealey Plaza – (remember Sawyer revised Brennan's version which was 'early 30's (for another time) weighing at least 30 lbs. more than the shooter in Dealey but somehow you are telling us that the concerns of Brewer and Postal ignited pursuit of an assassin – or pursuit of a shooter in the Tippit murder. . . . Is that what you are asking this commission to assimilate?"
a few? 25-35 lbs. John. 6-10 years off, John.
"Why did Brennan describe the shooter as 'nice looking?'" …Those are stupid questions!
These are inconvenient questions and your huffing and puffing about them do not alter the significance: How could Brennan know the shooter was "nice looking" when he couldn't testify to whether or not the rifle had a scope for instance. What about the shooter was "nice looking" John?
'Anybody with any sophistication . . .' getting a bit desperate are you John?
It seems that the topic of Howard Brennan and Jesse Curry push your buttons John. The questions have been hashed out on numerous forums yet you are here, debating with someone who has never published on the JFK assassination and has no reputation of being an authority yet you bother to challenge me?
'That Brennan saw no shooter, and just made the whole thing up? . . . That he never described any shooter, and the cops just made up his description?'
I repeat, you are lying if you say that I claim Brennan saw no shooter.
'That he saw and accurately described a shooter other than Oswald. What is your theory??!!'
double question marks and double exclamation marks? what is prompting such a vehement reaction?
Warren Commission scenario: "So Howard Brennan's description of a shooter in the window at TSBD was relayed to a a dispatcher and as a result some highly intuitive DPD officers followed their noses to the Texas Theatre…."
Absolutely not. No one went directly from Dealey Plaza to the theater, and there was nothing "intuitive" about it. Enjoy your fantasies, Ms. Sharp, because that's what they are.
In this video, FBI Agent Ivan D. Lee narrates (min. 2:22) that Oswald's fingerprints were found on the box in the sniper's nest If you're interested in 'detail' you will note the image in the video does not include a 3rd box tilted against the windowsill as is depicted in the SS reenactment. Which box is alleged to have Oswald's prints on it, John and Jean? And if it was the box depicted in this footage, why did the SS place a 3rd box, tilted against the windowsill in the reenactment, and why wouldn't that box also have carried a set of fingerprints? It's a small matter, of course.
http://www.wral.com/retired-fbi-agent-remembers-jfk-assassination-/13144895/
In this interview, Agent Ivan Lee suggests he was present during the arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theatre. Is there any testimony, written record of the fact? No. He was not called to testify.
According to Lee, there was another FBI Agent present at the arrest, Robert M. Barrett (apparently he was the agent who caught a ride with Westbrook from the TSBD, right Jean?) who indicated a concern over "Oswald's potential use of alleged civil rights violation. (courtesy Dale Myers). Then again, I thought Miranda was not an issue in 1963?
https://books.google.com/books?id=IdnhAQAAQBAJ&pg=PT300&lpg=PT300&dq=ivan+d.+lee+texas+theatre&source=bl&ots=eNHveO7i29&sig=h7o2Yev6oMy9XAKQSAU52v4VWkg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil5K6bvsHLAhVE52MKHQsJCjMQ6AEIKDAD#v=onepage&q=ivan%20d.%20lee%20texas%20theatre&f=false
What we do have on official record related to Ivan D. Lee is his involvement in linking Lee Oswald to the General Edwin Walker shooting. Agent Odum is significant to that investigation as well.
What we don't have is Warren Commission testimony of Federal Agents Odum, Lee or Barrett, in spite of the obvious – they went to the Texas Theatre to arrest a suspect in the assassination of the President of the United States.
When John and / or Jean acknowledge that as fact … Oswald was arrested for the assassination … we will know they are participating in good faith.
And from there we should consider Agent Richard Harrison.
I contend that the assertion that Lee Oswald had the name "Robert Odum" in his address book is wrong … a close look assures me that the name is Robert Adams, the employment agent. I also think the court reporter may have misheard Marguerite Oswald and recorded "Hart" Odum instead of "Bard" Odum but that does not diminish the rest of her testimony about Odum. It is also plausible that a court reporter confused the name "Bob" with "Bard" in the testimony of Michael Paine – who is one of the more evasive witnesses in the entire saga imo – that referred to FBI Agent Bardwell Odum. I find no evidence that Bardwell's nickname was "Bob".
Having said that, but for a comma – I would go to the mat that Michael Paine knew FBI Agent Bardwell Odum prior to November 22. However, the comma confuses and may indeed have been misread by other researchers.
Michael's statement:
Mr. PAINE – Now, I don't believe I met, I was introduced to, Odum prior to the 22d. I do not remember that man, and it is possible that–I don't think it was Odum, but I wouldn't recall that out and I do not remember the name of that man. I don't know what he looks like.
I continue to suspect that the Paine's knew Odum prior to November 22, but it is not based solely on Michael Paine's testimony nor the inferences of Ruth Paine and Marguerite Oswald.
Let the reader assess this series of statements by Michael, Ruth and Marguerite made under oath to determine whether or not there was anything significant in the relationship and/or familiarity between Michael or Ruth Paine and FBI Special Agent Bardwell [DeWitt] Odum. Read closely, I continue to contend these people knew one another; Bardwell Odum worked with Hosty and Hosty was in contact with Marina while she lived with the Paines so it's plausible Odum knew the Paines. Factor in Marguerite Oswald's statement 'Hart Odum could only have known we were at the Executive Inn through Ruth Paine, and Michael Paine's statement that he had dinner with the federal agents and with the Life [magazine] folks who in fact had ensconced Marguerite and Marina in the Adolphus Hotel (where Bardwell Odum attempted to question them) and moved them to the Executive Inn where Bardwell Odum confronted Marguerite with a bogus photo from Mexico City, and factor in the role of Dick Stolley (Life Magazine) in securing the Zapruder film AND placing Marguerite and Marina in the Adolphus and then the Executive Inn, and factor in their ending up in the Wynne family's 6 Flags hotel – Wynne's who owned the Southland Centre where Oswald is alleged to have met with Veciana and David Atlee Phillips … and . . . I don't know, John – Jean, but I sense an operation involving rogue elements of the FBI and the CIA.
Mr. LIEBELER – Did you ever tell the FBI that at first you felt if the object was a gun in the package it did not have a scope on it, but after seeing pictures of the gun and noting the small size of the scope on the weapon used to assassinate the President that the object you lifted could have been a rifle with the scope mounted on it?
Mr. PAINE – I don't remember saying that; no.
Mr. LIEBELER – Do you remember being interviewed by FBI agents Odum and Peggs on November 24, 1963?
Mr. PAINE – Well, of course, I have seen Bob Odum frequently, Peggs is an unfamiliar name. It doesn't mean he couldn't have been there. That night I mostly went into the police station, spent much of it at the police station.
Mr. LIEBELER – On November 24?
Mr. PAINE – Is that a Sunday night or Monday?
Mr. LIEBELER – Sunday, the 24th would be a Sunday.
Mr. PAINE – I am too confused. Maybe it was on the next night that I spent at the police station.
Mr. LIEBELER – Well, let's go back and tell us about as best as you can recall how many times did the FBI interview you starting with the day of the assassination, the 22d of November. Did the FBI interview you on that day?r. LIEBELER – On November 24?
Mr. PAINE – There was someone at the police station, first the police took us to the station and asked us questions and we filled out an affidavit right in there.
Mr. LIEBELER – That is the Dallas Police Station?
Mr. PAINE – The Dallas police, and after they were finished someone from the FBI, I believe, asked me some questions. It was almost as though he had no–by leave of the police that he could do this.
Mr. LIEBELER – Do you remember the name of that agent?
Mr. LIEBELER – Were you interviewed by the FBI on Saturday, November 23?
Mr. PAINE – I am not going to be able to remember when I was interviewed without being able to have something to hang it on. There were news reporters. First the news reporters were more in evidence, and then the police came out again, and both of them stick in my mind more because they are more objectionable. I mean there is more—-
Mr. LIEBELER – Would it refresh your recollection if I mentioned the name of Richard E. Harrison as an FBI agent who interviewed you on November 22, 1963, at the Dallas police station?
Mr. PAINE – No. I don't remember the name.
Mr. LIEBELER – Reconstruct for us the events of Saturday, November 23 as best you can. And perhaps I can help you if I ask you first, did you stay in your apartment in Grand Prairie the night of the assassination, the night of the 22d?
Mr. PAINE – No, I don't think so. No, we had a late supper there, Life reporters , were there, and—–
Mr. LIEBELER – At Irving?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_m2.htm
(cont.)
Mrs. PAINE – I called and the man to whom I talked, I don't know if it was Lee, or I think it was someone else who answered first, I am not certain at all.
Mr. JENNER – Odum?
Mrs. PAINE – Odum? It certainly was not Odum. I know him. . . .
Mr. JENNER – Kenneth C. Howe, on this same subject. I have questioned you about that, and I have read from the report, and you have affirmed as to that. Then on January 3, 1964, this apparently was an interview at your home by Agent Odum? Do you recall that?
Mrs. PAINE – Agent Odum has been out a great deal. . . .
Mr. JENNER – With respect to the other phase, that is to what the reporter had said to you.
Mrs. PAINE – I would guess that I reported to Mr. Odum other things about—
Mr. JENNER – Present recollections Mrs. Paine.
Mrs. PAINE – I don't recall the particular conversation with Mr. Odum at all. I talked with him a great deal. . . .
Mr. JENNER – But Marina did say to you "would you look for Lee's wedding ring?"
Mrs. PAINE – No, Odum did.
Mr. JENNER – Odum did. . . .
Mr. JENNER – When you obtained the wedding ring did you examine it?
Mrs. PAINE – No.
Mr. JENNER – I mean did you look inside to see if there was an inscription on it or were you curious about that?
Mrs. PAINE – I gave it to Mr. Odum who was with me in the room.
FBI Agent Odum confronts Marguerite Oswald at the Adolphus:
Mr. RANKIN. The Chief of Detectives, or something like that?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. And I called him from the hotel, and the man that answered the phone said he would relay my message to him, that I wanted to see if Marina and 1 could see Lee. I waited on the phone. He came back and said, "Yes, Mrs. Oswald, Captain Fritz said you may see Lee at 12 o'clock today."
We arrived at the Adolphus Hotel between 9:30 and 10:00.
Mr. RANKIN. This was what day?
Mrs. OSWALD. This was Saturday, November 23, the morning of Saturday, November 23.
While we Were there, an FBI agent, Mr. Hart Odum entered the room with another agent, and wanted Marina to accompany him to be questioned.
Mr. RANKIN. Were these FBI agents?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir; Mr. Hart Odum is an FBI agent. And I said, "No, we are going to see Lee." We were all eating breakfast when he came in. said, "No, we have been promised to see Lee. She is not going with you."
So he said, "Well, will you tell Mrs. Oswald, please"–to the interpreter, "I would like to question her and I would like her to come with me to be questioned."
I said, "It is no good. You don't need to tell the interpreter that, because my daughter-in-law is not going with you. We have been promised to see Lee. And besides Marina has testified, made her statement at the courthouse yesterday, and any further statements that Marina will make will be through counsel."
Mr. Odum said to the interpreter, "Mrs. Oswald"–to the interpreter–"will you tell Mrs. Oswald to decide what she would like to do and not listen to her mother-in-law."
I said, "It is no good to tell my daughter-in-law, because my daughter-in-law is not leaving here with you, Mr. Odum, without counsel."
And I had been telling Marina, "No, no."
She said, "I do, Mamma," she kept saying.
Just then my son, Robert, entered the room, and Mr. Odum said., "Robert, we would like to take Marina and question her."
He said, "No, I am sorry, we are going to try to get lawyers for both she and Lee."
So he left.
So Michael Paine did not know Odum.
And you have no evidence that Ruth did.
And you have been huffing and puffing about this for days on this board, and it turns out not to be true.
Know who Emily Litella was?
Mr. RANKIN. That was at the Executive Inn?
Mrs. OSWALD. At the Executive Inn.
Now, Mr. Hart Odum, the same FBI agent, that insisted upon my daughter-in-law going with him from the Adolphus Hotel, knocked on the door at the Executive Inn. I had had my robe and slippers on, and I pushed the curtain aside when he knocked. He said, "This is Mr. Odum."
So, I opened the door. This is very important. I would like to not talk about it. I would like to show you what I did. This is so important.
I opened the door just a little, because I had the robe off and I didn't want anybody to come in. The door is just ajar. I am going to take my shoes off, gentlemen, because I have this worked out. This is my height. He said, "Mrs. Oswald, we would like to see Marina."
I said, "Mr. Odum, I stated yesterday you are not going to see Marina. We are awful tired."
"Well, we just want to ask her one question."
"Mr. Odum, I am not calling my daughter. As a matter of fact, she is taking a bath."
She wasn't.
He said, "Mrs. Oswald, I would like to ask you a question."
. . . There was another man with him. . . .
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir. But here is the point to this whole thing.
The FBI agent would have to know where we were, and Mrs. Paine would have to know where we were, because of these two Life representatives, who, I am assuming, probably went back to Mrs. Paine's home in order to get more information. And she they would have told her where we were, because no one knew where we were. This girl and I had no protection or anything. We were sent out there with this Mr. Allen Grant, the representative. And no one knew who we were. And Mr. Hart Odum would have to know where we were through Mrs. Paine, which is a normal procedure, let's say. He might have gone to Mrs. Paine's home looking for Marina there, and Mrs. Paine might have told him we were at the Executive Inn. I will grant that.
But the point I am going to make is that the picture was tried to be shown to Marina before the telephone conversation.
Now, if there are any questions why I say that, I would be happy to answer.
Mr. RANKIN. Yes–why do you say that?
Mrs. OSWALD. Because they wanted Marina—-
Mr. DULLES. Could we get what picture this is? Is that the picture held in the hand?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir–the picture that is held in the hand, that the FBI agent, Mr. Hart Odum showed me.
Mr. RANKIN. I understand you didn't recognize who the picture was at all.
Mrs. OSWALD. No. I told Mr. Hart Odum I had never seen the man before, "Believe me, sir," and he left.
To emphasize Allen Dulles' interjection related to the photograph sent from MC :
So far as I know no lawman said specifically to Oswald, "You are under
arrest for the murder of …" As I've said before, they had good reason to
suspect him in both crimes. According to Oswald, "Nobody has told me anything except that I am accused of murdering
a policeman."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqNWsR87WCY
Of course, he lied a lot that day so I wouldn't take his word for it.
It's irrelevant where a box was placed in a reenactment. There are photos of the box in the window taken 11/22:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=670&tab=page
Fingerprint expert Latona testified about the prints found on the top box. Search for "box A" here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/latona.htm
Exhibits showing Box A and print comparisons, left palm print on one side,
right fingerprint on the other:
Gilda was a marvellous comedian. I'm curious what character would inspire you to laugh at yourself occasionally. We probably shouldn't venture there.
I'm not convinced that Paine is saying he didn't know Odum prior to the 22nd. There are frequent references by credible authors that Hosty and Odum were partners although none assert they were partners prior to the 22nd that I've identified. Certainly Hosty referred to him as "Bard" so either they had worked together before or they got to know each other quickly. It's reasonable to speculate that they were partners, and if Hosty had been tracking the ex-Marine defector-returned-home who was married to a Russian citizen, "Bard" could well have also met the Paines. Would there be notes to that effect? Oh maybe not, maybe they were flushed as well.
Having established the possibility, now read Leibeler's question and Michael's answer again:
Mr. PAINE The Dallas police, and after they were finished 'SOMEONE' from the FBI, I believe, asked me some questions. It was almost as though he had no–by leave of the police that he could do this.
Paine is saying he doesn't remember the name 'of that agent'. He is saying 'I don't know what he looks like'. Now, consider the pertinent sentence with that awareness, extracting one comma (after all, transcriptionists are human too):
"Now, I don't believe I met, I was introduced to Odum prior to the 22d. I do not remember THAT MAN.
And factor in Leibeler's earlier question:
Paine is saying he didn't know Peggs, 'that man', 'that agent'. He is also saying that he did know Odum. The conundrum is when did he first meet him.
You have no evidence Paine had ever met Odum before the assassination.
Ruth neither (you said "the Paines").
Why don't you just admit you posted a factoid.
But for extra points, were did you get that?
Did some conspiracy book say that? If so, which one?
"Exhibits showing Box A and print comparisons, left palm print on one side, right fingerprint on the other:"~Jean Davison
Hahahaha!!! So they found Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints on boxes in the Texas Book Depository Building! Wow, how unusual, Oswald worked there, he handled boxes in the building every day.
So now that you have proved Oswald worked there, put the rifle in his hands firing the shots that killed Kennedy. We have been waiting more than half a century for someone to offer the conclusive evidence of this.
It doesn't matter where the boxes were placed for the reenactment. It matters that the boxes were moved before photos were taken of their positions during the initial investigation.
'It's irrelevant where a box was placed in a reenactment. There are photos of the box in the window taken 11/22:' – Jean Davison
"Careful reenactments by investigative agencies and by members of the Commission staff of Oswald's movements from the time he left the Texas School Book Depository until he encountered Tippit verified that Oswald could reach his roominghouse at 1026 North Beckley Avenue at approximately 1 p.m. or earlier."
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix-12.html
According to this, the Warren Commission placed a great deal of confidence in the reenactments they were presented; yet you ask us to accept that the reenactment by the Secret Service for the benefit of the Warren commission of the actual sniper's nest could be shoddy at best and still be considered sufficiently accurate that the WC members would be assured they had clear picture of precisely how a sniper would maneuver within the confines? For instance, why stack a third box, precariously, (particularly one that should have been dusted for prints if in fact is was used by the sniper) if it was in your words 'irrelevant'. Your obsession with detail is highly selective, Jean. Perhaps the SS could have included a puppy in the window and the agency could just assure the WC members that the critter was irrelevant.
The usual response. Except that the rifle rest box was brought from its usual spot halfway across the building. It was smaller and lighter, easier to position just right.
No other workers' prints were found on any SN boxes, only Oswald's. Did the "real sniper" just happen to pick a box with Oswald's prints, Willy?
What can I keep or discard from these details and observations? What do you identify that is
unreliable, refuted?
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/snipersnest.pdf
Jean, it is "the usual response" because it is the most reasonable response. Oswald worked in the TBDB and handled book cartons all day long. It was his job. There is simply nothing extraordinary on his fingerprints being on any book carton in the building.
There are bigger problems here. The spoiling of the crime scene, the so-called "snipers nest", which when all the data is integrated, appears to be a set-up stage, a construct of those attempting to frame Oswald.
Again, Oswald was on the second floor having lunch at the time that Kennedy was shot.
You have to pound square pegs into round factoid holes to get the man up to the 6th floor at that window.
'The usual response. Except that the rifle rest box was brought from its usual spot halfway across the building. It was smaller and lighter, easier to position just right. No other workers' prints were found on any SN boxes, only Oswald's. Did the "real sniper" just happen to pick a box with Oswald's prints, Willy?'
Suddenly the rifle boxes are significant, Jean? Why would Oswald carry 'the rifle rest box' halfway across the floor when (studying the photographs) there were smaller, lighter boxes within feet of the window. And you now acknowledge that the shooter was intent on 'positioning the boxes just right' – indicating you agree that the position of the boxes was critical – yet you discount the apparent misstep of the Secret Service when they place an ADDITIONAL smaller, lighter 3rd box perched precariously against the windowsill?
'No other workers' prints were found on any SN boxes'
Were the boxes tested for fingerprints of anyone other than occupants/employees of the TSBD, Jean?
On the subject of placement, why would Oswald carry the rifle all the way back across the 6th Floor and position it at the top of the stairwell?
Let's see how Jean and John in particular process the data presented in these photographs.
Excellent source, Tom.
John, so you refuse to respond to the fact that the wording in Michael Paine's statements leaves open for interpretation the possibility he knew FBI agent Bardwell Odum prior to the 22nd?
What is the problem, John? Are you unable to analyze nuance in testimony? Is this a threat to your assertion that Bardwell Odum was little other than a hapless FBI agent stuck with a messy case?
I wonder if in retrospect anyone on the Warren Commission would ask themselves, 'why didn't we talk to Bard'?
So you are admitting that you have no evidence that Odum knew "the Paines."
Why don't you have the decency to admit you posted something for which you had no evidence?
Ah, I see. You are defending Bardwell Odum's role in the aftermath of the assassination … resorting to "have you left no sense of decency" — only in this instance you've inverted the dynamics. I'm no McCarthy, and you're no Joe Welch. Pointing out Bardwell Odum's ghost presence throughout the investigation is hardly a moral question, John.
I have presented a logical argument. You are choosing to ignore it. I stand by my assertion that the Paines were familiar with Odum prior to the 22nd. You can attempt to prove they weren't but you will hit a brick wall, and you will still be confronted with the logic.
Hosty and Bardwell interviewed Sylvia Odio:
"The FBI's handling of Hall, and of the whole Odio story, suggests they had something to hide. To begin with, the agents they sent to interview Silvia Odio, and who asked no questions about the "double agent" story, were James P. Hosty, Jr., and his partner, Bardwell D. Odum. Hosty also interviewed Juan B. Martin, the man Odio had been interested in buying arms from; yet his write-up of this interview is utterly trivial and makes no reference to gunrunning at all.
James Hosty was hardly the right agent to send for an impartial investigation. As the FBI agent assigned to handle both arms trafficking and the Oswalds before the assassination, Hosty quickly became a party to some of the FBI's most serious cover-up activities. On November 24, 1963, long before he finally interviewed Silvia Odio in December, Hosty had already destroyed a threatening note which Oswald had left for him at the Dallas FBI office. He had done so on orders from his boss, Gordon Shanklin, which almost certainly came from Washington. — Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993)
"But you folks want only opinions that you find convenient to count. You dismiss the others." ~McAdams
What was Curry's final determination? That may be well to know, as I know my views change when I learn new information. What was Curry's learning curve?
What might he have been unable to say earlier for the sake of going along to get along.
Several factors must be accounted for in assessing Curry's statements throughout time.
'You Folks' seem to want to freeze-frame at the Warren Report. It has been half a century, much has been revealed in that interim.
The Art and Science of Misrepresenting Evidence
by Stewart Galanor
A critical analysis of Professor McAdams'
"The Source of the Shots in Dealey Plaza"
In reexamining my analysis (54 Knoll, 46 Depository), I have found that the knoll category was overcounted by only two (52 Knoll, 48 Depository). This article covers issues on evaluating evidence that are often overlooked by Warren Commission apologists.
For a comprehensive list of the witnesses and links to their testimony, see "Witness Testimony and Statements on the Origin of the Shots in Dealey Plaza as Published by the Warren Commission," online at http://www.jfklancer.com/galanor/.
House Speaker Tip O'Neill revealed in his autobiography that five years after the assassination: "I was surprised to hear [Presidential aide Kenneth] O'Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence. "That's not what you told the Warren Commission," I said. "You're right," he replied. "I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family." "Dave Powers [another Kennedy aide] was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O'Donnell's." (Man of the House,178)
Overzealous Analysis
The testimony and reports of the following eight
witnesses reveal that McAdams has misinterpreted their
opinions on the source of the shots.
• Eugene Boone, a Dallas Deputy Sheriff, was standing
at the intersection of Main and Houston when he
heard the shots. In his statement to the Sheriff's Office
he said, "I heard three shots coming from the vicinity
of where the President's car was." Directly in line with
Boone and the President's car was the fence on the
Knoll. From Boone's position, his perception of the origin
of the shots is consistent with a shot from the knoll.
(19H508)
• Lee Bowers, a railroad switchman, was questioned
by Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball.
Mr. Ball. And were you able to form an opinion
as to the source of the sound or what direction
it came from, I mean?
Mr. Bowers. The sounds came either from up
against the School Depository building or near
the mouth of the triple underpass.
Mr. Ball. Were you able to tell which?
Mr. Bowers. No; I could not. (6H287)
In the questioning of Bowers, Counsel for the
Commission assumed that the shots came from one
direction. However, Bowers' testimony is more consistent
with shots coming from both the Book Depository
and the triple underpass.
• John and Faye Chism
• Peggy Hawkins
• Dallas assistant district attorney Samuel Paternostro
• J. C. Price
• Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrells
Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 7, Issue 2, Summer 2001
http://jfklancer.com/pdf/galanor.pdf
Gelanor was a buff who put as many witnesses as he could into the "Knoll" category.
Just to give one example of how silly Galanor was:
Mr. Bowers. The sounds came either from up against the School Depository building or near the mouth of the triple underpass.
In the questioning of Bowers, Counsel for the Commission assumed that the shots came from one direction. However, Bowers' testimony is more consistent with shots coming from both the Book Depository and the triple underpass.
Bowers said "or." But Gelanor holds out for two locations.
Then there is this which Galanor omits:
Mr. BALL – Can you tell me now whether or not it came, the sounds you heard, the three shots came from the direction of the Depository Building or the triple underpass?
Mr. BOWERS – No; I could not.
Mr. BALL – From your experience there, previous experience there in hearing sounds that originated at the Texas School Book Depository Building, did you notice that sometimes those sounds seem to come from the triple underpass? Is that what you told me a moment ago?
Mr. BOWERS – There is a similarity of sound, because there is a reverberation which takes place from either location.
Mr. BALL – Had you heard sounds originating near the triple underpass before?
Mr. BOWERS – Yes; quite often. Because trucks backfire and various occurrences.
>In the questioning of Bowers, Counsel for the Commission assumed that the shots came from one direction. However, Bowers' testimony is more consistent with shots coming from both the Book Depository and the triple underpass.<
There is no rational reason for the Commission nor McAdams to assume that the shots Bowers' heard came from the Book Depository. He stated clearly that he could not tell which.
There is no rational reason for the Commission nor McAdams to assume that the shots Bowers' heard came from the Book Depository. He stated clearly that he could not tell which.
Which is why I classify him as "could not tell."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/earwitnesses.htm
Galanor wants to classify him as "both locations."
My point was that Curry said two contradictory things and yet you'd never know that from reading the average conspiracy source.
Curry cites another example of this cherry-picking when he says that "the direction of the blood and brains" from the head wound led him to suspect a shot from the front. That and other things he said suggests he'd been misled by the one-sided accounts that mention patrolman Hargis being spattered but say nothing about the bloody debris that went *forward* into the front seat and beyond, even though the car was moving forward as the debris fell. IOW, Curry is expressing an opinion that's not even well-informed.
"You are wittingly or not distracting from the pertinent question: Did Curry rely on Brennan's affidavit to place Oswald in the window?…"
"Pertinent question" according to you, but I don't give a flip what Curry's opinion was based on. It's just his OPINION, and I can form my own opinion about what the evidence shows, just like anyone else.
IMO, the circumstantial and physical evidence is much stronger than Brennan's ID. Just one of many examples: the small box used as a rifle rest was brought from a different location on the 6th floor and placed there in the window. It had Oswald's partial left palm print and one of his right fingerprints on it, one on each side, just as if he'd placed it there with his own two hands. See Latona's testimony, or:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946&search=%22rifle_rest%22+box+window#relPageId=590&tab=page
That's another little tidbit most conspiracy books don't mention, isn't it?
"IOW, Curry is expressing an opinion that's not even well-informed."
Let me understand: you're attacking DPD Chief Jesse Curry?
Of course you can form your own opinion Jean, and when you share that opinion you are doing so as a private citizen. Jesse Curry was the Chief of the Dallas Police Department so his "opinion" carried a bit more weight than yours would have at the time or does now, would you not agree? His "opinion" evidently persuaded him to end the search for the assassin because Oswald had been arrested. That's an opinion that packed a heavy responsibility and accountability when he disbanded his force from pursuing any other suspects including a 30-something white male weighing 165-170 lbs.
'IMO, the circumstantial and physical evidence is much stronger than Brennan's ID.'
Then would you be willing to throw out Brennan's testimony?
These are two distinct questions, Jean. One relates to Brennan's ability or lack thereof to have seen the shooter to the extent he claimed; the other relates to Curry's – not yours but Curry's reliance on Brennan to place Oswald in the window. A seasoned lawman like Curry would have recognized that the box with prints could have been planted, as could the shells, as could the rifle. An eye witness however could be the glue to hold it all together in the first 24 hours, justifying his calling off the manhunt.
re: 'the small box used as a rifle rest'
Small is relative, and the precarious position of the 3rd box against the windowsill seems to suggest either the SS was sloppy in setting the stage for the reenactment, or the shooter got lucky that box did not slip.
Have you studied the SS reenactment? Can you explain how anyone could identify a shooter 'from the belt up' from street level when the shooter is alleged to have been positioned as depicted beginning min. 8:36 in the film? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUtJos-wZXI
Jesse Curry was the Chief of the Dallas Police Department so his "opinion" carried a bit more weight than yours would have at the time or does now, would you not agree?
Except you dismiss his opinion when he expresses an opinion with which you disagree.
So his opinion only counts when you agree with it.
If you were handling the prosecution of Oswald, how would you argue Brennan's ability to see what he claimed given the configuration of the sniper's nest?
I have no problem with Curry changing his mind, I have difficulty with what prompted him to do so, to say 'we have him in that window' if the Brennan affidavit weighed heavily, and I am skeptical of your assessment that Curry's opinion was just that when it guided the investigation. Did he pursue any suspects after 2pm, less than 2 hours after the assassination?
I have no problem with Curry changing his mind, I have difficulty with what prompted him to do so,
You mean when he changed his mind and decided there might have been a Grassy Knoll shooter.
Yes, what caused him to do that you should have a problem with.
Bobby Hargis testimony doesn't really support a Grassy Knoll shooter.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hargis.htm
But what Curry believed is a red herring. His opinions are just opinions, not evidence.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/opinions.htm
Curry's opinion determined how he directed his officers to proceed. This is simple enough for an adolescent to grasp.
"Ordinary citizens — in contrast to social scientists and law enforcement professionals — find witness testimony highly compelling. And why not? Here are sober looking, apparently honest ordinary citizens saying things with full sincerity. They wouldn't be lying, would they?" –John McAdams, "Eyewitness Testimony" http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/witnesses.htm
Warren Report Conclusion
1. The shots which killed President Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally were fired from the sixth floor window at the southeast corner of the Texas School Book Depository. This determination is based upon the following:
(a) Witnesses at the scene of the assassination saw a rifle being fired from the sixth floor window of the Depository Building, and some witnesses saw a rifle in the window immediately after the shots were fired.
Are you avoiding this question: "If you were handling the prosecution of Oswald, how would you argue Brennan's ability to see what he claimed given the configuration of the sniper's nest?
If like Jean Davison, you don't place a lot of weight in Brennan's eyewitness account, how do you rationalize the first item of the Warren Commission Conclusion?
I would argue that Oswald moved around a bit in the Sniper's Nest.
But you are ignoring the point that the WC did not rely on Brennan to place Oswald in the Sniper's Nest.
I posted the passage. Why did you ignore it?
The only real problem with Brennan's testimony is that he saw Oswald on TV before he went to the line-up.
Buffs somehow can't see that.
Brennan's testimony is perfectly fine for establishing that a shooter was in the Sniper's Nest.
But then you have: Amos Lee Euins, Robert Jackson, Malcolm Couch, Mrs. Earl Cabell and James Worrell, Jr.
And then you have the spent cartridges found in the Sniper's Nest.
Were you not aware of all this?
"Ordinary citizens — in contrast to social scientists and law enforcement professionals — find witness testimony highly compelling. And why not? Here are sober looking, apparently honest ordinary citizens saying things with full sincerity. They wouldn't be lying, would they?" –John McAdams, "Eyewitness Testimony"
Are you implying I think witness testimony is reliable?
Did you not read the rest of the page?
Of course I know you don't believe witnesses you find inconvenient to be reliable.
'But then you have: Amos Lee Euins, Robert Jackson, Malcolm Couch, Mrs. Earl Cabell and James Worrell, Jr.'
Who among these individuals identified Oswald?
The issue was the WC claim that there was a shooter in the window of the Sniper's Nest.
Did you forget what you said?
Why are you changing the subject?
Why don't you just admit that the WC was absolutely correct about this?
The attempts to change the subject on this thread have been yours, John, a transparent effort to distract.
You have yet to answer how you would argue how Brennan was able to identify a man whom he saw 'from the belt up'. You have yet to address the discrepancy in his initial description of a 165-170 lb. 30 plus yr old white male vs. the 135lb. 24 yr. old Lee Oswald.
The question is who identified Oswald as 'the shooter'? What caused DPD Chief Jesse Curry to change his mind from 'we don't have him in that window with that rifle' to "we have him in the window". The Warren Commission concluded that Oswald was the lone assassin and the lead item defining how they came to that determination relates to the eyewitnesses of a shooter in the window. The only person I'm aware of who identified Oswald as the man in the window is Howard Brennan.
Please answer the question: Who among these individuals identified Oswald?
Paulf
Leslie: I think John threw out the names of the people in his high school marching band and expects that it proves a point.
Let's see.
Somebody saw a man in the depository window.
Bullets allegedly were fired from the window.
Oswald was in the building.
Could Oswald have fired the bullets from the window? Sure. But to say any of that has been proved is well beyond any established facts, and to say it could have been proven in a courtroom setting with an adversarial discovery process (which did not happen because Oswald was killed, now isn't that fortuitous?) is an even bigger stretch.
You posted the following:
I answered your question, and you called it an "attempt to distract."
Do you think people don't notice when you won't argue honestly?
It would help if you would admit that the Warren Commission had plenty of evidence for the conclusion you cited.
I also answered you on Brennan.
Claiming I didn't answer, when you merely didn't like the answer, is not an honest way to debate.
All of the witnesses I named saw shots fired, or at least a rifle being withdrawn immediately after shots were fired?
Had you never heard of these witnesses before?
Conspiracy books never mention them. Is that why?
Could Oswald have fired the bullets from the window? Sure. But to say any of that has been proved is well beyond any established facts,
You are aware that three spent cartridges from Oswald's rifle were found in the Sniper's Nest, right?
You are aware that CE 399 and two fragments recovered from the front seat of the limo were matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons, right?
'I also answered you on Brennan.'
No John, you answered a question I didn't ask: "Brennan's testimony is perfectly fine for establishing that a shooter was in the Sniper's Nest."
I concur that Brennan et al established that someone with a rifle was in the 6th Floor window. I'm looking for the witness that claimed it was Oswald and so far Brennan is the only one of those witness I can find. Please correct me if you have evidence otherwise.
What I have asked, repeatedly, that you still have not answered:
Given the configuration of the boxes and depth of the window frame, how was Brennan able to identify a man whom he saw 'from the belt up', saw him 'step down' when there were no steps and saw him rest the rifle to his side when he was at least 18 inches from the window. I also asked you about the discrepancy in his initial description of a 165-170 lb. 30 plus yr old white male vs. the 135lb. 24 yr. old Lee Oswald.'
If you have no intention of responding specifically, just say so and we can conclude this exchange knowing you are a disingenuous participant on this forum.
Your response to PaulF: 'All of the witnesses I named saw shots fired, or at least a rifle being withdrawn immediately after shots were fired?'
None of those individuals witnessed Oswald, John. If they had made the claim, they would have been as critical to this exchange as Brennan. The fact is Brennan's testimony placed Oswald in that window. You and the Warren Commission have then deduced he was at the end of the rifle witnessed by Euins, Jackson, Couch, Cabell and Worrell.
'Had you never heard of these witnesses before?'
They did not identify Oswald so were not germane to the initial debate. You introduced them because I highlighted the Warren Commission Conclusion which references witnesses who saw a rifle.
'You are aware that three spent cartridges from Oswald's rifle were found in the Sniper's Nest, right? You are aware that CE 399 and two fragments recovered from the front seat of the limo were matched to Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons, right?'
A first year law student would know that the 6th Floor crime scene was compromised by law enforcement and media, that the hard evidence was contaminated, and that the chain of command was broken. The defence would have a heyday challenging this evidence, and dare one suggest seize the opening to charge that the evidence was planted. So that leaves you reliant on eyewitness testimony placing Oswald in the window, John. The Warren Commission knew that as well. The other witnesses who saw a rifle did not place Oswald at the end of the rifle. Brennan did, no one else.
Have you watched the SS reenactment?
What I have asked, repeatedly, that you still have not answered
I'm now telling you for the third time that Oswald probably moved around in the Sniper's Nest, and it's silly to say that Brennan could have only seen him in the position he was when he was shooting Kennedy.
The fact that he did not get the weight and age of Oswald correct is normal for witness testimony.
As Jean pointed out, if everybody could get everybody's weight correct, carnivals would not have a "guess your weight" attraction.
If you deny that I have dealt with this, you will be lying.
Of course you don't like my answer. But that's not the same as not giving you an answer.
So quit pretending it is.
'I'm now telling you for the third time that Oswald probably moved around in the Sniper's Nest, and it's silly to say that Brennan could have only seen him in the position he was when he was shooting Kennedy.'
And you're responding to a statement I didn't make; I did not say Brennan could only have seen the shooter in the position he was when he was shooting. I challenged whether or not Brennan could identify the shooter if he only saw the man from the belt up considering the man would have been inches removed from the window. (I'll leave the issue of the scope except to point out if he couldn't see the scope he couldn't have seen a face.)
'The fact that he did not get the weight and age of Oswald correct is normal for witness testimony.'
This is laughable. Brennan was considered a key witness in the first year of the investigation, the ONLY person out of thousands to place Oswald in the window, but oh by the way, he got that weight and age thing wrong.
It's not simply that if Brennan was describing Oswald he was 35-40 lbs. off and missed his age by ten years; it's that the authorities chose to disregard that description and arrested Oswald in the Texas Theatre anyway – UNLESS you're going to argue as Jean Davison has – they only arrested him for the Tippit murder. We know that not to be the case … they arrested him for the assassination IN SPITE of an eye witness who described the shooter as being 35-40 lbs. heavier and 10 years older. And Curry called off the search, in spite of knowing that the descriptions did not match. I posit that's why Curry initially said 'we don't have him in that window with that rifle' … he knew the description did not match, but he was getting pressure to pursue Oswald as the only suspect.
Why do you think FBI SA Bardwell Odum rushed to the Texas Theatre having just delivered the alleged assassination weapon to DPD HQ? He went there to witness the arrest of Oswald. I wonder what he thought when he discovered that Brennan had described someone 40 lbs. heavier and 10 years older? I guess agents are trained to discount eyewitness description … no, wait, they were pursuing a white male of a particular description. It's complicated.
Thank you Leslie, for responding so I don't have to.
People seeing a gun in a window is NOT the same as seeing Oswald fire the shots.
That John keeps dancing around this distinction is telling.
Even if it were established that the gun belonged to Oswald — funny enough, that's not airtight either — that does not mean Oswald was holding it when it fired.
If the case went to trial, there would be no direct evidence that Oswald was the shooter.
People can believe Oswald did it, but in wish they would be honest about the lack of actual direct evidence.
I guess agents are trained to discount eyewitness description … no, wait, they were pursuing a white male of a particular description. It's complicated.
Agents are sophisticated enough to know that witness descriptions are not precise.
Unlike buffs.
And the "rush to the Texas Theater" was the result of a suspect in the Tippit shooting having gone inside.
Do you even know who Johny Calvin Brewer is?
Brennan was considered a key witness in the first year of the investigation, the ONLY person out of thousands to place Oswald in the window,
You just rigidly keep repeating buff talking points, and ignore any responses that I or Jean make.
The WC explicitly said that it assigned no probative value to Brennan's ID of Oswald.
I've posted a quote on that, and you ignored it.
The evidence placing Oswald at the window included spent cartridges from his Mannlicher-Carcano, the fact that no witness placed him anywhere else during the shooting, the fact that a bag (of the right size to hold the Carcano) was found in the Sniper's Nest and had Oswald's prints on it, and the fact that his prints were found on boxes in the Sniper's Nest.
You are doing the buff book thing and pounding Brennan because you think you can impeach his testimony.
But you have to pretend that the WC assigned probative value to his ID of Oswald.
But it didn't.
No, Leslie danced around it by attacking the WC for saying the shots were fired from the Sniper's Nest window, apparently believing that Brennan was the only witness to shots being fired.
She has been corrected.
By "direct evidence" you mean witness testimony.
In the real world, a lot of people get convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, which can be very strong.
I've just listed a bunch of it for Leslie.
Now go ahead and try to claim it was all faked, forged or tampered with.
'The WC explicitly said that it assigned no probative value to Brennan's ID of Oswald.'
Eyewitness Identification of Assassin
Howard L. Brennan was an eyewitness to the shooting. As indicated previously the Commission considered his testimony as probative in reaching the conclusion that the shots came from the sixth floor, southeast corner window of the Depository Building.247 (See ch. III, pp. 61-68.) Brennan also testified that Lee Harvey Oswald, whom he viewed in a police lineup on the night. of the assassination, was the man he saw fire the shots from the sixth-floor window of the Depository Building.248
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-4.html
You should probably check in with your friends at wiki, John:
'His [Howard Brennan] description of a sniper he saw was, according to the Warren Commission, probative in reaching the conclusion that the shots came from the sixth floor, southeast corner window of the Texas School Book Depository Building.[5]'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Brennan
And Brennan's eyewitness testimony was of no probative value yet the Warren Report Conclusion opens with:
'And the "rush to the Texas Theater" was the result of a suspect in the Tippit shooting having gone inside. Do you even know who Johny Calvin Brewer is?'– John McAdams
Ah yes John, I believe you were on sabbatical tending to issues at Marquette when this was debated ad nauseam on this site.
'Julia Postal, who was selling tickets at the theater, saw a man duck inside without getting a ticket. Brewer asked Postal if the man had paid for his ticket and she said he hadn't. Postal called the police as Brewer followed the man into the theatre. . . .
A short time later, 15 POLICE OFFICERS ARRIVED AT THE THEATRE and secured all exits while searching both the balcony and lower seating area.
http://www.nbcchicago.com/jfk-50/Oswald-Arrested-at-Texas-Theatre-215582331.html
At least 5 police cars were pulled from the search for the assassin of the president to pursue a suspect in the Tippit shooting? FBI Agent Odum rushed to the back of the Texas Theatre to watch the suspect in a policeman's death be arrested? A police officer was heard to shout inside the theatre as they accosted Oswald "shoot the president will you". The dispatcher indicated that the description of the suspect in the assassin might match that of the murderer of Tippit.
You are deliberately misleading any new student when you argue the DPD did not go to the Texas Theatre in pursuit of someone they believed to be the assassin of the president. The Tippit murder was the catalyst but they were pursing an assassin. If an officer had been shot in Far North Dallas and a suspect was spotted in the NorthPark Mall, I suspect only two or three police officers would have answered the initial call and the search for the assassin might have been pursued. Instead, the search was shut down the moment Oswald was walked into the DPD HQ just after 2 pm. Explain that, John.
"At least 5 police cars were pulled from the search for the assassin of the president to pursue a suspect in the Tippit shooting?"
No they were not. Read the police tape transcript. Police cars weren't racing around in search of anyone who fit the general description "white male, 165 pounds," etc. They needed a better lead than that.
The news that a policeman had been shot prompted many who were at the TSBD to leave that scene for Oak Cliff on their own, without any order from the dispatcher. When someone reported seeing a young man run into the Oak Cliff library, cops stormed the library. They searched other buildings to no avail, then Julia Postal telephoned that someone had ducked into the theater, apparently trying to avoid the police cars going up and down Jefferson.
The description of the Tippit shooter broadcast had been "a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender, wearing white jacket, a white shirt and dark slacks." Julia Postal testified that she told the policeman she talked to:
"This man is running from them [the police] for some reason." And he wanted to know why, and [I] told him because every time the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know—-well, if he fits the description is what he says. I said, "Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/postal.htm
Here are transcripts of the police radio:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/tapes2.htm
Also, the WC didn't assign "probative value" to Brennan's ID of Oswald, only to his testimony that shots came from the SN window.
Leslie, you need to explain what your point is. You haven't done so.
A cop is killed, and lots of cops rush to the place where the suspect in the cop killing is. And you think that's odd?
And are you even able to read what you posted about Brennan's testimony?
The WC considered it probative with regard to shots being fired from the Sniper's Nest, but not probative with regard to the identification of Oswald.
Read what you posted!
Jean, Compartmentalizing served the conspiracy and it serves your purpose to perpetuate the cover up.
Brennan's description lead to pursuit of a white male that morphed into someone 10 years younger and 35 lbs. lighter at the Texas Theatre following the shooting of an officer in the neighborhood and meanwhile the shell casings and rifle had been tracked to Irving so by the time the Warren Commission had to deal with Brennan's inability to positively ID Oswald it didn't matter in spite of his having helped set things in motion. Are you oblivious to the context of this argument?
'The news that a policeman had been shot prompted many who were at the TSBD to leave that scene for Oak Cliff on their own, without any order from the dispatcher' – Jean Davison
You have argued before that there wasn't an actual search in play in the first hour of the assassination of the President of the United States and that all those police cars one sees in the photographs of the front of the theatre were there to capture the murderer of a fellow police officer Two examples of how thinly stretched the force was in the first few hours of the assassination:
'Any manpower that you can spare have them meet 170 or 280 at the entrance out here on Hines.
'Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.'
And FBI Agent Odum? What was he doing at the Texas Theatre, Jean? And the police officer who shouted "kill the president will you"? What do you think he meant?
'Also, the WC didn't assign "probative value" to Brennan's ID of Oswald, only to his testimony that shots came from the SN window.' — Jean Davison
I started to say this for you but chose to give you the opportunity to highlight how the Warren Commission manipulated their wording – similar to how they manipulated their questioning of witnesses -in the final report. 'Probative' is buried in the full paragraph that also references Brennan's identification of Oswald in the line up. The words "however" and/or "was not probative" could have been inserted very easily to draw the distinction yet they chose to blend the two statements into one cohesive paragraph without elaborating on Brennan's difficulty in identifying Oswald. BTW, Do you think Brennan had difficulty because the man he saw in the window was 10 yrs older and 35 lbs. lighter?
correction: 35 lbs. 'heavier'
"A cop is killed, and lots of cops rush to the place where the suspect in the cop killing is. And you think that's odd?"~McAdams
The professor's pretense that the cops storming the theater didn't think they were apprehending the murderer of the President is ludicrous.
One of them hollered "Kill the President will you!?!?"
THAT is Ms Sharps point, if I may interject here.
'Leslie, you need to explain what your point is. You haven't done so.'
No John, I don't need to explain any further. The cops arrived at the Texas Theatre in pursuit of a suspect in the assassination and the Tippit murder was the catalyst. You can either grasp the implications or not, your choice. Had an officer been shot near the NorthPark Mall within an hour of the assassination in Dealey Plaza I would bet these same cops would not have rushed there. This was about Oak Cliff, Oswald, and Tippit and those copes knew it.
I would posit that somewhere in this scenario, someone knew Oswald had a place in Oak Cliff. Might that have been the FBI?
'A cop is killed, and lots of cops rush to the place where the suspect in the cop killing is. And you think that's odd?'
Absolutely John. Revert to the tried and true, take events out of context. Those "lots of cops" were in the middle of a city wide investigation into the broad daylight assassination of the US President ON THEIR WATCH, but a fallen brother trumped that commitment and they went on personal crusades without authorization?
What is surfacing in this teasing out of the events is the very real possibility that there was a distinct pursuit in progress separate from the one Jesse Curry was conducting and that is why his story has captured your keen interest on this site. Otherwise John, why not simply walk away from the conversation?
Along with all those cops, FBI Agent Bardwell Odum rushed 'to the place where the suspect in the cop killing' was. Why would he – within minutes of delivering the alleged weapon of an suspect in the assassination of the President of the US – 'rush' to the Texas Theatre on the hunch that the person inside the theatre murdered a police officer? Make sense of that for us, John. Jean has yet to.
No John, I don't need to explain any further. The cops arrived at the Texas Theatre in pursuit of a suspect in the assassination and the Tippit murder was the catalyst. You can either grasp the implications or not, your choice.
I can't read your mind.
Since nothing sinister follows from the facts as we know them, I can't figure out what you think follows.
But I know what the problem is. If you stated plainly what your point is, it would seem silly.
A first year law student would know that the 6th Floor crime scene was compromised by law enforcement and media, that the hard evidence was contaminated, and that the chain of command was broken.
Actually, no.
The supposed "compromised" scene involved stuff like moving the boxes before they were photographed. Which would not have mattered at a trial.
You are just repeating buff book claims.
'I can't read your mind. . . .Since nothing sinister follows from the facts as we know them, I can't figure out what you think follows. . . . But I know what the problem is. If you stated plainly what your point is, it would seem silly. . . .'
I'm fascinated and in fact intrigued that you have spent the amount of time you have on this topic. I'm virtually unknown to the 'research community', I'm unpublished, and essentially I simply a citizen researcher focused on the assassination of the president in 1963. So why spend so much time with this John? What have I introduced that causes you discomfort? You have the option to ignore out of hand my assertions, yet you continue to engage and that engagement is limited to an effort to distract with a refusal to answer speciic questions.
Start with: Why did FBI Agent Bardwell Odum rush to the Texas Theatre to witness the arrest of a suspect in the murder of a Dallas police officer?
The compromise of the scene included the pocketing of the shell casings by a skilled law enforcement officer, the parading of the rifle rather than securing it for identification and fingerprints, the introduction of persons other than trained law enforcement into the environment. You're grasping here John.
"The supposed "compromised" scene involved stuff like moving the boxes before they were photographed. Which would not have mattered at a trial."~McAdams
Hogwash. That is the very definition of despoiling a crime scene.
But that is not all, the bullet husks were picked up before the photography and had to be put down again before a photo was made. This is altering the crime scene, whether is "seems" innocent enough, or "seems" to be innocuous incompetence – it is in fact an opportunity to switch the bullets and shells. It cannot be proven without a doubt that the bullets were not switched with others.
The "professor's" ignorance of Crime Scene Investigation is blatantly highlighted by such absurd propositions as he has just put forward. And yet McAdams advises that others learn something about proper crime scene investigation, or ballistics, and any other of a number of issues he has consistently proven himself inept at.
And then to top it all off, he squeals "ad hominem" when someone points out he is inept and ignorant. This is tedious BS we get here from a supposed "doctor of political science".
pat speer
I knew if I looked at this thread I'd find something to annoy the heck out of me. Sure enough, Johnny Mac and Miss Jean are going on and on about how the WC didn't consider Brennan's ID of Oswald "probative." This is malarkey, pure and simple. There were two parts to the WC–what they wrote in their report and what they sold the public. It can be argued, moreover, that what the WC put out for public consumption carried far more weight than what was in their report. In this light, then, one can not avoid that Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford not only wrote a Life Magazine article claiming Brennan ID'ed Oswald, but that he flat out lied and said Brennan had Id'ed Oswald in a line-up. This was shameful.
I knew if I looked at this thread I'd find something to annoy the heck out of me. Sure enough, Johnny Mac and Miss Jean are going on and on about how the WC didn't consider Brennan's ID of Oswald "probative." This is malarkey, pure and simple.
Pat, speaking of annoyances, what in the world is going on over at that hurt locker masquerading as the JFK Debate Forum? When will the unannounced deletion of threads, finally stop? I see that it is paramount that criticism of Harvey and Lee suspicions and elaborate, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories be disappeared almost as soon as it is posted, but the secrecy related to the erasing of and the clear bias against the reasonable criticism posted (by Bernie Laverick and Attorney Lance Payette) in the thread disappeared in the last hour at the link below is unconscionable.:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22714 (the first post is still available at yahoo.com cache)
Other than the numerous unannounced bannings and suspensions of members, the frequent disappearances of posts and threads, and the unceasing homage paid to Ruth Paine, why do you suppose the posting activity and the level of original research appears less than prolific?
But that is not all, the bullet husks were picked up before the photography and had to be put down again before a photo was made.
That's Tom Alyea's claim, which only surfaced in the 1980s.
But Alyea has no footage of the hulls, and such footage would be of huge news value.
Fritz was telling his officers, as they entered the Depository, to hold the crime scene secure. Yet supposedly he disturbed it in plain sight of an easy half-dozen of his officers.
The Alyea film shows that many officers gathered around the Sniper's Nest.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Only if the exact configuration of the boxes were evidence at trial would their having been moved be an issue.
And even then, witness testimony about the original configuration (say, from Luke Mooney) would be admissible.
Even if this is true (which I doubt) it would not compromise the chain of custody if the hulls remained in plain sight in the Sniper's Nest until picked up and processed.
Moving them would only be relevant if the exact configuration of the spent hulls were an issue at trial. Even then, witness testimony about their original configuration would be admissible.
The "professor's" ignorance of Crime Scene Investigation is blatantly highlighted by such absurd propositions as he has just put forward.
You, Willy, are either just making things up, or taking stuff from buff books.
'Fritz was telling his officers, as they entered the Depository, to hold the crime scene secure. Yet supposedly he disturbed it in plain sight of an easy half-dozen of his officers. . . . The Alyea film shows that many officers gathered around the Sniper's Nest.'
Your turn John. WHAT are you saying here? Captain Fritz was actually unable to secure the crime scene? He didn't place shell casings in his pocket? But Alyea was present and filmed many officers when in fact he was a journalist, not a licensed police photographer? Not sure what you're getting at, John?
And what kind of shoddy police work was this? from a post on your own site:
'The issue of "two versus three" spent rounds was dealt with by the Warren Commission, which had noticed the discrepancy. First, they questioned C. N. Dhority, Dallas Police Detective:
Mr. BALL. Now, did Captain Fritz give you some rifle shells to deliver to somebody?
Mr. DHORITY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. About what time of the night or day was that?
Mr. DHORITY. I don't recall when it was, but, from his office there I took them up to the crime lab.
Mr. BALL. Were there three spent 6.5 rifle shells, is that right?
Mr. BALL. Did you return any shells to Captain Fritz?
Mr. BALL. All of them or one of them?
Mr. DHORITY. No; he told me to bring him one back.
Mr. BALL. You brought one back in an envelope?
Mr. DHORITY. Yes.
"That's Tom Alyea's claim, which only surfaced in the 1980s."~McAdams
That is completely irrelevant. Alyea was not only a witness but a participant in the goings on at the crime scene.
And yes his photos show many officers gathered around the snipers nest.
Too many, this is proof itself that the crime scene was not secured. As few specialist CSI should have been the only one's within a certain perimeter.
This was an amateur operation by presumed professional officers of the law. It is as much in breach of protocol as the prosecution of JFK's autopsy.
THE CIRCUS IN DALLAS – NOVEMBER 1963
Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy
Chapter 5: Detention and Death of Oswald
"The American Bar Association declared in December 1963 that "widespread publicizing of Oswald's alleged guilt, involving statements by officials and public disclosures of the details of 'evidence,' would have made it extremely difficult to impanel an unprejudiced jury and afford the accused a fair trial." 255 Local bar associations expressed similar feelings.256 The Commission agrees that Lee Harvey Oswald's opportunity for a trial by 12 jurors free of preconception as to his guilt or innocence would have been seriously jeopardized by the premature disclosure and weighing of the evidence against him.
The problem of disclosure of information and its effect on trials is, of course, further complicated by the independent activities of the press in developing information on its own from sources other than law enforcement agencies. Had the police not released the specific items of evidence against Oswald, it is still possible that the other information presented on television and in the newspapers, chiefly of a biographical nature, would itself have had a prejudicial effect on the public."
Pat,
"Miss Jean" didn't know about the Life article, which I see now was brought up
by David Von Pein last summer:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22169
As bad as Ford's misstatement is (and it's really bad), Ford is not the Warren Commission. The Warren Report says something quite different — that since Brennan "declined to make a positive ID of Oswald" in the police lineup, "The Commission, therefore, does not base its conclusion concerning the identification of the assassin on Brennan's subsequent certain ID…" (bottom of this page, start of next):
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946&search=probative#relPageId=169&tab=page
My take on Brennan has always been that I'd never declare Oswald guilty because of his ID even if he'd made it immediately at the lineup. Eyewitness IDs of strangers are notoriously unreliable, and Oswald was a very average-looking guy. The circumstantial and physical evidence put him in the window, imo, not Brennan.
And yet it makes complete sense to you that law enforcement pursued a man of the description provided by Howard Brennan, until Lee Oswald was arrested at the Texas Theatre?
Can you explain why FBI Agent Bardwell Odum was present for that arrest?
"The circumstantial and physical evidence put him in the window, imo, not Brennan."~Jean Davison
And all of this "circumstantial and physical evidence" is tainted evidence, as has been shown over and again on these threads.
Oswald was on the 2nd floor having lunch when Kennedy was shot. It is not even certain that shots were actually fired from the TBDB. More likely the shots came form the DalTex building across the street.
And most certainly shots were fired from the front.
You know the points that back up this argument Jean, don't ask them to be relitigated again.
Again, read Julia Postal's testimony. The police went to the theater because she told them the man was ducking the police AND because he "fit the description" they had, not because of the description alone. Let me repeat that: description PLUS suspicious behavior.
FBI agents Odum and Barrett, many policemen, Sheriff's deputies and others went to the Tippit scene. Policeman Hill explained why he went there. He was outside the TSBD when the call came in.
QUOTE: Captain Sawyer said, "Well, as much help as we have here, why don't you go with Sergeant Owens to Oak Cliff on that detail." And [Deputy District Attorney] Bill Alexander said, "Well, if it is all right, I will go with you." And the reporter, Jim Ewell, came up, and I said an officer had been shot in Oak Cliff, and he wanted to go with us also. UNQUOTE
Odum caught a ride with another policeman at the Depository, Westbrook, I think. Do you think all these people went to Oak Cliff to frame poor Oswald, Ms. Sharp? Or just Odum, who apparently looks guilty to you just because you think he was too busy that day?
It always seems odd to me that CTs suspect just about everyone EXCEPT the guy who was ducking the cops, the guy who left his prints in the SN, among other things. (You blew right past his prints on the rifle rest box earlier in this thread, I noticed.)
'Odum caught a ride with another policeman at the Depository, Westbrook, I think. Do you think all these people went to Oak Cliff to frame poor Oswald, Ms. Sharp? Or just Odum, who apparently looks guilty to you just because you think he was too busy that day?'
I thought Odum drove the rifle and Lt. Day back to HQ.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm
Are you suggesting Odum went back to the Depository and then rode with Westbrook to Oak Cliff to arrive there in time to witness the arrest when Oswald actually arrived at Police HQ shortly after 2 pm? Some source material here, please?
Had the Warren Commission called Odum to testify, we wouldn't be stumbling around in the dark, would we? Could he have shed light on the confusion about the identification of the rifle? Could he have stated unequivocally that he was at the Texas Theatre to witness the arrest of a suspect in the Tippit shooting and no other reason? Could he have fleshed out the Michael and Ruth Paine version of events? It's not simply that Odum was 'everywhere' that day and the following several days; the deeper problem is that in spite of the fact, he was never called to testify. What might he have exposed? Hosty's incompetence? The failure of federal officers, or their complicity? According to Ruth and Michael Paine testimony, they knew Bardwell Odum prior to November 22. That familiarity would surely have included conversations about a Russian citizen living in their house, the wife of a man that Odum's fellow special agent James Hosty had been tracking for earlier in the year.
I don't believe I've ever said Odum went to the Texas Theatre to 'frame Oswald'. My emphasis has been that the DPD and others including Odum rushed to the Texas Theatre in pursuit of the alleged assassin, not just a suspect in the Tippit shooting; you have persistently argued that Oswald was pursued to the theatre based on a description that fit the shooter at the Tippit scene and because he was acting suspiciously before entering the theatre but that absolutely, he was not arrested for suspicion of the assassination of Kennedy; I challenge that Brennan's description was of a white male 10 years older and 35-40 lbs. heavier yet Odum arrived on the scene, witnessed the arrest of someone who did not match Brennan's description, and a police officer shouted 'shoot the president will you.'; and you cannot explain the discrepancies so you avoid the discussion and divert it by claiming I said something I didn't say.
It is illogical to deny that law enforcement were at the Texas Theatre to arrest an assassin of the president – "kill the president will you" – why else would a Special Agent of the FBI have been keen to witness Oswald's arrest?
Had the Warren Commission called Odum to testify, we wouldn't be stumbling around in the dark, would we?
What do you mean "we?"
Speak for yourself!
Explain Odum's presence at the arrest of Oswald at the Texas Theatre; otherwise, I just bumped into you in the dark, John.
Explain Odum's acquaintanceship with Michael and Ruth Paine; the flashlight is shining in that particular dark corner, John.
Explain why he was not called to testify given his involvement in critical aspects of the investigation over the weekend of the assassination of the president and the murder of the accused assassin, John.
You're stumbling in the dark and you don't even realize it?
"I don't believe I've ever said Odum went to the Texas Theatre to 'frame Oswald'."
I didn't claim you did. It was a question.
"…you have persistently argued that Oswald was pursued to the theatre based on a description that fit the shooter at the Tippit scene and because he was acting suspiciously before entering the theatre but that absolutely, he was not arrested for suspicion of the assassination of Kennedy;"
On the contrary, I've said that it would've been understandable if some of the policemen there made a connection between the two shootings because of the closeness in timing and location, the fact that police shooting were relatively rare, and the similarity of the two descriptions (which was pointed out by the police dispatcher). If you don't like that answer, fine, but don't say that I've "avoided the discussion."
"According to Ruth and Michael Paine testimony, they knew Bardwell Odum prior to November 22."
Could you quote that testimony, please, with a cite?
What's your point? Of course it was.
IMO the fact that we have Curry giving conflicting accounts and statements is reasonable doubt .
A good portion of the material evidence has reasonable doubt . Regarding the description given of LHO in the window , a defense attorney would have a field day in DP conclusion that it was LHO when the eye witness described someone 7-10 years older and had approx 25%+ more body mass and was seen from an obstructed view .
If LHO lived I don't think any juror can say without a reasonable doubt that LHO ordered that rifle , paid for that rifle , used that rifle in the JFK murder. Also I don't think a jury would place LHO on the 6th floor without reasonable doubt based on the sole eye witness given the description did not match LHO .
In a court room , it's likely the rifle and ID could not be tied to LHO
IMO he likely walks and that's why it's hard for me personally to assign sole guilt to LHO as alot of the key evidence has either reasonable to substantial doubt , meaning he is not guilty in a court of law .
Add confirmation of the CIA involved in a cover up of the investigation and there is a very weak case vs LHO . Honestly if he lived IMO the authorities likely have to drop the charges as they can't tie LHO to the evidence ( weapon , scene, tests etc .)
You can only believe that if you've read conspiracy books, and not much else.
"You can only believe that if you've read conspiracy books, and not much else." ~McAdams
Nonsense! We have the pleasure of your spurious argumentation to guide us as well "professor'.
Nah Mr. McAdams
I'm not a conspiracy theorist . There is more than enough evidence and statements in this case for reasonable doubt .
However I do take offense to individuals labeling people based upon the evidence analysis . Shows your bias IMO to any contradictory evidence
Sorry to disappoint you Mr McAdams
But I only interpret the evidence
You think the rifle could not be tied to Oswald?
What about the order materials to Klein's that had Oswald's writing on them?
What about the Backyard Photos, that show Oswald with the rifle?
What about the palmprint on the rifle?
I'm happy to argue the evidence. My comment to you was just a "shot across the bow" to warn you that you were going to face disagreement.
I am not disputing your points
I am merely stating that their is material physical evidence contradicting your evidence, raising reasonable doubts for a not guilty verdict IMO
Thats what the law last states to convict someone of a crime and that's how I choose to analyze the crime evidence . That's my opinion
I have no bone in this argument , I am a financial analyst by trade and that is how I interpret the evidence . IMO the physical evidence against LHO was not strong
I must admit the CIA benign cover up report, to me at least, was upsetting . A tax payer funded agency should not be misleading the public for so long over such a major crime . Their portion of the investigation IMObshoupd not have been treated as a covert type action.
I have no bones to pick with you , I just merely ask you refrain from labeling me because I disagree with your conclusion of the evidence. It's unprofessional IMO
"Also I don't think a jury would place LHO on the 6th floor without reasonable doubt based on the sole eye witness given the description did not match LHO."
No one…NO ONE…has placed LHO on the 6th floor based solely on Brennan's ID. The HSCA concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy without even mentioning Howard Brennan's name, so far as I can find:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=800#relPageId=71&tab=page
I agree Jean . From the evidence I reviewed ( I admit I'm not as well versed as some here are so I'm open to other evidence to analyze ) I can't put him there either
How about giving an example of what you have in mind?
According to the link given by Ms. Davison;
The HSCA concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy, primarily on the autopsy and Parkland doctors reports!!
BALDERDASH!
Astonishingly lame, incredibly ludicrous, and a joke of history comparable to the Warren Report.
I cite the articles & arguments made on this forum for the last few years as an effective counter to the HSCA Report.
No, she linked to the HSCA Report, which relies on the Forensic Pathology Panel.
"No, she linked to the HSCA Report, which relies on the Forensic Pathology Panel."~McAdams
Which relied on the Bethesda so-called "autopsy", as well as statements and reports from the Parkland doctors.
The Bethesda "autopsy" was a charade run by the military brass that perpetrated the murder of Kennedy. All of the details of this have been gone over on this time and time again.
You have been here throughout these debates declaring "victory" for yourself, with yourself as the judge of who won various debates.
The same tactics you use on this very thread: Appeal to Authority. And then you claim that an appeal to authority is valid if the authority itself is valid – and then you declare that the authority is indeed valid in your case. And by who's authority to you deem their authority valid? By your own authority, which now has you making not only appeals to authority but circular arguments as well.
You "authority" sir is confined to your opinion – nothing else, no stronger than anyone else's opinion here. And in MY opinion quite a bit lacking in validity compared to many others.
Now you may squeal "ad hominem" again like a little piggy.
No, they looked at that evidence, but all their key findings were based on the autopsy photos and x-rays.
The same tactics you use on this very thread: Appeal to Authority. And then you claim that an appeal to authority is valid if the authority itself is valid – and then you declare that the authority is indeed valid in your case. And by who's authority to you deem their authority valid?
The HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel consisted of nine of the nation's top forensic pathologists.
You think it's just my opinion that those guys were top forensic pathologists?
You think you can just declare that their opinions don't count?
'The HSCA concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy without even mentioning Howard Brennan's name, so far as I can find:' — Jean Davison
I'm sure you don't mean to leave the impression that the HSCA specifically left Brennan out of their report as if to suggest his testimony had never affected the initial investigation or the conclusions. In fact it did, very much so from November 22, 1963 – September, 1964.
In fact, according to this, the HSCA was careful to consider ANY eyewitness testimony (other than that of law enforcement0 because of the passage of time, so Brennan's absence in their report signifies nothing, either way, EXCEPT to avoid mentioning that Brennan was the only witness to place Oswald in the window. Strange omission is it not?
'The committee also weighed the firsthand testimony of witnesses but with caution, because of he problem of the passage of time. Besides the statements of law officers on the scene immediately after the assassination [note: barring the significant absence of statements by FBI Special Agent Bardwell Odum] it considered the accounts of bystanders in Dealey Plaza, bearing in mind that these were recollections of fleeting moments when emotions were running high. The committee noted, however, that a "a number of the Dealey Plaza witnesses said they saw either a rifle or a man with a rifle" . . . '
"Balderdash" right back at you, Willy. The HSCA said no such thing. The medical evidence showed that JFK was shot twice from the rear, not the name of the man who shot him.
You didn't read far enough. The evidence placing Oswald in the SN was listed after that, and here's my point, the HSCA did not even mention Brennan's ID in its conclusion.
The WC also didn't rely on Brennan's ID to put Oswald in the window.
Several other witnesses saw the man in the SN window but didn't make a positive ID. Ronald Fischer, e.g., was standing across the street. When he was shown Oswald's photo he testified that he told police "that could have been the man….but that I was not sure."
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946&search=brennan#relPageId=170&tab=page
Circumstantial and physical evidence (fingerprints) put Oswald in the SN, not any particular eyewitness.
I did
Official statements about a Mauser, no fingerprints found by DPD, chain of custody issues for the palm print, Brennan's ID , no bank statements for rifle transaction, negative paraffin test, contradictions on bag size, confusing evidence on the Klein order – availability, size, price, alternations.
I just don't see a conviction for LHO, too much contradictory physical evidence. Reasonable doubt IMO.
"You think you can just declare that their opinions don't count?"~McAdams
Now wait a minute here plowboy, you are the one who has been arguing 'opinions don't count' on this thread – you said, 'it is the evidence that counts'.
I am arguing that the evidence doesn't prove what these "experts" claim. After all it's only their opinions. Like all things, forensic knowledge has advanced considerably since these old time farts had their training.
"In a court room , it's likely the rifle and ID could not be tied to LHO"~DB
"You can only believe that if you've read conspiracy books, and not much else."~McAdams
According to the Warren Commission Lee Harvey Oswald left his job at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall on the morning of March 12, walked 9 blocks to the downtown post office, purchased a postal money order, and then mailed the money order to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.
But the letter was postmarked 10:30 am, while company time records show that Oswald never left his job. He worked continuously from 8:00 am through 12:15 pm on 9 different printing jobs.
The Warren Commission never pointed out that the letter to Klein's was time stamped 10:30 am, while company time records showed that Oswald never left work.
https://i0.wp.com/harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/JCS.jpg
Official statements about a Mauser,
Which mean nothing, since Tom Alyea photographed the recovery of the rifle, and it was a Mannlicher-Carcano.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/day1.jpg
In fact, distinctive marks on the rifle in the Alyea film show it to be Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.
no fingerprints found by DPD,
When Vincent Scalise analyzed the entire set of photos of the prints on the trigger guard, he found 18 points of identity:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/zynROwQ4T_0/qpVqen_loXAJ
chain of custody issues for the palm print,
No problem with the chain of custody.
Are you talking about the notion that the palm print was put on the rifle Monday morning in the morgue?
That's clearly not true:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_palmprint.gif
Brennan's ID ,
Which the Warren Commission accorded no probative value in putting Oswald in the Sniper's Nest.
no bank statements for rifle transaction,
This is all John Armstrong's ignorance masquerading as evidence. Even conspiracy folks have debunked this.
negative paraffin test,
Proves nothing:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
contradictions on bag size,
But the bag found in the Sniper's Nest, which was large enough to hold the rifle, had Oswald's prints on it.
confusing evidence on the Klein order – availability, size, price, alternations.
More Armstrong stuff.
Are you unaware of the fact that letters are postmarked when they are collected from the box and taken to the sorting facility?
This can be hours after they are deposited.
Opinions count if it's a technical matter, and the opinions are from bona fide technical experts.
"According to the Warren Commission Lee Harvey Oswald left his job at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall on the morning of March 12, walked 9 blocks to the downtown post office…."
The WC didn't claim to know how Oswald got to the P.O. or when. He could've arrived at the P.O. on Ervay at whatever time it opened (8 a.m.?), then taken a city bus to JCS at 525 Browder St., which Google says is 1/2 mile or 11 minutes walking. Oswald was used to taking the bus or walking.
Oswald filled out his own time sheets. He didn't punch a clock.
"The Warren Commission never pointed out that the letter to Klein's was time stamped 10:30 am….
Quoting Harvey and Lee now, Willy? Lordy.
Letters aren't postmarked as they go through the mail slot. They are postmarked whenever they are picked up and fed through the stamping machine (or whatever it's called). The postmark only shows that the letter was mailed *no later than* 10:30, not *at* 10:30.
"Letters aren't postmarked as they go through the mail slot. They are postmarked whenever they are picked up and fed through the stamping machine (or whatever it's called). The postmark only shows that the letter was mailed *no later than* 10:30, not *at* 10:30."~Jean Davison
So what? Oswald was on duty until 12:45 PM.
Oswald had specific jobs he was doing at Stovalls, his managers knew how long certain jobs would take. That is why such places don't find it necessary to use a time clock.
As usual Jean and McAdams clutch at straws any time evidence proves their arguments wrong.
Since you seem to think you have a handle on the authenticity (or the lack of it) of the money order Klein's Sporting Goods claimed to have received on March 13, 1963 in an envelope mailed in Dallas and postmarked on March 12, 1963, maybe you can explain just what original detail that Sandy has discovered that is worthy of such consistent praise? I am stumped.
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12923.msg429797.html#msg429797
The most tedious aspect is the degree to which individuals interested enough in the JFK Assassination to post about it in forums, are to such a large extent, divorced from adherence to or sense for accuracy….. If uncomfortable with the truth, just praise Sandy.
Anyone who excuses the utterly unprofessional behavior and attitudes of the police and sheriff's deputies in not securing of the crime scenes, of not securing evidence, of breaking chains of possession for evidence, is woefully ignorant of the standard protocols of crime scene investigation, or disingenuous.
Claiming that the authorities performed in a proper and professional manner is preposterous
Those who have made such apologetic arguments for the DPD, seem to have the same "good-ol'boy", lackadaisical attitude as these clowns in Dallas. It is their fault that you don't have a solid case against Oswald. And because they were so sloppy in their purposeful staging, they gave themselves away as members of the conspiracy to frame Oswald.
Their were 2 rifles found on that floor, the Mauser went missing.
The lack of a photograph would jeopardize this evidence anyway as it was SOP as well as the delay despite numerous statements made by LE.
Didn't an FBI agent question the prints. I believe some members of the WC questioned it as well. There are material issues with the palm evidence that would have made beyond a reasonable doubt difficult.
I agree, nobody has been able to put LHO in the 6th floor at the time of the shooting. That is a critical piece of the evidence.
The negative paraffin adds to reasonable doubt argument
Too much contradictory witness on the bag. Too much reasonable doubt
Are there dual bank statements establishing the bank debit/ credits in the right amount? I could not locate such in my research. I stand corrected if there was as it was easy info to get.
Armstrong? the Harvey and Lee guy? I have not read any of his books or articles. Only assassination book I read was JFK the Unspeakable as it was more about the military state in the 60s and that's my favorite subject. Its basically how I became interested in JFK.
I still not sure you understand my point here, all the critical physical evidence from the ID, rifle, prints, paraffin test, bag, LHO at time of shooting have material contradictory evidence and therefore IMO the reasonable doubt threshold was Not met. My opinion essentially aligns with that of Jeremy Gunn who I view as very experienced and credible, his analysis and points are very compelling. Its surprises me that you view all the WC physical evidence as fact especially since the Warren Report was confirmed to be compromised by one of its investigatory agency.
I still not sure you understand my point here, all the critical physical evidence from the ID, rifle, prints, paraffin test, bag, LHO at time of shooting have material contradictory evidence and therefore IMO the reasonable doubt threshold was Not met.
But you opinion on that comes from reading stuff in conspiracy books that just isn't true.
There is no "reasonable doubt" about a Mauser. There is evidence of only one rifle and the Alyea film shows it to be a Carcano.
There is no "reasonable doubt" about the palm print: Day told an FBI guy on the day of the assassination he had found a print he was going to lift. That entirely debunks the Oliver Stone notion that the print was put on the rifle Monday morning.
And on and on.
If you can't sort out what evidence is reliable, and what it not, then of course you are going to think there was a "reasonable doubt."
But failing to sort it out is not reasonable.
~John McAdams
But you opinion on that comes from reading stuff in mainstream books that just isn't true.
Jean and John:
Evidently "probative" was a relative term for the Warren Commission; perhaps you have your own interpretation as well.
Speculation.–A detailed and remarkably clear description of Oswald was sent over the police radio in Dallas at 12:36 p.m., November 22, 1963.
Commission finding.–The radio logs of the Dallas Police Department and the Dallas County Sheriff's Office show that no description of a suspect in the assassination of the President was broadcast before 12 :45 p.m. on that day. No reference to Oswald by name was broadcast before he was arrested. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SUSPECT THAT WAS BROADCAST WAS SIMILAR TO THAT OF OSWALD [emphasis mine], but it lacked some important specific details such as color of hair and eyes. The information for the initial broadcasts most probably came from HOWARD BRENNAN, WHO SAW OSWALD IN THE WINDOW WHEN HE WAS FIRING THE RIFLE. 44
What's your point?
All this is perfectly correct.
There is some disconnect in your thinking, such that you somehow thing this is sinister.
How is it sinister?
Let me walk you thru this again John. The Warren Commission summation includes the following: "The information for the initial broadcasts most probably came from HOWARD BRENNAN, WHO SAW OSWALD IN THE WINDOW WHEN HE WAS FIRING THE RIFLE. 44
"Brennan who saw Oswald in the window . . . "
I thought you said that Brennan's identification of Oswald was not probative?
The sinister aspect is not limited to the contradictions present throughout the Warren Report, but far more significant is the fact that 50 + years later you John McAdams promulgate their report and their conclusions.
There is no reasonable doubt when you only accept one source for information/evidence.
When you analyze the data objectively things just don't add up IMO. We don't have the full story yet.
Now the reality is your thinking is set to one conclusion regardless of the evidence and information. and that is fine! nobody should have a qualm with that
Personal I'm more flexible in analyzing and forming a conclusion.
What I have learned, today, is some murder cases just aren't handled properly, whether deliberate or not. IMO too many of the mistakes here appear deliberate, and it started with the physical evidence and the pursuit of LHO.
Jean, I can't find the comment where you complained that the link to the LIFE magazine that published the "critical frames that depicted the rearward motion of Kennedy's head were transposed to indicate a forward motion".
Here is that link again:
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKzapruderF.htm
The first episode of 11/22/63 has someone saying "we know for sure now George DeMorenschildt was recruited by the CIA to contact Oswald".
It is actually very well done. A blast from the past.
It should be interesting to see how others such as Curry are portrayed.
Also, infused with all the doubts of the Kennedy Mystery.
It is a very interesting and different take on the Kennedy Mystery.
We all know we cant change history so we know how the story ends.
I however applaud Stephen King for not staying away from the doubts and loose ends.
Ronnie Wayne
Your on the wrong thread but that's interesting. They mention De M and the CIA in the first episode.
Are they heading to Bill O'Reilly ringing the doorbell as the shotgun went off?
"I however applaud Stephen King for not staying away from the doubts and loose ends."~MDG
King wrote a fiction based on the official fiction of the Warren Report. Bravo? He was better off with spooky hotels and ghost pets.
Arnaldo M. Fernandez
We don´t have to worry about LHO firing the murder weapon or not, since it´s not proven he could have access to it. See John Armstrong:
http://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html
since it´s not proven he could have access to it.
Except for the fact that he was photographed with it. A "random patterning" that was "sufficient to warrant a positive identification" was found on the rifle in the Backyard photos.
This according to the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel.
Then there is the fact that Oswald's palmprint was found on the rifle.
The palm print from his dead hand in Fort Worth per the mortician? The one where the mortician complained about not being able to get the ink off his hand?
You don't get a latent print by putting ink on somebody's hand.
Day was telling the FBI on the day of the assassination that he had found a print that he was going to lift:
Also, several officers saw the print over the weekend in the Identification Bureau. See First Day Evidence.
You folks need to pay attention when factoids are debunked.
R. Andrew Kiel
The rifle was examined by Sebastian Latona – Supervisor of the Latent Fingerprint Section of the Identification Division of the FBI on November 23. Latona was asked by the Warren Commission:
Q."So as of November 23 you had not found an identifiable print on Exhibit 139 (the Carcano)"
A. "That is right"
The Ft. Worth Press noted on November 25 that a team of FBI agents visited the Miller Funeral Home on the night of November 24 after Oswald's body was taken there. Paul Groody the funeral director stated:
"I had to clean up his fingers after they got through fingerprinting him. They put black gook on his fingers and they can't get it off…It was a complete mess of his entire hand, which would lead me to believe that they did take prints of his palms."
By the way Ms. Davidson, Mr. Photon, & Mr. McAdams – Sheriff Eugene Boone who was on the 6th floor when the rifle was found. Boone was asked:
Q. So far as you're concerned,at the time, that gun, that you saw, in the stacks was a Mauser isn't that a fact?
A. At that point in time, yes sir.
Q. It wasn't until a certain gun in the possession of the FBI suddenly turned out to be a Mannlicher, that it changed from a Mauser to a Mannlicher. Isn't that true?
A. I would say that's an accurate statement.
Q. Isn't it true that you, Officer Boone were never able to identify the rifle you found at the Texas School Book Depository as the one shown to(National Archives) you as being the gun involved in the assassination. Isn't that true?
A. That is correct.
No cause for reasonable doubt here?
Mr. Kiel
Those are revealing statements made by Sherrif Boone regarding the rifle .
I have not read that statement before but it is shocking IMO . I'm not sure how one can definately say a Manicher was found when the sherif on the scene stated on record he found a Mauser unless of course Sheriff Boone had no knowledge of Mauser or rifles ?
Does anyone know how familiar Boone was with a Mauser or rifles ?
I believe there was another DPD officer that made the same claim of finding a Mauser . Is that accurate ?
If so I am going to have to agree with your reasoning that there is substantial doubt regarding which weapon was used . I'm not sure a jury could disagree either of Boone had suffiencent rifle knowledge
This information also seems to flow with other more recent inaccuracies regarding the Oswald Mannlicher , specifically the size difference with the Klein advertisement , no bank stamp and no deposit for proof of payment . Appreciate any factual responses either way but it seems there is now substantial doubt about Oswald ever ordering the Manlicher identified by the WC, proving he paid for it and whether it was the rifle used in the assassination .
Appreciate the post , I never saw that before
"I'm not sure a jury could disagree either of Boone had suffiencent rifle knowledge."~DB
As far as I can recall Sheriff Boon had owned a second hand gun shop in Dallas, and may have still owned it at the time.
Also see: Weitzman signed an affidavit the following day describing the weapon as a "7.65" Mouser.
Thanks Willy
That's right i now recall the avadavit
Owning a gun shop IMO would classify him as a borderline expert
IMO that's very credible evidence of 2 sworn statements , 1 by an expert that the DP also found a Mauser on the scene which was never entered into evidence .
Adding this info with the analysis done on the Money Order and inaccuracy between the Klein advertisement of the gun size vs Oswald alleged rifle IMO would make a conviction of LHO very difficult . He also tested negative for the paragon test .
How would the prosecution tie LHO to the rifle ? The first fingerprinting of the rifle showed no match , there would be all sorts of objections of the chain of custody anyway for the palm print , a negative parafin test and likely offsetting experts on the rifle photo .
If you can't tie the murder rifle to LHO or the firing of it , I can't envision a guilty verdict . Of course today with the CIA benign cover up , we have to call into doubt the WC investigation and once you add cover up and doubt into a trial , at some point an appeal will be over ruled, if necessary.
The more evidence that comes from this case the more one realizes convicting LHO was likely impossible IMO . The only choice was to kill him .
Slew of factoids here:
Tom Alyea photographed the recovery of the rifle, and it's clearly a Mannlicher-Carcano.
Adding this info with the analysis done on the Money Order and inaccuracy between the Klein advertisement of the gun size vs Oswald alleged rifle IMO would make a conviction of LHO very difficult .
Huh? Klein's shipped him a rifle slightly different from the one he ordered. How does that indicate a conspiracy?
He also tested negative for the paragon test.
Which proves nothing.
On issues like this, you need to pay attention to mainstream forensics texts, not buff books.
How would the prosecution tie LHO to the rifle ? The first fingerprinting of the rifle showed no match, there would be all sorts of objections of the chain of custody anyway for the palm print
No, Day was telling the FBI about a print he was going to lift on Nov. 22.
It wasn't immediately sent to the FBI, but the chain of custody was secure.
, a negative parafin test and likely offsetting experts on the rifle photo .
The only "experts" who question the rifle photo are people with no expert credentials.
They are only buff hobbyists.
no bank stamp and no deposit for proof of payment .
This has all been debunked.
The money order had Oswald's handwriting on it.
It made it through the banking system and was retrieved from a Postal Service facility.
Sorry, Dr. McAdams, better for the forum at this link to shed even a pretense of advocating for accuracy than to even pay lip service to the concepts of fairness or fact.:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22675&p=326734
The question of whether the $21.45 postal money order was deposited, paid, archived, and recovered from Federal Records Center in Alexandria, VA, as evidence in the evening of 23 November, 1963 will
never be settled if incoherent and hypocritical "reasoning" is any indication. "Evidence" of fraud related to that money order is permitted to be presented and considered separately from the purchase of the rifle and receipt of it via delivery to a Dallas P.O. box. Evidence supporting the deposit, payment, archiving, and recovery of the money order from the archive must not be considered separately, as it is inextricably linked to the rifle purchase, and they KNOW that did not happen.:
James DiEugenio – Posted 19 November 2015 – 08:18 AM
Now, my general point is this: how can an attorney isolate one tiny part of this transaction and say its valid, based on that one point. When, in fact, everything about it–from A to Z– is dubious. And the guy who started the whole MO mess is Holmes! Who he ignores.
By doing so, is he not then guilty of doing the thing he says is true about the people he criticizes?
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22447&page=1&#entry318834
John Armstrong will be posting on this soon.
Armstrong knows more about this issue than any person alive. Or dead….
And….verily, after some passage of time, DiEugenio's prophecy did come true. Armstrong issued
revised pronouncements, from on high.:
The only drawback was, Armstrong presented my original research, almost verbatim, (under his name, with no attribution) including two images I found and presented in support of my unique research details.
My research: http://jfk.education/node/11
The Armstrong "revisions":
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?15511-Heads-Up!&p=107496#post107496
http://www.ctka.net/2016/ArmstrongMailOrderRifle/Money_Orders.html
(Near bottom of page, all credit to Armstrong, most details in upper part of page are irrelevant or obsolete.)
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?11626-Clay-Shaw&p=107252#post107252
Tom Scully – 02-14-2016,
I do not know what to make of you, lately. I looked to you initially, in this thread, to assist in analyzing the new information I was finding that conflict with the existing and long held consensus.
BTW, I am the sole unique source of the research that influenced John Armstrong and Jim Hargrove to submit this "revision" to you, or to your webmaster, and as you can see, it is published on your site, attributed to the "work" of John Armstrong.:
Kindly take it down, the portion of the page in the screenshot above consists entirely of two images I selected and presented, and my exact, unique research details….
That's because Day had lifted it, and wrongly though enough was left for the FBI to find.
You understand that the FBI eventually determined that the print came off the barrel of the rifle, right?
They put black gook on his fingers and they can't get it off…It was a complete mess of his entire hand, which would lead me to believe that they did take prints of his palms."
You don't get a latent print by putting gook on people's hands.
– Sheriff Eugene Boone who was on the 6th floor when the rifle was found.
So was Tom Alyea, and he photographed the recovery of the rifle.
Guess what his film shows?
OMG, it's alive!! Unlike a zombie, the Mauser myth can't be killed with a stick. Beaten to a pulp over and over, it still rises up, seeking yet more victims….
Boone didn't own a sporting goods store and neither did Weitzman. Both admitted their mistake in calling the recovered rifle a Mauser. It was an understandable mistake since Mausers and M-Cs are virtually twins at first glance.
The Mauser is at the top in this photo, an M-C just below it.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TINpTkwt9_I/AAAAAAAAFP4/0edTl-snHVk/s1600/Mauser-Carcano+Comparisons.jpg
Notice the different shapes of the metal trigger guard? Do you see that long horizontal groove in the wooden stock of the M-C?
The rifle found in the TSBD was photographed and filmed by newsmen as it was recovered and brought out of the Depository. It doesn't matter what anyone *says* the rifle was, when you can see it for yourself:
Do you see the trigger guard in the rifle Lt. Day is holding? See the long groove in the wooden stock?
What brand of rifle is he holding, folks?
Q. Isn't it true that you, Officer Boone were never able to identify the rifle you found at the Texas School Book Depository as the one shown to (National Archives) you as being the gun involved in the assassination. Isn't that true?
What is the source of that?
And why are you preferring witness testimony to photographs?
And what evidence is there that Boone examined the rifle closely enough, or was sufficiently expert in weapons, to say what make the rifle was.
Weitzman said "Mauser," and other people picked that up.
~McAdams
However the backyard photo's were fake, that was not Oswald holding that rifle.
Do the stand in, who's body Oswald's face was pasted onto was with the DPD. They had the rifle all along. They set up the phony snipers nest. Then they fouled the whole crime scene purposely to throw more confusion into the pot. They weren't the "Keystone Cops" they attempted to portray themselves as; that is a limited hangout. No police department is that sloppy and inept – unless they are doing it on purpose.
Oswald was not on the 6th floor at the time of the assassination. He was having lunch on the 2nd floor and was seen there moments after the shots were fired.
This whole thread is filled with nonsense attempting to frame Oswald once again. Over and over like a carousel going in circles. It is preposterous.
If the photos were faked, why did Oswald ask his wife to destroy them?
Why did his wife admit to taking them?
Why did Oswald purchase the rifle with a Money Order that has been proven to be genuine after years of mistaken claims of inauthenticity-and even now CTers still can't accept?
How could the DPD construct the sniper's nest when WFAA almost simultaneously filmed its discovery and that of the rifle?
The last known position of Oswald before the assassination was on the Sixth Floor. Who stated that they saw him in the lunch room at 12:30 exactly?
If Oswald was eating lunch at 12:30, why did he have a full bottle of coke in his hand when discovered by police-a type of pop he didn't drink.
We have been over every one of these points hundreds of times Photon. You ask the same questions – you get the same answers.
You forget, we remember…it's like that.
Terry Mruz
Good point Photon! Nobody in the history of the world has ever gone back for a 2nd Coke while eating their lunch… Guess I never have read anything about LHO not liking Coke, but I'm sure it's factual if you say it.
Mr. Photon – Marina did admit that she took some photos of Oswald in the backyard holding a gun but no one can prove that they were photos of Oswald holding the murder weapons.The Dallas Police initially stated that they only had 2 backyard photos – Marina stated that she only took 2 photos. Geneva White has previously presented two totally different backyard photos of Oswald – who took those photos?
The Houston Post ran an article in February 1992 that stated:
"recently released documents from the Dallas Police Department files on the assassination of President Kennedy… {include}One photo of Oswald's backyard shows clear evidence of dark room manipulation…they may represent part of the necessary steps-an empty background for example-for faking background photos of Oswald."
As Oswald stated during his interrogation:
"That is not a picture of me;it is my face but my face has been superimposed-the rest of the picture is not me at all, I've never seen it before. I know all about photography. I've done a lot of photographic work myself. That small picture is a reduction of a large picture…I understand photography real well and you'll see. I will prove that it is a fake."
Dennis Ofstein worked with Oswald at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall – the firm did photographic work for the US Army. Ofstein told the Warren Commission the following:
Q. Do you know what a microdot is?
A. That was explained to me by Lee Oswald.
Q. Tell us about that?
A. He told me that that was the method of taking a large area of type or a picture and reducing it down to an extremely small size…that is the way spies sometimes send messages…to take a microdot photograph and place it under a stamp."
Photon – I'm sure Oswald was lying during his interrogation and that Ofstein was lying about Oswald's knowledge of photography – after all he just wanted attention – right?
That was clearly an attempt by the Dallas cops to recreate the Backyard Photos. The foliage in the background was consistent with a November or December attempt, as opposed to the spring growth in the Oswald Backyard photos.
This is LaFontaine stuff you are quoting.
You need to go with the science, not the buff books.
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=144
"You need to go with the science, not the buff books."~McAdams
I don't need "buff books" 'professor', I am a photo expert myself. I have determined the "backyard photos" are fakes.
Not only due to the problems with the shadows, but also because of my grasp of comparative anatomy. Oswald's head is slightly different sizes in relation to the body in several of the photos.
This is of course IMPOSSIBLE, for anyone to have a shrinking and growing head.
I am a photo expert myself. I have determined the "backyard photos" are fakes.
Here are the credentials of the HSCA PEP:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=8
Just what are your credentials?
You say there is a "problem with the shadows."
You don't even know what "vanishing point analysis" is, do you?
Bill Clarke
Dr. McAdams, you having much more experience with public forums than I, could you please answer a question for me.
Does every news group or blog or what ever you want to call it have it's own Anthony Marsh? I've been to several assassination groups and a slew of Vietnam groups and we always have that one person that knows it all and is a self appointed expert on anything that crosses the plate.
Boy howdy, are we ever lucky.
"You don't even know what "vanishing point analysis" is, do you?"~McAdams
Surely you jest professor. I have been an artist my whole life, I know perspective perfectly well.
The question is: DO YOU?
What you don't seem to grasp "professor" is that it is NOT proposed that the entire figure was pasted onto the photo's – only Oswald's face, from the chin up. So any shadows running back from the figure are, of course be absolutely correct. The problem is the angle of the light hitting Oswald's face does not match the angle that the light is hitting the figure to create the angles of the shadows on the ground leading back to the fence.
The shadow below Oswald's nose is from a photo taken when the sun was directly over his head. The shadows in the yard however have the shadows falling at an angle with the sun much more forward of the figure in the photograph.
Also as I mentioned, the size of the head is slightly different in relation to the body between photo's.
You really ought to look at what real scientists say about that issue:
"You really ought to look at what real scientists say about that issue."~McAdams
I am quite familiar with this analysis you have offered "professor". I am also familiar with what they ask us to "assume" in the issue of the angle of the shadow of the nose. Assumptions are not facts.
As far as the issue of "grain" simply making a copy of the original would produce a photo with consistent grain.
Does every news group or blog or what ever you want to call it have it's own Anthony Marsh?
I'm afraid so.
"I've been to several assassination groups and a slew of Vietnam groups and we always have that one person that knows it all and is a self appointed expert on anything that crosses the plate."~Bill Clarke
Does every news group or blog or what ever you want to call it have it's own Photon?
Steve Stirlen
John McAdams,
Your words:
My words:
You are referring to the HSCA that was headed by Blakey, correct? Do I need to post—again—what Blakey said about the WC and its report and LYING?
You're actually saying the Blakey said the HSCA Photographic Evidence Panel was lying?
That's nonsense.
I don't remember him saying that WC was lying, although of course he had to say that there were major failings of the WC. Otherwise, the HSCA had no role.
Oh John,
Blakey said that he no longer believed anything the CIA has said about the assassination or will ever say unless he can verify for himself. You see, John, what Blakey is really saying is that the CIA IS/WAS LYING. You remember lying, John? At one time, lying under oath meant perjury.
So, your beloved HSCA might be telling us the truth in regards to the physical evidence, it could ALSO mean that if one agency LIED, others might as well. You see, John, once you start believing a lie or the liars who tell them, the "truth" gets really vague.
"Major failings" John? Major failings? I am wondering if EPIC or COMICAL or INTENTIONAL or PLANNED failings might be better descriptors?
"there were major failings of the WC"
John McAdams 2/23/2016.
Blakey said that he no longer believed anything the CIA has said about the assassination or will ever say unless he can verify for himself.
What does that have to do with the Photographic Evidence Panel?
"What does that have to do with the Photographic Evidence Panel?"~McAdams
The side of bread it is buttered on.
The major failings were the result of Earl Warren being insufficiently aggressive in regard to (1) demanding examination by forensic pathologists of the autopsy photos and x-rays, and (2) demanding that WC staff interview Sylvia Duran.
You can only think of TWO major failings. Please allow me the chance to find what Mr. Gunn said about the failings of the WC.
Mr. McAdams,
We finally agree on a point! You are correct, sir. The major failing of the Warren Commission was putting Earl Warren in charge. That was THE major failing of the WC.
Let me help:
Earl Warren wanted to select Warren Olney for chief counsel. Uh, J. Edgar Hoover, who had NO power over the commission did not want Olney. Want to know why, John? Because, and this is a direct quote from McKnight's book Breach of Trust, "Olney was the only guy with the balls to stand up to Hoover." Why on earth would Hoover not someone to stand up to him, John? Could it be that Hoover did not have any pictures of Olney having sex with a donkey, as JEH did on some many power players, which is the ONLY reason he kept his job?
Guess what Warren did? He caved. As usual. Just like you mentioned in not bringing Duran up from MC, Warren caved like a house of cards, Thanks to Hoover, DeLoach, and Ford, instead the ever butt kissing Rankin was placed as counsel.
Thus, began the deception known as the WC, whose only mission was "to settle the dust" and follow the leads "wherever they go."
So, John, you are correct on this point. The major failing of the Warren Commission was Earl Warren.
Mr. McAdams:
Mr. Gunn's comments:
Oswald's trip to Mexico City a few weeks before the assassination also raises unanswered questions.
"Mexico City in the 1960s was probably the spy capital of the Western Hemisphere," Gunn says. Naturally, the CIA had operations watching all the embassies in Mexico, tapping their phones and photographing comings and goings.
While he was there, Oswald attempted to obtain visas from the Cuban consulate and the Soviet embassy. In one taped conversation, Oswald — or someone saying he was Oswald — called the Soviet embassy.
Then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover listened to the tape and told President Lyndon Johnson that it wasn't Oswald's voice.
Whose voice was it? No one knows. The tape has disappeared.
Nor are there any photos of the Soviet embassy the day Oswald supposedly went there. The CIA told the Warren Commission that its camera wasn't working that day.
Why did Oswald ask to meet with the FBI in New Orleans? Why did he go to Mexico City? What happened to the evidence of his visit? More mysteries.
'It's Too Late'
So what's the truth about the assassination?
"For me, it's quite simple," Gunn says. "I don't know what happened."
President John F. Kennedy aboard the "Honey Fitz" off Hyannis Port, Mass., on Aug. 31, 1963.
Cecil Stoughton/UPI/Landov
"There is substantial evidence that points toward Oswald and incriminates Oswald," he says, "and the only person we can name where there is evidence is Oswald. But there's also rather important exculpatory evidence for Oswald, suggesting he didn't do it, and that he was framed."
Some believe the Warren Commission did not resolve the mysteries because it was part of a giant cover-up, perhaps to hide a conspiracy that reached deep inside government itself.
Others point to a more benign explanation. The new president, Johnson, was pushing the Warren Commission to come to a conclusion quickly. He wanted to move the country forward, not dwell on its traumatic past.
Besides, Gunn says, the panel genuinely believed that Oswald had killed Kennedy. "So they wanted to write the document in a way that would reassure the American public that it was a single gunman acting alone, somebody who's a little bit unstable, and that that's the explanation for what happened." Since the facts aren't clear, though, that document can look like a whitewash.
For the Warren Commission, transparency had its own difficulties. "There are serious problems with the forensics evidence, with the ballistics evidence, with the autopsy evidence," Gunn says. "And, in my opinion, if they had said that openly, it would have not put the issue to rest."
Dr. T. Jeremy Gunn served as executive director of the Assassination Records Review Board.
Courtesy of T. Jeremy Gunn
Faced with that, the Warren Commission went with what it believed.
Gunn says that wasn't enough. It's not that he thinks all the loose ends needed to be tied up. "It wouldn't be unusual if Oswald had done the crime — or not done the crime — to have evidence that's inconsistent," he says.
It's the big mysteries that cause him the most trouble.
"If the president had been killed as part of a conspiracy, that needed to be known," he says.
"The institution that had the opportunity to best get to the bottom of this, as much as it was possible, was the Warren Commission, and they didn't do it," he says. "Now it's too late to do what should have been done originally."
There is a HUGE problem for the LN side with Mr. Gunn and his comments about the WC failing to do its job and it is now TOO late to know the truth. Allow me to help.
1. He is not a "kook" or a "buff." He says so in the first sentence. He does not have an opinion. Oops, have to throw away your "hatred" or "ad hominem" quotes.
2. He is highly educated. Therefore, he is not a "wacko" or a "crazed theorist" or whatever else you will try to throw at him. I don't know for sure, but I believe he was educated at Notre Dame. I believe that is a quality institution of higher learning. Wouldn't you agree, John?
3. He has sought NO publicity or not written a book. Shhhhhh, don't tell Photon, because Photon believes that the CT side exists "only to sell books and make money off of JFK's death." Oops, this Gunn guy is a sticky wicket, isn't he?
The problem with Gunn, as with most people on this site, is the fact that we can see both sides of the coin, we can ask questions that your beloved WC did not ask, and we can dig a little deeper than what we were told by the same government that eventually gave us the Vietnam War. Tom S. is a perfect example. He gives all of us MORE info than the WC ever thought to, simply because he does a little research. You have been quoting Shenon lately. Well, Shenon talked to Slawson, and Slawson now believes the WC was not told the full truth (read lying) and that LHO was not a "lone wolf."
This has long been debunked:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm
…..This has long been debunked:
Dr. McAdams, you made a blanket statement, accepted mostly in your partisan location of the political spectrum, of which this fellow (obstructionist) was also positioned.:
(Before you complain about my linking you to right wing extremist belief and action, consider that a reasonable person would consider the overall opinion, action, and
political bent of yourself and former FBI agent Eldon Rudd remarkably similar.)
(Indeed, your likeminded wikipedia gatekeepers have FBI agent Rudd transporting no CIA sourced evidence from Mexico City to Dallas, whatsoever! Cudos, to your efforts, sir.
see – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldon_Rudd#Years_in_the_FBI )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldon_Rudd
Eldon Rudd …..
During the 1980 presidential election, Rudd, with help from FBI colleagues with access to security officials at the White House, allegedly obtained debate preparation documents prepared for President Jimmy Carter for his election debates against Republican nominee Ronald Reagan, and provided the so-called "Carter debate papers" to the Reagan presidential campaign….
http://obits.arizonagravestones.org/view.php?id=4864
….The Arizona congressman obtained the Carter debate materials from a former FBI agent, whose source was a White House informant unhappy about the use of taxpayer funds to mount a political offensive against Mr. Reagan "and wanted to even up the playing field," a former aide told people attending a vigil for Mr. Rudd in Scottsdale on Sunday afternoon….
Dr. McAdams, please explain how your opinion on what Hoover reported on 23 November, 1963, to LBJ and identically in a report to Secret Service chief Rowley related to
a tape of Oswald's voice Hoover reported was received from CIA in Mexico City, does not call into serious question, the competence generally of Hoover and the FBI in the
investigations of the shooting deaths of JFK and of Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, TX? I am replying to your blanket statement much more critically than I would if it was
submitted here by most other commenters because you are attempting to leverage your name and reputation as a JFK Assassination expert, using this site as a forum to declare
a key controversy a "settled" matter, counter evidence not withstanding, including evidence developed and presented by the person who runs JFKfacts.org, Jeff Morley.
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/what-happened-to-the-tape-of-oswald-in-mexico-city/
Did the CIA destroy an Oswald tape?
April 20, 2014 – by Jeff Morley
The facts are these:
In January 1964, the CIA told the Warren Commission that an Agency wiretap had captured someone named Oswald calling the Russian Embassy in Mexico City on October 1, 1963.
The CIA station in Mexico City made a transcript of the tape which was then "routinely" erased after two weeks, CIA's Richard Helms said. Thus when JFK was killed, the CIA claimed it had a transcript of Oswald's phone calls but no actual tapes.
The CIA's story was false as four mutually corroborating sources demonstrate. None of this was disclosed in the Warren Commission report. Most defenders of the Warren Commission report no longer deny it….
See – http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/11/25/the-cia-mafia-mexico-and-oswald-part-4/
Gunn is not a witness. His opinion is just his opinion, and it's not evidence.
Why do conspiracists like to talk about people's opinions, rather than evidence?
You have been quoting Shenon lately. Well, Shenon talked to Slawson, and Slawson now believes the WC was not told the full truth (read lying) and that LHO was not a "lone wolf."
Don't misrepresent what Slawson believes.
Shenon appears to have convinced him that Oswald was at a party in Mexico City, and may have palled around with some folks that the WC did not know about.
I'm quite skeptical of Shenon on this, but if it's true, it's far short of showing that a conspiracy killed Kennedy.
And even if it did, it would be a conspiracy that included Oswald.
As for the CIA withholding information: that's not the same as lying, and it's long been known that the CIA concealed the plots against Castro.
If you believe that Castro had Kennedy killed, that's of huge significance.
But the evidence is overwhelming that Oswald did go to both embassies.
The CIA said he went to both embassies.
So if they actually had a photo of him, why would they not produce it?
The only sensible answer is: they had no photo of Oswald.
Tom S. is a perfect example. He gives all of us MORE info than the WC ever thought to, simply because he does a little research.
And since he can link everybody to everybody, he has now concluded that Garrison was part of the plot.
Dr. McAdams, please accept my apology. If I had simply followed your. "The less we know, the better off we are," I would never have come upon these, through my own, initially unrelated, or barely related research into the background of Ed Butler, leading me to research the background of Jesse R Core, III.:
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-17/#comment-858943
…and Dr. McAdams, since none of this new and controversial information will ever appear with attribution of my research on your website, what difference does any of this new
information actually mean to you? Your record of informing the public related to Garrison and CIA, especially considering you are a JFK Assassination details "go to guy," featured by and oft quoted in the infotainment media, speaks for itself. I'll match your record's accuracy about Garrison's investigation and CIA against mine, anytime.:
John McAdams – https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/celebrating-jim-garrison-at-unlv/#comment-287317
January 24, 2014 at 10:51 pm (Edit)
the fact the CIA's Counterintelligence (CI) Staff was secretly trying to subvert his investigation in New Orleans in 1967 and 1968 indicates that he was looking into events that involved CI equities, including a CIA operation against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee launched in September 1963.
In fact, Jeff, we know what the CIA was doing, and it was spinning its wheels.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm
As for your "operation" against the FPCC, you have not produced any evidence of a CIA operation against FPCC in New Orleans. You suspect that. That's not the same as having evidence.
Dr. McAdams, as an identified expert in spinning (and certainly not only "wheels"), I know you are quite content to continue to cite "nothing to see here, move along folks," Max Holland's ridiculous "analysis"
of David and Edward Baldwin, Edward's law partner, James Quaid, related to the CIA. Have I at least made this statement by you in any way regrettable to you, or are you sticking by it? A sincere JFK Assassination expert, such as yourself, as presenteed by the infotainment media sources who feature you and your JFK Assassination investigations opinions, might be encouraging my research efforts, not mocking me and the results I uncover and present.:
John McAdams – 2016/01/19 at 6:03 pm:
McAdams said: "As for the CIA withholding information: that's not the same as lying, and it's long been known that the CIA concealed the plots against Castro."
Withholding any information from a federal investigation into the death of a sitting president is indeed lying (by omission), obstruction of justice, and a major crime.
Oswald's Voice on Mexico Tapes:
"Hoover's reasons for saying this were laid out in a Letterhead Memorandum sent out on the same day to the President and to the Secret Service:
The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to a recording of his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald."[92]
Other FBI cables and memoranda confirm that the tape was indeed flown up on a US Navy plane from Mexico City to Dallas, where FBI agents confirmed the voice was not Oswald's.
John Newman has shown in detail how this initial candor was obfuscated by subsequent clumsy attempts by the Mexico City CIA to assert, falsely, that the tape, and others like it, had been erased.[93] By noon EST November 23, the Mexico City CIA Station had cabled headquarters to say that "Station unable compare voice as first tape erased prior receipt second call" (on October 1).[94]
This false claim was soon abandoned. A headquarters memo reports that by 7 AM EST November 24, headquarters knew that the first tape had been reviewed, and the voice found to be identical with that in the other intercepts.[95] Anne Goodpasture, who handled the intercepts in the Mexico City CIA station, has confirmed that she herself commented on an internal document that the voices on the first and other intercepts had been compared (by "Douglas Feinglass" [Boris Tarasoff], the responsible translator) before the assassination.[96]"
You folks stubbornly refuse to look at any evidence that is not from conspiracy books.
Here is the memo that Eldon Rudd brought from Mexico City to Dallas on the evening of the assassination.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10430/html/124-10230-10430_0002a.htm
The memo clearly says "these tapes have been erased and are not available for review."
Conspiracists will happily say the CIA was lying about anything and everything. But why would the CIA say the tapes had been erased, and then send the tapes with Rudd to Dallas along with the same memo that said the tapes had been erased?
Rudd never carried any tapes to Dallas.
Then there was Gordon Shanklin talking to Alan Belmont, and telling him to expect photos of Oswald and transcripts of calls Oswald made from the Cuban and Soviet embassies. No mention of tapes.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/Shanklin112263.pdf
Then you have the HSCA:
Shanklin stated in a committee interview that no recording was ever received by FBI officials in Dallas. Moreover, former FBI Special Agents James Hosty, John W. Fain, Burnett Tom Carter, and Arnold J. Brown, each of whom had conversed with Oswald at one time, informed the committee they had never listened to a recording of Oswald's voice.
Finally, on the basis of an extensive file review and detailed testimony by present and former CIA officials and employees, the committee determined that CIA headquarters never received a recording of Oswald's voice. The committee concluded, therefore, that the information in the November 23, 1963, letterhead memorandum was mistaken and did not provide a basis for concluding that there had been an Oswald impostor.
All the "listened to the tapes" stuff came from Belmont, who misunderstood what Shanklin told him in an early morning Nov. 23 phone call.
Nothing you have ever said has been too subtle for me. You refuse to discuss anything outside of your beloved WC and its report. Which is fine, as this is still America. However, you are being disingenuous when you say you will argue or debate the evidence. What you are really saying is you will debate ONLY the evidence that matches your narrative, which is the USA is perfect, and if the government said LHO did it by himself, that is EXACTLY what happened.
Who give's a rat's ass if Olney was a left wing or right wing or center wing? If he was the BEST person for the job, he should have been chosen. He was not. And it was the beginning of a long charade that exists to this day. Earl Warren was in charge. He should have made THE choice he wanted. Again, I don't give a rat's ass about "the political climate" in 63. The "political climate" a little earlier was despicable, unless you think Joe McCarthy was actually making this country safer.
You think Ford and Dulles were fine, honorable men. You know that is not true. You know that Dulles was a murderer. You know that Ford was leaking information to Hoover, because he was far more interested in a career in Washington than the truth. It was supposed to be an INDEPENDENT investigation. You know Specter made up the SBT, because they had a narrative to fit. Siberia was two feet away during the autopsy. You were not. However, you say it was only Sibert's opinion. No, he was there. You were not.
As far as Brennan and Leslie, I will not speak for Leslie. However, you believe Brennan was honest, but Roger Craig was not. Again, you are being disingenuous. That is your right as an American. I have been in Dallas on four separate occasions, and I have stood where Brennan stood. All I can say is if Mr. Brennan could describe a shooter from that distance, he has better eyesight than anyone I know. (Of course, this was before his sandblasting accident.)
You don't have to debate any evidence, because you can cling to your "hatred" mantra, or your "ad hominem" mantra. Go ahead. However, when educated men, like yourself, look at the SAME "evidence" as you do and come to radically different conclusions, then hatred and ad hominem really don't figure into the equation. Your ignorance figures into the equation at that point.
I will continue to read Tom's posts and his comments, as well as others on THIS site, because there is an open dialogue that you will not allow on your site. I enjoy what Jean has to say, because she will at least admit that parts of the narrative from the government are worthless. You will not. Your choice, John.
If anything I have written was too subtle for you, I will help one last time. You have placed your faith in men of deceit and liars. I hope that works out well for you.
Let's let Mr. Slawson speak for himself:
"Today, however, Slawson's silence has ended once and for all. Half a century after the commission issued an 888-page final report that was supposed to convince the American people that the investigation had uncovered the truth about the president's murder, Slawson has come to believe that the full truth is still not known. Now 83, he says he has been shocked by the recent, belated discovery of how much evidence was withheld from the commission—from him, specifically—by the CIA and other government agencies, and how that rewrites the history of the Kennedy assassination.
Slawson is now wrestling with questions he hoped he would never have to confront: Was the commission's final report, in fundamental ways, wrong? And might the assassination threat have been thwarted? The commission, he believes, was the victim of a "massive cover-up" by government officials who wanted to hide the fact that, had they simply acted on the evidence in front of them in November 1963, the assassination might have been prevented. "It's amazing—it's terrible—to discover all of this 50 years late," says Slawson, whose health is still good and whose memories of his work on the commission remain sharp.
Slawson's most startling conclusion: He now believes that other people probably knew about Oswald's plans to kill the president and encouraged him, raising the possibility that there was a conspiracy in Kennedy's death—at least according to the common legal definition of the word conspiracy, which requires simply that at least two people plot to do wrongdoing. "I now know that Oswald was almost certainly not a lone wolf," Slawson says."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/warren-commission-jfk-investigators-114812#ixzz41gecXact
What EXACTLY did I misrepresent, John? The truth as Mr. Slawson now sees it?
Nothing you have ever said has been too subtle for me.
Apparently it has, since you just continue to bitch and whine about people you hate, and fail to discuss evidence.
You think if you just condemn as evil all the people associated with the WC, you have proven a conspiracy.
That doesn't work.
Again, I don't give a rat's ass about "the political climate" in 63.
That's easy for you to say, but the Commission had to worry about attacks both from the left, and from the right.
You think Ford and Dulles were fine, honorable men. You know that is not true. You know that Dulles was a murderer.
Actually, no. I have no idea if leftist governments the CIA kept out of power would have killed more or fewer people than the rightest governments the CIA helped put in power.
Do you think the KGB was absent in all those places?
You know that Ford was leaking information to Hoover, because he was far more interested in a career in Washington than the truth.
And how did Ford talking to the FBI compromise the truth?
I know you hate Hoover. But people in Washington share information.
Earl Warren was apparently sharing information with Drew Pearson.
You know Specter made up the SBT, because they had a narrative to fit.
Want to argue the evidence on this? Start here:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
Or do you think hating Specter can substitute for discussing evidence?
However, you say it was only Sibert's opinion. No, he was there. You were not.
So you want to ignore the photo of the back, and go with Sibert's claim that the wound was too low?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg
Why would you want to do that?
As far as Brennan and Leslie, I will not speak for Leslie. However, you believe Brennan was honest, but Roger Craig was not.
Brennan admitted he had seen Oswald on TV before the line up, and that it might have affected his ID of Oswald. That's honest.
As for Craig:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm
Of course, if evidence doesn't matter, you can just go with whatever witness you find congenial.
All I can say is if Mr. Brennan could describe a shooter from that distance, he has better eyesight than anyone I know.
He identified two of the fellows on the fifth floor when they exited the Depository.
You don't have to debate any evidence, because you can cling to your "hatred" mantra, or your "ad hominem" mantra.
But you don't discuss evidence. You just fuss and fume about people whom you hate, because they are associated with the case against Oswald.
So prove me wrong. Let's discuss the SBT. Let's discuss Roger Craig.
Want to do that?
(Before you complain about my linking you to right wing extremist belief and action,
Only in the minds of left-wing extremists, Tom, am I a "right wing extremist."
"Only in the minds of left-wing extremists, Tom, am I a "right wing extremist."~McAdams
When one grasps the Hegelian Dialectic and understands the Left/Right paradigm is false, one realizes that an extremist is the same on both "sides".
From this perspective McAdams is simply an extremist, as the L/R handle is PR nonsense.
The Hegelian Dialectic
Introduction: Why study Hegel?
"…the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State… for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'" Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144)
In 1847 the London Communist League (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels) used Hegel's theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure. The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision. When we remain locked into dialectical thinking, we cannot see out of the box.
http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/EmbattledPropertyOwnerStories/What%20is%20the%20Hegelian%20Dialectic.pdf
Sure, I do. Explain this quote to me. After all, this man wrote the 302 that described the back wound that your lying hero Ford, had to move up to the neck "for clarification."
On 11th September, 1997, Sibert provided a deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). He was also interviewed by William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (2005). Sibert rejected the account given by Arlen Specter about the single-bullet theory: "What a liar. I feel he got his orders from above – how far above I don't know."
Care to comment on that, John? DON'T say it is his opinion. He wrote the 302 that described what he saw from 2 feet away.
I would love to discuss the case with you, but you will have to leave the "official version" to answer many of the questions that your beloved WC refused to tackle.
Why do you feel the need to "label" people? You use the words buff and kook and factoid and now extremist. Are we to assume that anyone that dares to disagree with you or the official version is an extremist? Why can't someone disagree with official version and still be a person?
Would you be willing to call Mr. Gunn an extremist because he said the WC FAILED to do its job? The man is teaching overseas now I believe. Is he a kook? A buff? Does he lack reasoning?
Gee, John, this is still America, correct? People can still disagree, correct? We can still question the government, correct? It is funny that you have no problem with a US president overthrowing a foreign government, along with his CIA director, slaughter millions of innocent people, all for money, but let someone disagree with the WC and the WR and they are "buffs."
So, by your reasoning, Eisenhower and Dulles and Kennedy were what? Merchants of peace? Extremists? Murderers?
In the first place, nobody can move the wound. It was here:
That's at T1.
In the second place, Ford clearly believed he was clarifying the text, because it said the wound was above the shoulder in the back. That's incoherent.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ford.htm
Why do you feel the need to "label" people?
It was Tom who labelled me. I was simply pointing out that labeling me an "extremist" is something only an extremist would do.
It's called "assimilation and contract effects:"
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/7271/volumes/v19/NA-19
John you were labeled long before Tom came here or your recent defrocking by Marquette.
http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/
Oh John:
So is Howard Brennan. He has your gold stamp of approval, but Mr. Gunn does not? Hmmmm, there seems to be a double standard about whose "opinion" really does matter.
BTW, Mr. Gunn and Mr. Blakey, whom you dismiss, ACTUALLY worked on this case to a much greater degree than your self. However, you dismiss them, much as you do anyone who disagrees with the "official version."
I also noticed you did not respond to Olney being being left off the Wc, because of Hoover. Let me guess, you think Hoover was a "good man" who served his country well?
Oh, I should correct myself. Brennan was a witness for the WC. He was just an inaccurate witness when it came to describing the crazed loner, yet, somehow, has been given credence by the followers of the "official version."
Brennan was an honest witness, but the probative value of ID of Oswald is badly compromised by his having seen Oswald on TV before he was taken to the line-up.
Is that too subtle a statement for you to understand?
In your world, is every witness either lying scum, or a fearless truth teller whose every word should be believed.
Leslie won't admit that he saw any shooter in the Depository window.
Gunn and Blakey have just expressed their opinions. If they had any actual evidence of conspiracy, they would have explained it.
As for Olney: his left wing associations probably would have compromised his status on the WC.
You are used to hearing only left-wingers attack the WC, but there was plenty to worry about with rightists attacking the Commission.
You are adopting McKnight's post hoc spin, and not considering the climate in 1963.
Shame on you, John. You know full well that is not the truth. I'll stop short here, and give you time to recant, but if you don't retract that statement I won't hesitate to call you a liar in my next comment.
Tom, sorry for the double post. Could you please post this revision instead?
Leslie wrote:
"Howard Brennan described a white male 165-170 lbs. in his early 30's and that description was disseminated to law enforcement…"
Actually, the sniper's description broadcast was "white male, 30, 5'10", slender build, 165 pounds."
The police radio description of the Tippit suspect: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson. He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender…"
Where did that "170 pounds" come from? Where did "slender" disappear to? And why "early 30s," not simply "about 30"?
Your version makes the subject slightly older and heavier, i.e., less like Oswald.
You seem to imply that lawmen rushed directly to the theater from Dealey Plaza. That's not what happened. They went to the Tippit murder scene and began trying to track the gunman witnesses saw running toward Jefferson. They followed another lead to the library and rushed there, but it was a false alarm. Then Brewer saw Oswald duck into the outer lobby of his store as a police car went by. Brewer's store and the theater were on Jefferson. That's what the record says happened, not simply what McAdams and I "argue."
". . . less than two hours into the pursuit of an assassin (or assassins) responsible for the crime of the century."
Before the Tippit shooting, what leads do you think the police were pursuing? They stopped and questioned some males who fit the general description, but other than that, what could they do? Pick up every man in the Dallas area who fit that general description?
"Why didn't someone in authority advise 'caution, this may not be our man, let's continue pursuit of the leads we're picking up around Dealey Plaza?"
What leads were they picking up around Dealey Plaza? Name one that could've been followed up.
The policemen got a clue they had the right man when Oswald punched Patrolman McDonald in the face and pulled out a pistol.
Like, hello?
Response to Jean's comment dated March 11::
"He was a white man in his early 30s, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds." — Howard L. Brennan; November 22, 1963
(David Von Pein links to the affidavit from his site)
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1200-h/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif
And David Von Pein continues to provide us with this:
'Herbert Sawyer broadcast the following description of the assassin over the Dallas Police radio just at 12:44 PM, just 14 minutes after President Kennedy was shot:
"The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5-feet-10, 165, carrying what looks to be a thirty-thirty or some type of Winchester."
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html
So we agree that the description broadcast in the first 90 minutes of the assassination was predicated on Brennan's statement and his statement alone. 'white male 'about' 30 . . . 165. note: Sawyer shaved a few years and 5 lbs. off Brennan's description but we'll set that aside for the moment.
But then you drift off course Jean.
'The police radio description of the Tippit suspect: "Last seen about 300 block of East Jefferson. He's a white male, about thirty, five eight, black hair, slender…"
For no reason – unless you are arguing in bad faith – you are attempting to conflate Brennan's description with the description of a suspect in the Tippit shooting. You want your reader to evaluate these descriptions in retrospect – after all, Oswald was arrested and the rest is history, right? that doesn't wash Jean. The trajectory of events must be considered from the perspective of the real time c. 12:30-2:00 p.m., CST, Dallas, Texas, November 22, 1963.
Jean continues: " . . . .Your version makes the subject slightly older and heavier, i.e., less like Oswald."
You bet my version does Jean, because Brennan's description was 10 years older and 35-40 lbs. heavier than the person arrested in the Texas Theatre; law enforcement had been apprised of Brennan's description and assuming they were half awake, they recognized it did not match Oswald. No one said "we've got our Tippit shooter, but this can't be the guy in Dealey, the description just doesn't match."
'You seem to imply that lawmen rushed directly to the theater from Dealey Plaza.' — Jean Davison
No, Jean, YOU said Odum caught a lift with Westbrook from the DSBD. Or are you now saying that Odum stopped off at the Tippit murder scene? Do you have a timeline for all that activity, incorporating Odum's journey with the rifle back to DPD HQ ? Day says he only arrived at 411 Elm at 1:12, which would have been following the shooting in Oak Cliff.
Mr. BELIN. Did you go there?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; I went out of my office almost straight up 1 o'clock. I arrived at the location on Elm about 1:12.
Day goes on to describe his journey back to HQ with FBI Agent Odum and the rifle; but are you saying that Odum caught a lift to Oak Cliff with Westbrook to be positioned in the Texas Theatre in pursuit of a suspect in the Tippit shooting, instead of – as a Federal Agent – following up on leads coinciding with Brennan's description of a 30 something weighing 165-170 lbs. in and near Dealey Plaza?
'Before the Tippit shooting, what leads do you think the police were pursuing?' — Jean Davison
Are you serious Jean? Do you think the police were not combing the area for someone matching the description provided by Brennan? Were they twiddling their thumbs, scratching their heads saying "Gosh darn guys, WHAT in the world should we do now?" Even someone cynical about the performance of Dallas law enforcement has never come up with that, to my knowledge.
'They stopped and questioned some males who fit the general description, but other than that, what could they do? Pick up every man in the Dallas area who fit that general description?'
Now you're being silly Jean.
'What leads were they picking up around Dealey Plaza? Name one that could've been followed up.'
Funny, I was thinking first and foremost of the Brennan description. Did I misread the significance? Or perhaps the dozens who heard sounds coming from other than the 6th Floor of 411 Elm? Or activity in the railcard, or the overpass, or anyone who might have witnessed someone desperate to board a bus blocks away – OR give a cab to someone else in his desperate attempt to flee the area. To be honest, I'm floored with your suggestion, Jean, that some within the DPD were competent and self motivated enough to rush on their own initiative to the scene near the shooting of a fellow officer ending up in the Texas Theatre 'suspecting' the assassin was there, yet they did not have the competence to search the vicinity of the assassination i.e. a 10-20 block area of Dealey before the information of the Tippit shooting had been widely announced? What the hell was going on in that interim, Jean?
'The policemen got a clue they had the right man when Oswald punched Patrolman McDonald in the face and pulled out a pistol.' – Jean Davison
Again, you have constructed a small compartment with a ribbon around it in an effort to lead the reader to consider the scenario 'after the fact', enforcing the version of events that was constructed AFTER the arrest of Oswald; dear reader, please consider that before Oswald punched McDonald in the face, no one in law enforcement present at the Texas Theatre had a clue they were encountering the assassin. Correct, Jean?
For both John McAdams and Jean Davison:
HOW did Brennan know the shooter was "nice looking"?
Bob Prudhomme
That proves nothing, and you know it. All it proves is that the same rifle used to fake the BYP's was also planted on the 6th floor.
Pretty basic stuff, John.
The Backyard Photos were not faked.
Have you even read the HSCA examination of the photos?
Or just conspiracy books?
And yet years later in an interview Curry stated that he thought that Oswald would have been convicted; at the time of the statement you quote Curry was selling a book. Obviously the statement had no bearing on his personal belief that Oswald shot JFK. Like so much CT lore it is an unsubstantiated opinion contradicted by other statements.
Like so much Warren Commission lore it is an unsubstantiated opinion contradicted by other statements.
Photon, are you commenting solely for effect, or is there generally some value added dimension I am not sophisticated enough to grasp?
The Warren Report contains a massive collection of evidence that initially even CTers used to support their own theories and refute the Warren conclusions. In my opinion LNs continue to refer to that collection of evidence in forming their conclusions. In CT circles after the HSCA hearings the CT community started to move away from the Warren Report evidence collection because it did not support any physical evidence for a conspiracy. As such you start to see greater acceptance of claims of forged evidence, faked pictures and the ludicrous claim that the Zapruder film was faked. Opinions, not facts.
No, Photon, you're wrong. A person can reasonably conclude that Oswald would have been convicted, and at the same time believe him factually innocent. Recent history has demonstrated the fact that innocent people do get convicted, for a variety of reasons. Or haven't you noticed?
Photon is the gate keeper for the official story.
Whether he has any basis for a comment or not he will defend the ludicrous tale woven in the Warren Report.
Seems to be Dr Photon's full time job.
He must be as bored of it as we are of him…
I can help. Photon is adding that solely for effect. After all, Photon and I have had this little disagreement for 2 years. The key part that Photon misses is that Curry THOUGHT Oswald would have been proven guilty. I THOUGHT I was going to play in the NBA. JFK THOUGHT he was going to live to a ripe old age. One other thing that is odd. Because without a gun, Oswald did not fire the bullets that struck JFK. I am not the gun, neck, forensic, or photographic expert that Photon is, but I am CERTAIN that one MUST have a gun to fire a bullet at anything. Curry said they couldn't prove that for certain.
And, Photon ASSURED me two years ago Curry said that in 69 to sell books. However, when someone from the CT side does that, Photon foams at the mouth and shouts "kook and money grubber." (Never mind that Gerald Ford was "ashamed" that people would try to make money off of JFK's death, while trumpeting his own book that "proved" LHO was a deranged and angry loner.)
It is typical of the charade that surrounds JFK's death and "investigation." President gets shot, ALL of the agencies involved do a HALF-ASS job in their investigation, the people who write the final report do LESS than a HALF-ASS job of questioning the investigators, then write a piece of trash using incomplete or altered evidence and sell it is "truth."
The DPD in 63 was AWFUL. Just AWFUL. Photon, that is a FACT. Defend what you will, but not only did they not protect the president, but the president's assassin does not even make it through the weekend.
And yet you give credence to the head of that department.
Photon,
I am afraid you are wrong…again. I have, repeatedly, over the two years that you and I have conversed, pointed out relentlessly to YOU that the "evidence" you trumpet OVER AND OVER again is of NO value if we are ever to find out what REALLY happened in Dallas. You tell everyone how wonderful the FBI and the CIA and the DPD and the Warren Clowns were in the writing of the report that "settled the dust."
I show YOU relentlessly that MOST (90%) of the people involved in the "investigation" were either incompetent, dirty, or chasing their own agenda. Take Curry. He is the HEAD of the DPD. He is in charge. Yet, it does not seem to bother him in 63 that Fritz (I believe) took no notes of the preliminary conversation with LHO. Leads were not followed, officers were not in places were they were supposed to be, crime scene photos appear years later in the hands of cops, his department allows LHO to be murdered in front of the world. I could go on and on, but I am hoping you get the point.
THEN, in 1969, this "Hoover" of the DPD says we can't prove LHO ever had a gun in his hand,
Credence, Photon? Oh hell, no! Corrupt, incompetent, stupid, lazy, or just a member of the "good ol' boys club? Oh, HELL, yes.
How about those facts, my dear friend?
So they were all a bunch of evil/dirty and/or incompetent hacks.
But Curry's opinion about whether Oswald shot Kennedy is pure gold.
Gee, professor, I guess you and "The Photon" really don't communicate much, huh?
Curry is pure gold? Uhhhhhhhhhhh…
About as pure gold as your beloved Gerald Ford and Allen Dulles…
Let me try this again. The DPD, from top (read Curry, John) to the bottom (read Roscoe White, John) was a JOKE. Their "investigating" skills as well as their "protective" skills were AWFUL.
Got it, John? You can canonize Tippit if you wish, but, once again, you are choosing to look at all of the "factoids" as you call them.
A little more help, John. Either Curry was uncertain in 63 or 69 OR he was lying in 63 or 69. You see, John, I am fairly certain that LHO did no more "shooting" after 63. So, if my math is correct, if Curry thought him guilty in 63, but not so sure in 69, something is amiss…
You can't even recognize sarcasm.
You have been really slow getting this: Curry's opinions are not evidence. They have no probative value.
Chief Curry & Sheriff Decker both initially stated (as their vehicle was going under the overpass) on the police microphone that they believed some of the shots came from the right front:
"Get men on top of the underpass, see what happened up there, go up to the overpass…I'm sure its going to take some time to get your men in there. Put everyone of my men in there. Notify Station five to move all men available out of my department back into the railroad yards and try and determine what happened." SS Agent Forrest Sorrels riding with Decker & Curry agreed when he stated "I thought the shots came from the vicinity of railroad yards or the WPA project."
It appears that the Dallas Police Department & Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade were under pressure to state that Oswald was the lone killer. Wade stated:
"Cliff Carter, President Johnson's aide called me three times from the White House that Friday night. He said that President Johnson felt any word of conspiracy …to kill President Kennedy would shake our nation to its foundation…Washington's word to me was that it would hurt foreign relations if I alleged a conspiracy…So I went down to the Police Department at City Hall to see Captain Fritz-to make sure the Dallas Police didn't involve any foreign country in the assassination."
Wade apparently initially believed that there was more than one shooter – the Dallas Morning News reported on November 23 that "Wade said preliminary reports indicated more than one person was involved…Everyone who participated in this crime-anyone who helped plan it or furnished a weapon…they should all go to the electric chair." The Houston Post on the same day reported "there was much speculation among law enforcement officers that the murder was too well planned to have been accomplished alone."
AJ Millican & Sandy Speaker were co-workers with Howard Brennan & were in Dealy Plaza during the shooting – both men claimed that they heard more than three shots & that they came from different directions. Speaker claimed that Brennan was scared and put under "pressure" to say it was Oswald.
This exchange during his Warren Commission testimony might allude to that possibility:
Q. "Did you ever state to anyone that you heard shots from opposite the Texas School Book Depository and saw smoke and paper wadding come out of boxes on a slope below the railroad trestle at the time of the assassination.Did you ever say that or that in substance?
A. I did not.
Q. Is there another Howard Brennan?
Wade apparently initially believed that there was more than one shooter – the Dallas Morning News reported on November 23 that "Wade said preliminary reports indicated more than one person was involved…
I think you are going to need to produce an image of that article.
AJ Millican & Sandy Speaker were co-workers with Howard Brennan & were in Dealy Plaza during the shooting – both men claimed that they heard more than three shots & that they came from different directions.
There were so many Dealey Plaza witnesses that one can find one or two to support any scenario one wants.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
Dr. McAdams – you prove me wrong – I put the source & date of the article in my original post. I thought you were a historian & researcher – are you saying that this quote is not documented – try & disprove it – I've already done the work.
So what about the initial reaction of eye & ear witnesses – Curry, Decker, & Sorrels – trained officers & agents who were at the scene. Why did they change their minds?
You of course have no comment about Cliff Carter's phone calls to Wade telling Curry & Decker to limit their investigation & the article from the Houston Post regarding law enforcement speculation that the shooting was not the result of one man. You just ignore documentation that does not fit your scenario.
A competent defense attorney would have a field day with you McAdams – establishing reasonable doubt in this case would have been easy – especially if Oswald had lived.
That's where you, Davison & Photon are so weak – you don't accept the possibility that Oswald didn't pull the trigger & that closes your mind to considering all the evidence – both sides.
You of course have no comment about Cliff Carter's phone calls to Wade telling Curry & Decker to limit their investigation &
Source??!!
I think you have in mind the fact that Bill Alexander first drafted a charge against Oswald as having killed Kennedy "in furtherance of a communist conspiracy."
Of course the White House went ballistic about that.
Do you think that was sinister?
Do you think Oswald was part of a communist conspiracy?
the article from the Houston Post regarding law enforcement speculation that the shooting was not the result of one man. You just ignore documentation that does not fit your scenario.
You mean the Houston Post found some cops who speculated there might be a conspiracy?
How is that evidence of anything?
How is it that their testimony (and only Sorrels was a Grassy Knoll witness) count for more than other witnesses?
But over 90% of all the Dealey Plaza witnesses reported three or fewer shots.
And only a tiny number (three in my tabulation, but no more than five in any other) thought the shots came from two directions.
So these guys were outliers.
But you quote them, and ignore the vast majority of witnesses. Why is that?
Speaker claimed that Brennan was scared and put under "pressure" to say it was Oswald.
That's not what Brennan said in his autobiography.
What evidence do you have that Speaker had any first-hand knowledge of what happened to Brennan.
theNewDanger
Unless all the JFK assassination witnesses' ears that heard gunfire had the same structural defects on both sides of both ears that would enable them to hear shots coming from multiple directions all the exact same way, most of them would be unlikely to hear even only a few shots coming from multiple directions. That's not the way sound waves register in normally formed ear structures when shots are fired in quick succession. With multiple witnesses hearing different things, it means that the police had MORE leads to investigate – THEY DIDN'T!
Why trust witness testimony? How about from a troubled 8 year old? There was a shooting of a drug house next door to my grandmother's house in 1994 (Riverwest area of Milwaukee). There were seven people staying the night. Everyone heard shots coming from either the alley behind the house or from the front of the house across the street on the corner of Auer. On the second floor in the rear of the house, I heard 8 shots. Three cousins in the basement heard 4-5 shots. My uncle, a former US Marine, heard 9 from his bedroom in the rear of the house. Grandmother and my aunt, chatting near the rear of the house in the kitchen that is open to the front living room, heard 10-12. However, due to the leads from ALL witnesses, the police investigation proved that over 17 bullets were found to have penetrated the targeted house while an unaccounted for number hit vehicles on the street and the turf surrounding the houses. 8 shells were found across the street in the yard of the house off of Auer. 12 shells were found behind the targeted house in the alley between Richards and Buffum. The police investigation discovered there were MORE shots fired than ANY of the witnesses heard because they actually investigated the freaking leads from ALL witness statements, especially my 8 year old ODD/bipolar cousin, who heard multiple shots coming from the alley, across the street, but also, in front but from near the closest curb – it turns out that someone was also shooting from a stolen car that was driven to and abandoned at the scene (this led to the apprehension of the shooters). All details need to be considered.
Fallacies aplenty, it is an appeal to ignorance and the majority to dismiss witness testimony just because not enough witnesses heard or saw enough of the exact same thing. Every witness account matters, but some gunfire witnesses who were in Dealey Plaza were omitted by the WCR, DPD, and FBI. A multidirectional investigatory failure of this magnitude is not one of your one-off "mistakes happen" scenarios. Without aggregating and following all leads from witness testimony, this is systemic Simple Sabotage 101. Hoover joined the FBI to improve and export systemic sabotage in the 1920's to advocate for those behind prohibition legislation passed to sabotage alcohol-as-a-fuel competition to preserve oil monopolies for Bolshevist-backing, fractional reservist, oil-igarchic supremacists.
Why trust witness testimony?
Excellent point.
And I trust you know that buff books always pound testimony, and play down hard evidence.
As we have never met and likely will never meet, I'm not sure what your source or basis of trust is, but, to translate based on my own interpretation of your patronizing opening four-word bromide (i.e. "I trust you know"): you expect that I accept or agree with what you feel is true about some unknown grouping of what you label to be "buff books" without you being specific about what books you are referring to.
(Your persistent, gratuitous grouping of "you folks", "conspiracists", "buffs", etc. cognates with the same noesis that evokes racist attitudes (e.g. "you people").)
Knowing this, "I trust you know" this commenter isn't visiting jfkfacts.org to be right nor to be patronized by an individual who can't even tell the truth in the first four words of an opening sentence.
What specific books "pound testimony, and play down hard evidence"?
Pretty much every conspiracy book. Start with Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment.
Pretty much every conspiracy book. Start with Mark Lane's Rush to Judgment
Lane was a gatekeeper who showed his true colors later in life. Go fish.
Want to discuss more "evidence?"
In common with other important documents that contradicted the Commission's conclusions, such as the Parkland Hospital press conference transcript, the Sibert and O'Neill Report was deliberately ignored, and was neither quoted in the Warren Report nor published in the 26 volumes of Hearings and Exhibits. The document was placed in the National Archives, where it was discovered in 1966 by Harold Weisberg.
Neither Sibert nor O'Neill was interviewed by the Warren Commission. Both agents gave interviews to the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s and to the Assassination Records Review Board in the early 1990s, in which they again contradicted important elements of the lone–assassin argument."
Did I read that correctly? The 302 was NOT published in the WR? Is that correct? If so, WHY was it not published? Why weren't the two agents interviewed? Please DON'T say they had the 302. The 302 directly contradicted the SBT. Don't you believe the WC would want to talk to both men to clear up any confusion? Don't you think Arlen "passion for truth so long as it leads to a career in Washington" Specter SHOULD HAVE deposed the agents to get a better understanding of the situation?
Evidence, John? What evidence do you want to talk about? The evidence that only supports the "official version," or the evidence as it really existed? Because, as you can plainly see from this quote, they ARE not the same.
Tell me, John. Are Sibert and O'Neill lying in their report? Or, are they wrong? Or, did they "make this stuff up?" Because something is clearly wrong. How do you explain the discrepancy? Or was it the incompetence of Humes and his crew? There has to be an explanation for this huge gap in the evidence.
Want to discuss that?
Did I read that correctly? The 302 was NOT published in the WR? Is that correct? If so, WHY was it not published? Why weren't the two agents interviewed? Please DON'T say they had the 302. The 302 directly contradicted the SBT.
You mean this, right?
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=625#relPageId=1&tab=page
The WC doubtless considered the autopsy report and the testimony of the autopsy doctors as the best evidence.
In fact, those were way better than the Sibert and O'Neill report, with the "surgery to the head area" nonsense, and the bullet that supposedly penetrated shallowly and then fell out.
Do you actually believe those two things?
So you are reduced to arguing that the Warren Commission was remiss in failing to include evidence you know is inferior.
And I note that you aren't arguing evidence.
Evidence on the SBT and the body alteration theory would include a lot besides anything available to the WC.
"Curry's belief in the possibility of a Grassy Knoll shooter seems to be based on Bobby Hargis experience."~McAdams
That is entirely assumption on your part "professor".
"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."~Jesse Curry
–retired police chief of Dallas, Texas, 'JFK Assassination File.'
"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."~Jesse Curry
You're going to need to supply a solid citation for that. It's all over the Internet, cited variously to Curry's book, a Dallas Morning News article, and UPI.
Obviously, the fact that it's "all over the Internet" is not corroboration. Rather it raises doubt.
Curry, November 6, 1969:
Good work coming up with that.
That's not exactly what Willy quoted. So I'm wondering whether Willy's quote was a slightly garbled version of what you posted, or whether there is another source for the exact thing Willy quoted.
You can change Willy's quote all you wish, and you twist his words all you want, but the gist of Curry is still the same.
Here's what Chief Curry told reporters on 11/24/63 (right side of page):
"We have been able to place this man in the building, on the floor at the time the assassination occurred. We have been able to establish the fact that he was at the window that the shots were fired from." (WC, XXIV, 780)
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0399b.htm
Curry talks about the direction of the "splatter," which some writers suggest was backward only to Hargis and the trunk of the car. But the debris went in all directions.
" . . . We have been able to establish the fact that he was at the window that the shots were fired from . . . " — Jesse Curry
Was Chief Curry referring to this affidavit by Howard Leslie Brennan?:
" . . . He was just sitting up there looking down apparently waiting for the same thing I was to see the President. I did not notice anything unusual about this man. He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. . . .
Did anyone within the Sherriff's Department notice later that Oswald was not in his 'early' 30's nor did he weigh 165-70 lbs?
"I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. . . . Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about his belt up . . . "
A close study beginning minute 8:02 Secret Service reenactment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUtJos-wZXI
The photographs of the snipers nest, and this official reenactment argue that the shooter was sitting on a box with 2 boxes stacked in front of him and a 3rd one perched against the windowsill. Is Brennan saying that he saw the shooter standing, and then he saw him sitting down – he could see the full length of the barrel but not the scope yet he could see the face of 'this same man' that he had seen standing? Have exercises been done to determine that from his position on the street, 6 floors below, Brennan could see 1) the shooter let the gun down to his side, 2) the shooter 'step down' out of sight, and 3) the shooter "from about his belt up" when these boxes indicate they would have precluded a shooter from being that close to the window at any time. And what would the shooter have been standing on to conform to Brennan's claim that he 'stepped down?'
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm
Curry may have been referring not to Brennan, but rather to the fact that three spent cartridges (and Oswald's prints on a box) were found in the Sniper's Nest.
But if he was referring to Brennan, are you saying he was mistaken to accept the claim that Brennan had identified Oswald?
If you do, that's fine, but then it makes no sense for you to claim his opinions on other issues (like the Grassy Knoll shooter) are infallible.
'If you do, that's fine, but then it makes no sense for you to claim his opinions on other issues (like the Grassy Knoll shooter) are infallible.'
A failed attempt at sidetracking the questions John: Please answer related to Brennan's ability to identify the shooter if the shooter was positioned on a box with stacked boxes between him and the window. Explain Brennan's claim that the man he saw 6 stories above where he was standing was in his early 30's and weighed between 165-170 lbs yet in a line up he identified a 20-something year old who weighed less than 140 lbs. You can't have it both ways John; Brennan was either a reliable witness or he wasn't. Either the man he saw in the window weighed 165-170 lbs. or he weighed less than 140 lbs. He was either in his early 30's or in his early 20's. Oh, I get it. Brennan was correct in some aspects of his identification but erred – as so many witnesses do – in other areas of the identification, but you have a way around that; you've reached an acceptable compromise, "well, all in all, he was right when he chose Oswald in the line up, and that's what really matters." It matters not that there is a possibility he could not have seen a man 'from his belt up' if that man was prohibited from standing close to the window because of the depth of the boxes he had positioned to shoot the president. How could he see the 'shooter' move the rifle to his side if the man was standing almost 2 feet back from the window? What did the shooter 'step down' from? and if Brennan couldn't identify whether or not the rifle had a scope, how could he identify the face of the man that would have been at least 6 inches further into the shadows?
A failed attempt at sidetracking the questions John: Please answer related to Brennan's ability to identify the shooter if the shooter was positioned on a box with stacked boxes between him and the window.
You are assuming the shooter never moved. For example, "stepped down" could have been Brennan's interpretation of one of Oswald's actions. Oswald didn't "step down," but may well have done something that Brennan interpreted that way.
Brennan did supply a description of the shooter that fit Oswald (although it also fit a lot of young males).
Are you arguing that Brennan made up his testimony whole cloth? That's a silly argument.
There is only one thing wrong with Brennan's ID of Oswald, but it's too subtle for conspiracy folks to understand: Brennan had seen Oswald on TV, identified as the prime suspect, before the line up.
Warren Commission counsel asked him about that. Warren Commission counsel asked him if that fact influenced his ID of Oswald. Brennan said he didn't know, couldn't say.
Honest questioning by WC counsel, and honest answer from Brennan.
(correction: in my previous comment I referred to the Sherriff's Department when I should have said the Dallas Police Department)
John, let's first recall how the Brennan testimony entered into this discussion. Jean Davison linked to statements made by Chief Curry in argument that he did indeed say they had strong evidence against Oswald.
I highlighted that Curry's list included "We have been able to establish the fact that he was at the window that the shots were fired from."
I posit this statement is predicated on the Brennan affidavit.
'You are assuming the shooter never moved. For example, "stepped down" could have been Brennan's interpretation of one of Oswald's actions. Oswald didn't "step down," but may well have done something that Brennan interpreted that way.' — John McAdams
On the contrary, and you're dancing around those stacked boxes., John. I pointed out all of the instances of movement that Brennan says he witnessed. I asked if the boxes would preclude him from being able to see the person in the window 'from the belt up', or why he couldn't see the scope but he knew for certain the shooter was the same man he first saw before the motorcade passed by, or what movement led him to believe the person in the window 'stepped back' [when in fact he was already at least 18″ from the windowsill because of those boxes]. And why didn't Brennan mention the person must have been crouched when he saw the full length of the barrel — anyone reading his statement the first time might believe the person had ample space to fire thru the window while standing upright.
"Brennan did supply a description of the shooter that fit Oswald (although it also fit a lot of young males)." — John McAdams
Please identify in Brennan's affidavit of the 22nd where he described the person who was arrested in the Texas Theatre. Or if you have another source to support your claim — not the line up after Brennan had seen Lee Oswald on television but any other instance he described Oswald to the authorities — please produce it.
'Are you arguing that Brennan made up his testimony whole cloth? That's a silly argument.' — John McAdams
Apparently you are arguing that Jesse Curry had evidence that Lee Oswald was in the sniper's window and apparently you (like Curry) are relying on Brennan's testimony. Curry is not suggesting that the shells proved that Oswald was in the window; yet he is stating he has proof Oswald was in the window. What other source of information could he have been referring to if not the Brennan affidavit?
Is it possible Brennan later made a false identification in the line up, and that the man in the window was indeed in his early 30's, weighing 165-170 lbs. as he stated on the 22nd, and that man was never pursued?
So you don't like it if Curry relied on Brennan's testimony to put Oswald in the window.
So you attack Brennan.
But it's fine with you if he relied on Hargis' testimony to conclude there was a Grassy Knoll shooter.
I think you are huffing and puffing about this because you want to insist that Curry's mere opinions are somehow evidence.
You like his conspiratorial opinions, but argue with his non-conspiratorial opinions.
But neither matter.
John, with respect, your comment lacks substance, but it affords me the opportunity to continue to coax you to address Curry's use of Brennan's affidavit.
'So you attack Brennan.'
Please identify where I have attacked Brennan. I have pointed out that given the distance from the street to the 6th floor, and knowing that the photographs and reenactment insist the shooter sat on a box with 2 stacked boxes (with a 3rd one perched) between him and the windowsill, Brennan's testimony could be problematic for a jury to envision – just how could he have seen someone 'from the belt up', or 'stepping back', or resting the weapon to his side. There is no character assassination involved in my argument; in fact as balance, I asked you if it's possible Brennan did see a 30-plus white male weighing 165-170 lbs. but because Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theatre – 24 yrs old, approx 135 lbs. – the older, heavier white male was never pursued? You avoid responding. Your option.
'But it's fine with you if he relied on Hargis' testimony to conclude there was a Grassy Knoll shooter.'
Not in my sphere of study John, and I've never commented on the Hargis/Grassy Knoll research. Nice try though.
'I think you are huffing and puffing about this because you want to insist that Curry's mere opinions are somehow evidence.'
You are the one vacillating between Curry as merely having an opinion and Curry presenting solid evidence. It gets confusing John, but I realize you may be attempting to appease Jean Davision who debates facts almost exclusively while at the same time you employ your characteristic vacuous retorts.
You have yet to respond specifically to even one of challenges to Curry's use of Brennan's affidavit to place Oswald in the window. Who precisely is huffing and puffing?
You did not "attack" Brennan. You pointed out the inconsistency in his testimony, which is what most people do when trying to find the "whole truth."
Mr. McAdams does not like it when one veers from the WR, because it pushes him out of his comfort zone and forces him to see what might have happened had the WC actually tried to "settle the dust."
Buffs do not like it when one challenges their conspiracy factoids, because it pushes them out of their comfort zone and fores them to see what reality might look like if they actually tried looking at the evidence.
I don't care that you dislike Brennan, since Curry's opinion doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter how he formed it.
As for his "direction of the brain matter," that's from Hargis.
But what Curry drew from Hargis' testimony doesn't matter either. Hargis testimony matters, but not Curry's use of it.
You are the one vacillating between Curry as merely having an opinion and Curry presenting solid evidence.
No, you are projecting.
Curry's opinions have no probative value.
You buffs cite them when you find them convenient, but when Jean posts an opinion of Curry's that you find inconvenient, you attack it.
You want to treat Curry's opinions as gospel when you find them congenial, but attack them when you find them uncongenial.
In reality, in either case they have no probative value.
Former Marquette assistant Professor McAdams you are the living description of a Texas euphemism of "arguing with a fence post".
Congratulations, you give life to the fence post.
'I don't care that you dislike Brennan . . .'
I have to ask you John, on what playground did you learn this "you like him, you dislike them' antic? It is one of the more childish memes I've come across. But you know what, I'm going to play along for a few minutes if the moderator will indulge: 'To be honest John, I really liked Howard Brennan. There was something about his courage that appealed to me. Mine was an unrequited affection however and that's when I started to hate him, hate him so badly I've come to this forum to extract my revenge – by questioning whether or not he could have seen the shooter to the extent he claimed. I feel so much better now, like a 12 yr old school girl.'
' . . . since Curry's opinion doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter how he formed it.'
The Chief of the Dallas Police Department – perhaps in tandem with his peers at the Sheriff's department and the FBI/SS – would have been responsible for calling off the search for the assassin or accomplices so I think Jesse Curry's opinion mattered, it mattered a great deal. To argue otherwise is simply ludicrous. To question how he formed his opinion, particularly if the Brennan affidavit weighed in the decision is not only logical, it is responsible – something you seem to take very lightly, John.
sgt_doom
Ain't that the truth!
http://www.ctka.net/pr1195-hewett.html
Curry's belief in the possibility of a Grassy Knoll shooter seems to be based on Bobby Hargis experience:
Of course, the Hargis testimony proves no such thing.
Which testimony would account for Curry's obviously misguided belief in 69 that LHO did not fire any gun from the TSBD?
Howard Brennan?
Did Curry say Oswald did not fire any gun?
As far as the rifle, he didn't have to. The paraffin test was negative, and, he admitted we could never put him in that window with that gun.
The paraffin test was negative,
You should be reading standard forensics texts, and not buff books, on that test:
Mr. McAdams….
You use the terms 'appears' and 'seems' to frame things in a rather Hegelian manner….
"The testimony of the people who watched the motorcade was much more confusing than either the press or the Warren Commission seemed to indicate". From an amazon review of his book. I've thought about adding it to my collection for many years. Maybe it's time.
Curry was the most open of Dallas officials regarding the possibility that Oswald did not act alone. He's the one who said words to the effect "we never could put him in that window with that gun in his hands". His book also has the picture of Roger Craig in the office of Captain Will Fritz while Oswald was being interrogated. A claim Craig made which others tried to discredit.
The problem I have with Curry is why didn't he rush back to Dealy Plaza to direct the investigation, and, why was he on the phone with Mayor Cabell when Oswald was being transferred? I know Cabell was the brother to General Charles Cabell that JFK fired with Dulles but why not tell him "I'll call you back, when we're done transferring the President's accused assassin. As Police Chief I really should be there". In that position he could have said hold up the transfer until I'm done talking to the Mayor. Somebody, in control, should have said get the press back Before they started out of the elevator.
His book also has the picture of Roger Craig in the office of Captain Will Fritz while Oswald was being interrogated.
No, the photo only shows Craig in the Homicide and Robbery office, with a bunch of other officers and a secretary. Oswald was being questioned in Fritz' inner office.
So Craig was in the Homicide office of the Police as a Sheriff's Officer (of the year), but not in Captain Fritz's inner office to identify Oswald. What was he doing there? Peddling conspiracy theories or twiddling his thumbs?
To paraphrase you on occasion John, you haven't answered my question. Why was he there if not in relation to Oswald? Seeking publicity, a spot in the limelight, or as an investigator in the murder of the President?
Maybe somebody who simply wanted to be where the action was.
According to Fritz, an officer (who sounds a lot like Craig) came to the door of his inner office office (were Oswald was being questioned).
Mr. BALL. Roger Craig stated that about 15 minutes after the shooting he saw a man, a white man, leave the Texas State Book Depository Building, run across a lawn, and get into a white Rambler driven by a colored man.
Mr. FRITZ. I don't think that is true.
Mr. BALL. I am stating this. You remember the witness now?
Mr. FRITZ. I remember the witness; yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did that man ever come into your office and talk to you in the presence of Oswald?
Mr. FRITZ. In the presence of Oswald?
Mr. BALL. Yes.
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I am sure he did not. I believe that man did come to my office in that little hallway, you know outside my office, and I believe I stepped outside the door and talked to him for a minute and I let someone else take an affidavit from him. We should have that affidavit from him if it would help.
Mr. BALL. Now this man states that, has stated, that he came to your office and Oswald was in your office, and you asked him to look at Oswald and tell you whether or not this was the man he saw, and he says that in your presence he identified Oswald as the man that he had seen run across this lawn and get into the white Rambler sedan. Do you remember that?
Mr. FRITZ. I think it was taken, I think it was one of my officers, and I think if he saw him he looked through that glass and saw him from the outside because I am sure of one thing that I didn't bring him in the office with Oswald.
That Craig made up the exchange in Fritz' inner office is obvious from the fact that Oswald supposedly made reference to Mrs. Paine's "Rambler."
But Mrs. Paine owned a Chevy, not a Rambler:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/paine_wagon.pdf
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=714
You asked: "The problem I have with Curry is why didn't he rush back to Dealy Plaza to direct the investigation, and, why was he on the phone with Mayor Cabell when Oswald was being transferred?"
Because the US Secret Service and the FBI were highly involved at that time, which I recall from being alive then.
Well Curry has a good point. There really isn't any firm evidence to convict Oswald, and a lot of mitigating evidence to exonerate him.
Not that you would realize that reading the Warren Report mythology.
So Chief Curry states clearly that according to his impressions and understandings of the splatter pattern, there had to be a shot from the front….And they say "nobody ever talked..!"?
Interestingly, Chief Curry was also the victim of a home invasion, where three French thugs, posing as journalists, interrogated him about what he knew of the JFK assassination.
The reason there is still a cover up is because the CIA was behind the murder of JFK and the people in the CIA do not want this to get out because they feel the institution will be hurt by this revelation. (There was an army military intelligence group in Dallas in 11/63 and they may have worked with DAP, who was in Dallas at the time and was probably handling LHO in 11/63.) I believe this concern is now obsolete. For an excellent current read on this subject, read David Talbot's "The Devil's Chessboard".
This Jesse Curry interview is from Anthony Summers' excellent 1978 BBC documentary 'The Killing of President Kennedy.'
It also contains very interesting interviews with Antonia Veciana, Sherman Cooper, Gerry Hemmings and Sylvia Odio, among others.
Its on youtube – I'm not sure if I can post the link on the forum, but its out there.
Stuart, where can we see or read that interview?
Hi Greg
I'm posting the youtube link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSNCXaam8N8
– all interviews are contained the entire documentary
If this isn't allowed, and Jeff removes it, my apologies to you, the site and Jeff for not knowing the rules
At the moment, this one works:
Paul Turner
Summers wrote "Not In Your Lifetime", I believe. Certainly sounds like a good read.
Rick G.
Originally titled, "Conspiracy," later updated editions were retitled "Not In Your Lifetime." One of the best books on the assassination, especially for the reader who needs a thorough introductory explanation of the circumstances surrounding the events of Nov. 22, 1963. Highly recommended!
Joseph Colarusso
Why not count up the bullets and fragments recovered.
If only three shots with three bullets then why is there a bullet whole in windshield
frame, bullet hole in glass of windshield, bullet striking street curb the hitting
bystander Tague. More bullet strikes than what they say.
Why if there is only Oswald as suspect, why no access to papers if lone nut,
why a continued cover up?
Disgusting! A man was slaughtered, he had a family and why aren't we allowed
to have the truth?
Cowards! That's why.
Hans Trayne
The white Ford Galaxy about to enter the triple overpass in Ike Altgens photo #7 (Clint Hill arriving at the rear parade car bumper) that contained Jesse Curry & Bill Decker was owned by DPD chief Curry. It's understandable he would want to drive his own car to Parkland to be with the ambushed President but why didn't Bill Decker get out & lead his men 'up on top of that railroad overpass' & make the arrest/shoot-out of the century? We're talking a small area and several yards here.
Had this been done perhaps the infamous grassy knoll shooter would have been apprehended or shot dead instead of being long gone by the time Decker's men arrived on the scene.
Well, you have to remember, Decker told his deputies to stand outside on the sidewalk and watch JFK go by (some made negative comments about this) but to NOT participate in security for him. Something rotten in Denmark there.
Yes indeed! I do have to wonder if Decker knew what was going to happen, just not when.
Decker was 64 years old at the time. Maybe not the best choice to jump out of a moving vehicle (which the President's car would soon overtake) and lead a charge up the hill.