Who was the "agent" patrolman Joe Smith encountered behind grassy knoll?

[Royell Storing]

Royell, I will go Susan, one better.... a more timely reference attributed to DPD Officer Joe Marshall Smith that he evidently could not summon
from memory during his actual WC testimony, seven months later.:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672#relPageId=42

     Do you really believe the above should be taken seriously when it claims, (1) Four people working for the Dallas Morning News were standing next to Zapruder when the shots were fired, and (2) Officer Smith "distinguished the aroma of gunpowder Near the Underpass", vs (3) Officer Smith "did smell what he thought was gunpowder but stated this smell was in the parking lot by the TSBD Building and NOT by the Underpass".  The above is full of so many erroneous statements and contradictions that it smacks of the ever changing story told by Buell Wesley Frazier.

[Tom Scully]

     Do you really believe the above should be taken seriously when it claims, (1) Four people working for the Dallas Morning News were standing next to Zapruder when the shots were fired, and (2) Officer Smith "distinguished the aroma of gunpowder Near the Underpass", vs (3) Officer Smith "did smell what he thought was gunpowder but stated this smell was in the parking lot by the TSBD Building and NOT by the Underpass".  The above is full of so many erroneous statements and contradictions that it smacks of the ever changing story told by Buell Wesley Frazier.

You asked for an original source, I provided one. You shot it down and seem to be accusing (shooting) me, a mere messenger, in this instance, of gullibility.
Go get her, tiger. From the recent obit of the DMN reporter who was Barefoot Sanders' source, describing (according to
Sanders in the report I posted and you've quoted)
the nosing around of Officer Joe.:  (BTW, IMO, your objections are irrelevant, as far as the crux of the matter of what Joe M. Smith TIMELY claimed he smelled.)

https://www.dallasnews.com/obituaries/obituaries/2017/04/17/mary-pillsworth-ex-dmn-editor-witnessed-kennedy-assassination-dies-77
...Pillsworth accepted an entry-level position at The News, working on the copy desk, which handled wedding announcements and the food section. She also did some feature reporting....
...."That's something that I have regretted the rest of my life because every conspiracy theorist in the world has quoted that," she said in her Sixth Floor oral history. "And I'm convinced that I did not hear it correctly."

Conspiracy investigators hounded Pillsworth for years.

"That's one reason I've laid very low for 50 years ... because it makes me sick being involved with these conspiracy theorists," she said in her oral history...

Reporter says she was among last people Kennedys waved at | News ...
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/news/2015/11/07/reporter-says-she-was-among-last-people-kennedys-waved-at
Nov 7, 2015 - A former 'Dallas Morning News' reporter recounts the horror of witnessing ... 22, 1963, Mary Woodward Pillsworth and three friends went to Elm Street ...
...Pillsworth also wrote that the three shots had sounded as if they had come from behind her and to her right, the direction of the grassy knoll.

That statement set off conspiracy theorists and researchers. Pillsworth, who can be seen on Abraham Zapruder?s homemade film of the president?s assassination, was even called ?the first dissenting witness.?

She later said that she ?failed to take into account? a hearing disability that makes it impossible for her to tell the direction of sound and that officials told her the ?lay of the land? may have distorted the sound....
She said she agreed to be part of The Sixth Floor's Living History Series ...

Mary E. Woodward, The First Dissenting Witness
https://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Whitmey/Witness.html
Because the DMN was a morning paper, Mary's account was not circulated until ... appearing on page 3 of section 1 on the right-hand side below a large photo of .... to the simple mistake of a DALLAS MORNING NEWS reporter out for lunch with ... the knoll ? and when her friends saw the story, they rushed in to correct her.

And, on March 4, 1964 testimony of an attorney, Mark Lane, taken by the WC Counsel Rankin, under oath.:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38&relPageId=51&search=mary_woodward

[Royell Storing]

You asked for an original source, I provided one. You shot it down and seem to be accusing (shooting) me, a mere messenger, in this instance, of gullibility.
Go get her, tiger. From the recent obit of the DMN reporter who was Barefoot Sanders' source, describing (according to
Sanders in the report I posted and you've quoted)
the nosing around of Officer Joe.:  (BTW, IMO, your objections are irrelevant, as far as the crux of the matter of what Joe M. Smith TIMELY claimed he smelled.)


And, on March 4, 1964 testimony of an attorney, Mark Lane, taken by the WC Counsel Rankin, under oath.:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38&relPageId=51&search=mary_woodward

    You have previously shared some of your good research on this Forum. For whatever reason you are Now Posting Lane's Hearsay Testimony above. This is after you posted that piece with conflicting stories attributed to Officer Smith, in addition to it containing the bit about there being 4 reporters standing near Zapruder when the shots were fired.  Why not Stop what you are currently posting, take the gear shift out of reverse and place it back into 1st gear & Progress Forward once again.  Please do your name and the historical record a favor by getting back onto the right track.   

[Tom Scully]

    You have previously shared some of your good research on this Forum. For whatever reason you are Now Posting Lane's Hearsay Testimony above. This is after you posted that piece with conflicting stories attributed to Officer Smith, in addition to it containing the bit about there being 4 reporters standing near Zapruder when the shots were fired.  Why not Stop what you are currently posting, take the gear shift out of reverse and place it back into 1st gear & Progress Forward once again.  Please do your name and the historical record a favor by getting back onto the right track.

You certainly persist in shooting the messenger, an indication you have nothing meeting the standard you demanded, to rebut identical hearsay in
the WC report of Texas Atty General Sanders, in early Dec., 1963, repeated by Mark Lane in March, 1964 WC testimony.
But, what you originally insisted upon was original sourcing of the Officer Joe M. Smith gunsmoke in the air claim.
I pointed you to an FBI 302 reporting/quoting Joe M Smith's timely declaration.
If you are asserting details attributed to FBI interview subjects by FBI agents, such as FBI reported claims of Joe M Smith are also hearsay, why not make your case and also marginalize all FBI 302 reporting of witness declarations in instances in which there is no supporting witness direct testimony in the record, either before or after the FBI interview. Ironically, a major, early objection voiced to the WC by Mark Lane was the admission of hearsay into the record, contrary to criminal court procedure. Lane also complained to the WC that there was no opportunity to cross examine testifying witnesses.

Sanders:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672#relPageId=42


Lane:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38&relPageId=51&search=mary_woodward

[Royell Storing]

You certainly persist in shooting the messenger, an indication you have nothing meeting the standard you demanded, to rebut identical hearsay in
the WC report of Texas Atty General Sanders, in early Dec., 1963, repeated by Mark Lane in March, 1964 WC testimony.
But, what you originally insisted upon was original sourcing of the Officer Joe M. Smith gunsmoke in the air claim.
I pointed you to an FBI 302 reporting/quoting Joe M Smith's timely declaration.
If you are asserting details attributed to FBI interview subjects by FBI agents, such as FBI reported claims of Joe M Smith are also hearsay, why not make your case and also marginalize all FBI 302 reporting of witness declarations in instances in which there is no supporting witness direct testimony in the record, either before or after the FBI interview. Ironically, a major, early objection voiced to the WC by Mark Lane was the admission of hearsay into the record, contrary to criminal court procedure. Lane also complained to the WC that there was no opportunity to cross examine testifying witnesses.

Sanders:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10672#relPageId=42


Lane:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38&relPageId=51&search=mary_woodward

      Why oh why would I ever attempt to rebut Hearsay? Maybe it is just me, but I always accept Sworn Testimony vs general hearsay or 302's. Officer Smith failed to mention smelling gunpowder during his sworn testimony when given the opportunity to comment on whatever he desired. The accounts of the odor of gunpowder being far down Elm St and as far away as the Stemmons Fwy On-Ramp, would indicate the gunpowder odor was following the JFK Motorcade as it advanced toward Parkland Hospital. This could possibly be due to the AR-15 inside the Queen Mary having been fired.

[Tom Scully]

      Why oh why would I ever attempt to rebut Hearsay? Maybe it is just me, but I always accept Sworn Testimony vs general hearsay or 302's. Officer Smith failed to mention smelling gunpowder during his sworn testimony when given the opportunity to comment on whatever he desired. The accounts of the odor of gunpowder being far down Elm St and as far away as the Stemmons Fwy On-Ramp, would indicate the gunpowder odor was following the JFK Motorcade as it advanced toward Parkland Hospital. This could possibly be due to the AR-15 inside the Queen Mary having been fired.

Do you not understand that an FBI report quoting the then Texas Atty General,  later supported by the DPD patrolman described in a report
of Atty General Sanders hearsay and still later by Atty Mark Lane hearsay testimony is of approximately similar weight to any direct testimony
taken and included in the WC report that was not subjected to cross examination, (or at least offered an opportunity for cross)? Your argument amounts to: you can never successfully be contradicted in any debate here, the WC is worthless as far as the weight of FBI reports and direct testimony not afforded cross examination within its pages, and newbies such as Susan who authored this thread should not bother to post here, and neither should I?

[Jim Brunsman]

This is a critically important question and I'm not seeing anyone here quoting Ed Hoffman's eyewitness testimony.  I don't have the time to research his descriptions of the activity he reported behind the fence and the fact that Hoffman was a deaf/mute made it very difficult to accurately communicate what he saw. But the gist of his story is that the assassin fired his shot from behind the picket fence, tossed the rifle to a man who disassembled the weapon. The assassin then straightened himself and began walking calmly toward the overpass, at which time he encountered Smith. In other words, Smith spoke to the real killer of President Kennedy immediately after the assassination and his false Secret Service credentials were legitimate enough to fool a trained police officer. Smith reported later that he felt very uneasy about this encounter since the man had dirty hands and he regretted letting him go. Here's hoping I accurately captured that encounter. Please correct where I erred...

[Royell Storing]

Do you not understand that an FBI report quoting the then Texas Atty General,  later supported by the DPD patrolman described in a report
of Atty General Sanders hearsay and still later by Atty Mark Lane hearsay testimony is of approximately similar weight to any direct testimony
taken and included in the WC report that was not subjected to cross examination, (or at least offered an opportunity for cross)? Your argument amounts to: you can never successfully be contradicted in any debate here, the WC is worthless as far as the weight of FBI reports and direct testimony not afforded cross examination within its pages, and newbies such as Susan who authored this thread should not bother to post here, and neither should I?

     When someone is put under Oath and faces Perjury charges if proven to have falsely testified, I absolutely put this Sworn Testimony above 302's/FBI Reports, Hearsay/Scuttlebutt. When someone has Never been placed under oath THEN I rely on 302's/FBI Reports.  I have relied on FBI Reports with regard to The Hester's FBI Reports.  The Hester's "FBI Reports" places them on the SOUTH Side of Elm St. Of course THESE FBI Reports deviate from the accepted norm that has been cavalierly accepted for 55+ years and has thereby been trashed by the rank-n-file around here.  With your Trumpeting of FBI Reports, are YOU willing to accept as Fact the FBI Reports of Charles and Beatrice Hester?