If Charles Givens was such an important witness.....

[Colin Crow]

The employees who had worked on the sixth floor that day, with the exception on Frazier and Norman, were taken for questioning that afternoon. This was at the request of Fritz to Senkel about the time the rifle was discovered and it became obvious the sixth floor was considered a crime scene. We have footage of Williams, Arce and Shelley on their way, and Dougherty and Lovelady ware taken in a different car. All were present when Oswald was brought in after being arrested. Givens had watched the motorcade from a location some distance from the TSBD and so by the time he arrived back there he was not allowed in. However he was taken for questioning about an hour after the others.

They all provided affidavits that afternoon. If you were the officers questioning them what are the relevant questions you would ask given the knowledge of the events at that stage?

What information would be most helpful to the investigation to capture in those affidavits?

[Alan Ford]

The employees who had worked on the sixth floor that day, with the exception on Frazier and Norman, were taken for questioning that afternoon. This was at the request of Fritz to Senkel about the time the rifle was discovered and it became obvious the sixth floor was considered a crime scene. We have footage of Williams, Arce and Shelley on their way, and Dougherty and Lovelady ware taken in a different car. All were present when Oswald was brought in after being arrested.

Could this gentleman in short sleeves be Mr Dougherty?

[Bill Chapman]

What was the purpose of the affidavit Bill? What was the focus that afternoon with the floor laying crew members, Dougherty and Frazier?

Affidavits are not Q&A and thefefore cannot be totally relied upon to tweak one's full recollection, as can a full testimony.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Affidavits are not Q&A and thefefore cannot be totally relied upon to tweak one's full recollection, as can a full testimony.

We see these discrepancies and gaps in memories, e.g., between a rushed affidavit versus a deliberate interrogation, as evidence of human fallibility, of the Rashomon effect, of people's memories failing them. If you study any other event these types of inconsistencies take place. If these eyewitness accounts were scripted out, if it was directed then there wouldn't be these gaps because everyone would be reading from their preassigned narratives. It would be a seamless narrative.

The conspiracy people see these inconsistencies as nefarious, as not being innocent failures of people's memories. So round and round we go. We see "A" and they see "not A".

[Pat Speer]

We see these discrepancies and gaps in memories, e.g., between a rushed affidavit versus a deliberate interrogation, as evidence of human fallibility, of the Rashomon effect, of people's memories failing them. If you study any other event these types of inconsistencies take place. If these eyewitness accounts were scripted out, if it was directed then there wouldn't be these gaps because everyone would be reading from their preassigned narratives. It would be a seamless narrative.

The conspiracy people see these inconsistencies as nefarious, as not being innocent failures of people's memories. So round and round we go. We see "A" and they see "not A".

If only it were that simple! There are many inconsistencies within the record. Some of these can be chalked up to witnesses changing their minds, or FBI agents failing to accurately reflect what they were told. But not all of them.

Some switcheroos, such as Givens', are obvious lies.

As stated, the give-away is not that his story changed, but that Belin, who'd studied Givens' previous statements, failed to point out that it had changed. And, not only that, that Belin continued to claim Givens' testimony as a key, long after Meagher had pointed out its weakness, and the HSCA had dismissed it entirely.

[John Tonkovich]

If only it were that simple! There are many inconsistencies within the record. Some of these can be chalked up to witnesses changing their minds, or FBI agents failing to accurately reflect what they were told. But not all of them.

Some switcheroos, such as Givens', are obvious lies.

As stated, the give-away is not that his story changed, but that Belin, who'd studied Givens' previous statements, failed to point out that it had changed. And, not only that, that Belin continued to claim Givens' testimony as a key, long after Meagher had pointed out its weakness, and the HSCA had dismissed it entirely.

I would love for someone to analyze the psychology of a man like Belin.
Did he, at some point, forget his actions dummying up the WCR, and start to believe his own myth?

[Jerry Freeman]

Affidavits are not Q&A and thefefore cannot be totally relied upon to tweak one's full recollection, as can a full testimony.

Affidavits ARE sworn statements that ARE relied on to describe one's recollection.
Quit "tweaking" stuff to bolster your already pitiful standpoint...it doesn't work   
You seem eager to readily choose affidavits that support your misguided lone assassin scenario huh?

[Jerry Freeman]

 Why did Givens have to go down to the PD and get questioned for 45 minutes?
Stated he went back to get his hat and coat afterwards. In testimony though, he said he went upstairs to get his coat or jacket before he went to watch the motorcade.

I did not see LHO when the president was shot

Why overstate the obvious?
Click to view full screen---