JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Dan O'meara on March 26, 2025, 09:22:17 AM
-
I feel it's important to have a thread highlighting how deceitful and untrustworthy the Warren Commission was in it's approach “to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination”. Feel free to add your own examples. As the examples mount up a pattern of omission, manipulation and outright lying will emerge as the evidence is shaped to reflect a predetermined conclusion - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
I'm going to kick off with the fact that the lunch remains discovered on the 6th floor, which were attributed to Bonnie Ray Williams, were initially discovered on top of a stack of boxes that formed part of the 'back wall' of the Sniper's Nest and not 25-30 feet away, where they were photographed by Studebaker. At least six of the first officers on the scene in the southeast corner of the 6th floor describe seeing the lunch remains there, with at least three of them specifying that the remains were on top of the Sniper's Nest. The testimonies and various statements of these officers regarding this issue were simply ignored in the Warren Commission Report, as if they had never been made.
LUKE MOONEY (first officer on the scene)
I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken.
In his report, made on the 23rd, Mooney describes seeing a half eaten piece of chicken on one of the boxes that form part of the"cubby hole" (SN) in the southeast corner. Mooney expands on this in his WC testimony.
Mr. Mooney.
No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner. I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right. It looked like he was facing–
Mr. Ball.
Tell us where you found it?
Mr. Mooney.
It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes.
...
Mr. Mooney.
If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.
Mr. Ball.
Make a couple of marks there to indicate where possibly the chicken bone was lying.
Mr. Mooney.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Make two "X's". You think there was a chicken bone on the top of either one of those two?
Mr. Mooney.
There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke.
Mr. Ball.
By poke, you mean a paper sack?
Mr. Mooney.
Right.
Mr. Ball.
Where was that?
Mr. Mooney.
Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.
Mr. Ball.
On the same carton?
Mr. Mooney.
Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.
...
Senator Cooper.
How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney.
I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there.
Senator Cooper.
You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney.
Yes, sir.
This is from the WC testimony of Sargeant Jerry Hill:
“There was the boxes. The boxes were stacked in sort of a three-sided shield.
That would have concealed from general view, unless somebody specifically walked up and looked over them, anyone who was in a sitting or crouched position between them and the window. In front of this window and to the left or east corner of the window, there were two boxes, cardboard boxes that had the words "Roller books," on them.
On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment. there was a chicken leg bone and a paper sack which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack.”
Hill is clearly describing the same structure that Mooney describes as a "cubby hole" - a shield constructed of boxes designed to conceal the sniper's position from general view. He describes seeing a piece of chicken and a lunch sack on top of a stack of boxes, exactly as Mooney had. Hill clarifies that the lunch remains were on one of the stacks “used for concealment”, that is to say, one of the stacks used to create the back wall of the Sniper’s Nest.
Another officer who sees the piece of chicken on top of the boxes that form the back wall is Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford, except this time he describes the back wall as a "barricade":
"I came down to the 6th floor and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said, "Here are some shells". I went over to where he was and saw three expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade..."
Deputy Sheriff A D McCurley notices the same thing:
"We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney...hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw three expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton. It appeared as if the assassin had piled up a bunch of boxes to hide him from anyone who happened to come up on that floor…
All four men describe a partially eaten or half eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the boxes. Three of them describe seeing a small paper sack alongside it. Note that the half eaten piece of chicken is not inside the paper sack. The piece of chicken and lunch sack are on top of one of the stacks of boxes that form the back wall of the SN. Two other officers describe seeing these lunch remains but in more general terms. Although they see them in the southeast corner they don't specify that the remains were on top of the SN
During his WC testimony, motorcycle cop E D Brewer describes what he saw when he went over to the southeast corner to see where the shells had been discovered:
Mr. Belin
What window?
Mr. Brewer.
In the southeast corner of the building, facing south.
Mr. Belin.
See anything else there at the time by the window?
Mr. Brewer.
Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece of chicken.
Mr. Belin.
Anything else?
Mr. Brewer.
A drink bottle.
Mr. Belin.
What bottle?
Mr. Brewer.
A cold drink bottle, soda pop bottle.
Motorcycle cop Clyde A Haygood describes seeing a lunch sack and a Dr Pepper bottle in the southeast corner, where the shells were located:
Mr. Belin.
Which window?
Mr. Haygood.
On the southeast corner.
Mr. Belin.
South side or east side?
Mr. Haygood.
On the southeast corner facing south.
Mr. Belin.
See any paper bags or anything around there?
Mr. Haygood.
Yes; there was a lunch bag there. You could call it a lunch bag.
Mr. Belin
Where was that?
Mr. Haygood.
There at the same location where the shells were.
Mr. Belin.
Was there a coke bottle or anything with it?
Mr. Haygood.
Dr. Pepper bottle.
What do all these officers have in common?
Hill, Weatherford, McCurley, Brewer and Haygood were all on the 6th floor when Mooney shouted out that he had discovered the location from where the shots had been taken.
These are the first responders, the first officers on the scene. When they go over to the southeast corner, they see the barricade/shield made out of boxes that would hide anyone taking a shot from this position [the back wall of the Sniper’s nest]. They also discover a partially eaten piece of chicken on the bone, a lunch sack and an empty bottle of Dr. Pepper.
If we take the collective statements of these first responders at face value then the piece of partially eaten chicken and lunch sack are on one of the stacks forming the back wall of the Sniper’s Nest. Somewhere in the same vicinity, presumably on the floor, was an empty Dr. Pepper bottle. Yet, by the time the crime scene detectives show up to take their pictures, the partially eaten piece of chicken is now inside the lunch sack and the lunch sack (along with the empty Dr. Pepper bottle) are now 25 ft away near the two-wheeler trolley.
All of these testimonies/statements leave zero doubt that the lunch remains were initially discovered on top of the SN.
This was in stark contrast to the testimonies of Crime Lab Detective Robert Studebaker and Bonnie Ray Williams who both testified that the lunch remains in question were 25 - 30 ft away by the two-wheeler trolley. Indeed, the remains were photographed in this location.
So, how did the Commission deal with this contradiction?
Unbelievably, they decided to ignore the various testimonies of the first responders. It was as if these officers had never made any kind of statement about finding the lunch remains on the Sniper’s Nest. It wasn’t as if the Commission weighed up the pros and cons of each side, they simply accepted Bonnie Ray’s testimony and completely ignored the contradictory testimonies/statements of Mooney, Hill, Weatherford, McCurley, Haygood and Brewer.
The whereabouts of the lunch remains were dealt with in great detail during the WC hearings, when Haygood, Brewer, Hill and, in particular, Mooney testified before the Warren Commission. The attorneys questioning these men were well aware of the contradiction between their testimonies and that of Bonnie Ray concerning the lunch remains. Joseph Ball, the attorney who questioned Luke Mooney, actually brought up Mooney’s testimony to Robert Studebaker, the crime scene detective:
Mr. Ball.
Now, did you see a chicken bone over near the boxes in the southeast corner, over near where you found the cartridges and the paper sack?
Mr. Studebaker.
I don't believe there was one there.
Mr. Ball.
You didn't see any. One witness, a deputy sheriff named Luke Looney said he found a piece of chicken partly eaten up on top of one of the boxes; did you see anything like that?
Mr. Studebaker.
No.
Mr. Ball.
Was anything like that called to your attention?
Mr. Studebaker.
I can't recall anything like that. It ought to be in one of these pictures, if it is.
And that was it! That was the extent to which this contradiction was acknowledged. Ball took Bonnie Ray’s testimony on the 24th March and the lunch remains were covered in detail. The very next day, 25th March, Ball questioned Mooney and once again the lunch remains were covered in detail only this time Mooney was saying they were on the back wall of the Sniper’s Nest and not 25 ft away by the two-wheeler, as Bonnie Ray had testified. Ball never said a word. The only time he brought it up was weeks later, when questioning Studebaker.
The Commission knew that Bonnie Ray’s lunch remains were found on top of the Sniper’s Nest but chose to ignore it because it was only going to lead to unwanted “inconsistencies”.
-
I feel it's important to have a thread highlighting how deceitful and untrustworthy the Warren Commission was in it's approach “to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination”. Feel free to add your own examples. As the examples mount up a pattern of omission, manipulation and outright lying will emerge as the evidence is shaped to reflect a predetermined conclusion - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
I'm going to kick off with the fact that the lunch remains discovered on the 6th floor, which were attributed to Bonnie Ray Williams, were initially discovered on top of a stack of boxes that formed part of the 'back wall' of the Sniper's Nest and not 25-30 feet away, where they were photographed by Studebaker. At least six of the first officers on the scene in the southeast corner of the 6th floor describe seeing the lunch remains there, with at least three of them specifying that the remains were on top of the Sniper's Nest. The testimonies and various statements of these officers regarding this issue were simply ignored in the Warren Commission Report, as if they had never been made.
LUKE MOONEY (first officer on the scene)
I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken.
In his report, made on the 23rd, Mooney describes seeing a half eaten piece of chicken on one of the boxes that form part of the"cubby hole" (SN) in the southeast corner. Mooney expands on this in his WC testimony.
Mr. Mooney.
No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner. I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right. It looked like he was facing–
Mr. Ball.
Tell us where you found it?
Mr. Mooney.
It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes.
...
Mr. Mooney.
If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.
Mr. Ball.
Make a couple of marks there to indicate where possibly the chicken bone was lying.
Mr. Mooney.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Make two "X's". You think there was a chicken bone on the top of either one of those two?
Mr. Mooney.
There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke.
Mr. Ball.
By poke, you mean a paper sack?
Mr. Mooney.
Right.
Mr. Ball.
Where was that?
Mr. Mooney.
Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.
Mr. Ball.
On the same carton?
Mr. Mooney.
Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.
...
Senator Cooper.
How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney.
I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there.
Senator Cooper.
You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney.
Yes, sir.
This is from the WC testimony of Sargeant Jerry Hill:
“There was the boxes. The boxes were stacked in sort of a three-sided shield.
That would have concealed from general view, unless somebody specifically walked up and looked over them, anyone who was in a sitting or crouched position between them and the window. In front of this window and to the left or east corner of the window, there were two boxes, cardboard boxes that had the words "Roller books," on them.
On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment. there was a chicken leg bone and a paper sack which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack.”
Hill is clearly describing the same structure that Mooney describes as a "cubby hole" - a shield constructed of boxes designed to conceal the sniper's position from general view. He describes seeing a piece of chicken and a lunch sack on top of a stack of boxes, exactly as Mooney had. Hill clarifies that the lunch remains were on one of the stacks “used for concealment”, that is to say, one of the stacks used to create the back wall of the Sniper’s Nest.
Another officer who sees the piece of chicken on top of the boxes that form the back wall is Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford, except this time he describes the back wall as a "barricade":
"I came down to the 6th floor and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said, "Here are some shells". I went over to where he was and saw three expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade..."
Deputy Sheriff A D McCurley notices the same thing:
"We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney...hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw three expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton. It appeared as if the assassin had piled up a bunch of boxes to hide him from anyone who happened to come up on that floor…
All four men describe a partially eaten or half eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the boxes. Three of them describe seeing a small paper sack alongside it. Note that the half eaten piece of chicken is not inside the paper sack. The piece of chicken and lunch sack are on top of one of the stacks of boxes that form the back wall of the SN. Two other officers describe seeing these lunch remains but in more general terms. Although they see them in the southeast corner they don't specify that the remains were on top of the SN
During his WC testimony, motorcycle cop E D Brewer describes what he saw when he went over to the southeast corner to see where the shells had been discovered:
Mr. Belin
What window?
Mr. Brewer.
In the southeast corner of the building, facing south.
Mr. Belin.
See anything else there at the time by the window?
Mr. Brewer.
Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece of chicken.
Mr. Belin.
Anything else?
Mr. Brewer.
A drink bottle.
Mr. Belin.
What bottle?
Mr. Brewer.
A cold drink bottle, soda pop bottle.
Motorcycle cop Clyde A Haygood describes seeing a lunch sack and a Dr Pepper bottle in the southeast corner, where the shells were located:
Mr. Belin.
Which window?
Mr. Haygood.
On the southeast corner.
Mr. Belin.
South side or east side?
Mr. Haygood.
On the southeast corner facing south.
Mr. Belin.
See any paper bags or anything around there?
Mr. Haygood.
Yes; there was a lunch bag there. You could call it a lunch bag.
Mr. Belin
Where was that?
Mr. Haygood.
There at the same location where the shells were.
Mr. Belin.
Was there a coke bottle or anything with it?
Mr. Haygood.
Dr. Pepper bottle.
What do all these officers have in common?
Hill, Weatherford, McCurley, Brewer and Haygood were all on the 6th floor when Mooney shouted out that he had discovered the location from where the shots had been taken.
These are the first responders, the first officers on the scene. When they go over to the southeast corner, they see the barricade/shield made out of boxes that would hide anyone taking a shot from this position [the back wall of the Sniper’s nest]. They also discover a partially eaten piece of chicken on the bone, a lunch sack and an empty bottle of Dr. Pepper.
If we take the collective statements of these first responders at face value then the piece of partially eaten chicken and lunch sack are on one of the stacks forming the back wall of the Sniper’s Nest. Somewhere in the same vicinity, presumably on the floor, was an empty Dr. Pepper bottle. Yet, by the time the crime scene detectives show up to take their pictures, the partially eaten piece of chicken is now inside the lunch sack and the lunch sack (along with the empty Dr. Pepper bottle) are now 25 ft away near the two-wheeler trolley.
All of these testimonies/statements leave zero doubt that the lunch remains were initially discovered on top of the SN.
This was in stark contrast to the testimonies of Crime Lab Detective Robert Studebaker and Bonnie Ray Williams who both testified that the lunch remains in question were 25 - 30 ft away by the two-wheeler trolley. Indeed, the remains were photographed in this location.
So, how did the Commission deal with this contradiction?
Unbelievably, they decided to ignore the various testimonies of the first responders. It was as if these officers had never made any kind of statement about finding the lunch remains on the Sniper’s Nest. It wasn’t as if the Commission weighed up the pros and cons of each side, they simply accepted Bonnie Ray’s testimony and completely ignored the contradictory testimonies/statements of Mooney, Hill, Weatherford, McCurley, Haygood and Brewer.
The whereabouts of the lunch remains were dealt with in great detail during the WC hearings, when Haygood, Brewer, Hill and, in particular, Mooney testified before the Warren Commission. The attorneys questioning these men were well aware of the contradiction between their testimonies and that of Bonnie Ray concerning the lunch remains. Joseph Ball, the attorney who questioned Luke Mooney, actually brought up Mooney’s testimony to Robert Studebaker, the crime scene detective:
Mr. Ball.
Now, did you see a chicken bone over near the boxes in the southeast corner, over near where you found the cartridges and the paper sack?
Mr. Studebaker.
I don't believe there was one there.
Mr. Ball.
You didn't see any. One witness, a deputy sheriff named Luke Looney said he found a piece of chicken partly eaten up on top of one of the boxes; did you see anything like that?
Mr. Studebaker.
No.
Mr. Ball.
Was anything like that called to your attention?
Mr. Studebaker.
I can't recall anything like that. It ought to be in one of these pictures, if it is.
And that was it! That was the extent to which this contradiction was acknowledged. Ball took Bonnie Ray’s testimony on the 24th March and the lunch remains were covered in detail. The very next day, 25th March, Ball questioned Mooney and once again the lunch remains were covered in detail only this time Mooney was saying they were on the back wall of the Sniper’s Nest and not 25 ft away by the two-wheeler, as Bonnie Ray had testified. Ball never said a word. The only time he brought it up was weeks later, when questioning Studebaker.
The Commission knew that Bonnie Ray’s lunch remains were found on top of the Sniper’s Nest but chose to ignore it because it was only going to lead to unwanted “inconsistencies”.
I feel it's important to have a thread highlighting how deceitful and untrustworthy the Warren Commission was in it's approach “to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination”. Feel free to add your own examples. As the examples mount up a pattern of omission, manipulation and outright lying will emerge as the evidence is shaped to reflect a predetermined conclusion - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
So, let’s get this straight, you believe that although the WC published all the testimonies and supporting evidence (including the inconsistencies) that they are guilty of omission, manipulation and outright lying?
The only time he brought it up was weeks later, when questioning Studebaker.
Yet, it appears that the WC requested the FBI to interview BRW and Shelly in May of 1964 to specify where the lunch remains were left and later found. Why would the WC choose to do this if they were in fact ignoring the inconsistencies as you claim?
https://tangodown63.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/brw-fbi-052664.pdf (https://tangodown63.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/brw-fbi-052664.pdf)
It is ridiculous to claim the WC was any of the things you suggest. You can believe whatever you wish to believe regarding what the various witnesses said. I really don’t care. But trying to place some sort of dishonesty on the WC for supposedly ignoring the inconsistencies that are normal and expected when relying on witness accounts is simply not what the records (that, by the way, the WC chose to publish) show.
-
Probably, more than a dozen instances the Commission followed the mandate put forth by the Katzenbach Memo and then took the direction from the FBI.
All of these broken inconsistencies add up to proof of conspiracy.
-
I feel it's important to have a thread highlighting how deceitful and untrustworthy the Warren Commission was in it's approach “to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination”. Feel free to add your own examples. As the examples mount up a pattern of omission, manipulation and outright lying will emerge as the evidence is shaped to reflect a predetermined conclusion - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
So, let’s get this straight, you believe that although the WC published all the testimonies and supporting evidence (including the inconsistencies) that they are guilty of omission, manipulation and outright lying?
The only time he brought it up was weeks later, when questioning Studebaker.
Yet, it appears that the WC requested the FBI to interview BRW and Shelly in May of 1964 to specify where the lunch remains were left and later found. Why would the WC choose to do this if they were in fact ignoring the inconsistencies as you claim?
https://tangodown63.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/brw-fbi-052664.pdf (https://tangodown63.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/brw-fbi-052664.pdf)
It is ridiculous to claim the WC was any of the things you suggest. You can believe whatever you wish to believe regarding what the various witnesses said. I really don’t care. But trying to place some sort of dishonesty on the WC for supposedly ignoring the inconsistencies that are normal and expected when relying on witness accounts is simply not what the records (that, by the way, the WC chose to publish) show.
There was twp sets of pieces of chicken bones. Givens also was eating chicken there.
-
Mr. BELIN. That day had you eaten any chicken at all, or anything on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Had you eaten any chicken or left a pep bottle on any previous days on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir
-
I feel it's important to have a thread highlighting how deceitful and untrustworthy the Warren Commission was in it's approach “to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination”. Feel free to add your own examples. As the examples mount up a pattern of omission, manipulation and outright lying will emerge as the evidence is shaped to reflect a predetermined conclusion - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
I'm going to kick off with the fact that the lunch remains discovered on the 6th floor, which were attributed to Bonnie Ray Williams, were initially discovered on top of a stack of boxes that formed part of the 'back wall' of the Sniper's Nest and not 25-30 feet away, where they were photographed by Studebaker. At least six of the first officers on the scene in the southeast corner of the 6th floor describe seeing the lunch remains there, with at least three of them specifying that the remains were on top of the Sniper's Nest. The testimonies and various statements of these officers regarding this issue were simply ignored in the Warren Commission Report, as if they had never been made.
LUKE MOONEY (first officer on the scene)
I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken.
In his report, made on the 23rd, Mooney describes seeing a half eaten piece of chicken on one of the boxes that form part of the"cubby hole" (SN) in the southeast corner. Mooney expands on this in his WC testimony.
Mr. Mooney.
No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner. I did see this one partially eaten piece of fried chicken laying over to the right. It looked like he was facing–
Mr. Ball.
Tell us where you found it?
Mr. Mooney.
It would be laying over on the top of these other boxes.
...
Mr. Mooney.
If I recall correctly, the chicken bone could have been laying on this box or it might have been laying on this box right here.
Mr. Ball.
Make a couple of marks there to indicate where possibly the chicken bone was lying.
Mr. Mooney.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Make two "X's". You think there was a chicken bone on the top of either one of those two?
Mr. Mooney.
There was one of them partially eaten. And there was a little small paper poke.
Mr. Ball.
By poke, you mean a paper sack?
Mr. Mooney.
Right.
Mr. Ball.
Where was that?
Mr. Mooney.
Saw the chicken bone was laying here. The poke was laying about a foot away from it.
Mr. Ball.
On the same carton?
Mr. Mooney.
Yes, sir. In close relation to each other. But as to what was in the sack--it was kind of together, and I didn't open it. I didn't put my hands on it to open it. I only saw one piece of chicken.
...
Senator Cooper.
How far was the chicken, the piece of chicken you saw, and the paper bag from the boxes near the window, and particularly the box that had the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney.
I would say they might have been 5 feet or something like that. He wouldn't have had to leave the location. He could just maybe take one step and lay it over there, if he was the one that put it there.
Senator Cooper.
You mean if someone had been standing near the box with the crease in it?
Mr. Mooney.
Yes, sir.
This is from the WC testimony of Sargeant Jerry Hill:
“There was the boxes. The boxes were stacked in sort of a three-sided shield.
That would have concealed from general view, unless somebody specifically walked up and looked over them, anyone who was in a sitting or crouched position between them and the window. In front of this window and to the left or east corner of the window, there were two boxes, cardboard boxes that had the words "Roller books," on them.
On top of the larger stack of boxes that would have been used for concealment. there was a chicken leg bone and a paper sack which appeared to have been about the size normally used for a lunch sack.”
Hill is clearly describing the same structure that Mooney describes as a "cubby hole" - a shield constructed of boxes designed to conceal the sniper's position from general view. He describes seeing a piece of chicken and a lunch sack on top of a stack of boxes, exactly as Mooney had. Hill clarifies that the lunch remains were on one of the stacks “used for concealment”, that is to say, one of the stacks used to create the back wall of the Sniper’s Nest.
Another officer who sees the piece of chicken on top of the boxes that form the back wall is Deputy Sheriff Harry Weatherford, except this time he describes the back wall as a "barricade":
"I came down to the 6th floor and while searching this floor, Deputy Luke Mooney said, "Here are some shells". I went over to where he was and saw three expended rifle shells, a sack on the floor and a partially eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the cartons which was used as a sort of barricade..."
Deputy Sheriff A D McCurley notices the same thing:
"We were searching the 6th floor when Deputy Sheriff Mooney...hollered that he had found the place where the assassin had fired from. I went over and saw three expended shells laying by the window that faced onto Elm Street, along with a half-eaten piece of chicken that was laying on a cardboard carton. It appeared as if the assassin had piled up a bunch of boxes to hide him from anyone who happened to come up on that floor…
All four men describe a partially eaten or half eaten piece of chicken on top of one of the boxes. Three of them describe seeing a small paper sack alongside it. Note that the half eaten piece of chicken is not inside the paper sack. The piece of chicken and lunch sack are on top of one of the stacks of boxes that form the back wall of the SN. Two other officers describe seeing these lunch remains but in more general terms. Although they see them in the southeast corner they don't specify that the remains were on top of the SN
During his WC testimony, motorcycle cop E D Brewer describes what he saw when he went over to the southeast corner to see where the shells had been discovered:
Mr. Belin
What window?
Mr. Brewer.
In the southeast corner of the building, facing south.
Mr. Belin.
See anything else there at the time by the window?
Mr. Brewer.
Paper lunch sack and some chicken bones or partially eaten piece of chicken, or a piece of chicken.
Mr. Belin.
Anything else?
Mr. Brewer.
A drink bottle.
Mr. Belin.
What bottle?
Mr. Brewer.
A cold drink bottle, soda pop bottle.
Motorcycle cop Clyde A Haygood describes seeing a lunch sack and a Dr Pepper bottle in the southeast corner, where the shells were located:
Mr. Belin.
Which window?
Mr. Haygood.
On the southeast corner.
Mr. Belin.
South side or east side?
Mr. Haygood.
On the southeast corner facing south.
Mr. Belin.
See any paper bags or anything around there?
Mr. Haygood.
Yes; there was a lunch bag there. You could call it a lunch bag.
Mr. Belin
Where was that?
Mr. Haygood.
There at the same location where the shells were.
Mr. Belin.
Was there a coke bottle or anything with it?
Mr. Haygood.
Dr. Pepper bottle.
What do all these officers have in common?
Hill, Weatherford, McCurley, Brewer and Haygood were all on the 6th floor when Mooney shouted out that he had discovered the location from where the shots had been taken.
These are the first responders, the first officers on the scene. When they go over to the southeast corner, they see the barricade/shield made out of boxes that would hide anyone taking a shot from this position [the back wall of the Sniper’s nest]. They also discover a partially eaten piece of chicken on the bone, a lunch sack and an empty bottle of Dr. Pepper.
If we take the collective statements of these first responders at face value then the piece of partially eaten chicken and lunch sack are on one of the stacks forming the back wall of the Sniper’s Nest. Somewhere in the same vicinity, presumably on the floor, was an empty Dr. Pepper bottle. Yet, by the time the crime scene detectives show up to take their pictures, the partially eaten piece of chicken is now inside the lunch sack and the lunch sack (along with the empty Dr. Pepper bottle) are now 25 ft away near the two-wheeler trolley.
All of these testimonies/statements leave zero doubt that the lunch remains were initially discovered on top of the SN.
This was in stark contrast to the testimonies of Crime Lab Detective Robert Studebaker and Bonnie Ray Williams who both testified that the lunch remains in question were 25 - 30 ft away by the two-wheeler trolley. Indeed, the remains were photographed in this location.
So, how did the Commission deal with this contradiction?
Unbelievably, they decided to ignore the various testimonies of the first responders. It was as if these officers had never made any kind of statement about finding the lunch remains on the Sniper’s Nest. It wasn’t as if the Commission weighed up the pros and cons of each side, they simply accepted Bonnie Ray’s testimony and completely ignored the contradictory testimonies/statements of Mooney, Hill, Weatherford, McCurley, Haygood and Brewer.
The whereabouts of the lunch remains were dealt with in great detail during the WC hearings, when Haygood, Brewer, Hill and, in particular, Mooney testified before the Warren Commission. The attorneys questioning these men were well aware of the contradiction between their testimonies and that of Bonnie Ray concerning the lunch remains. Joseph Ball, the attorney who questioned Luke Mooney, actually brought up Mooney’s testimony to Robert Studebaker, the crime scene detective:
Mr. Ball.
Now, did you see a chicken bone over near the boxes in the southeast corner, over near where you found the cartridges and the paper sack?
Mr. Studebaker.
I don't believe there was one there.
Mr. Ball.
You didn't see any. One witness, a deputy sheriff named Luke Looney said he found a piece of chicken partly eaten up on top of one of the boxes; did you see anything like that?
Mr. Studebaker.
No.
Mr. Ball.
Was anything like that called to your attention?
Mr. Studebaker.
I can't recall anything like that. It ought to be in one of these pictures, if it is.
And that was it! That was the extent to which this contradiction was acknowledged. Ball took Bonnie Ray’s testimony on the 24th March and the lunch remains were covered in detail. The very next day, 25th March, Ball questioned Mooney and once again the lunch remains were covered in detail only this time Mooney was saying they were on the back wall of the Sniper’s Nest and not 25 ft away by the two-wheeler, as Bonnie Ray had testified. Ball never said a word. The only time he brought it up was weeks later, when questioning Studebaker.
The Commission knew that Bonnie Ray’s lunch remains were found on top of the Sniper’s Nest but chose to ignore it because it was only going to lead to unwanted “inconsistencies”.
Dan, Good post here!
FBI Director Hoover "exerted pressure" on his bureau agents to "quickly" complete their work and conclude that Oswald was the lone assassin.
Hoover should actually be investigated more than Oswald, in my opinion.
I have wondered about the timing of Bonnie Ray being on the sixth floor to put down plywood in this time frame. Who directed him to do that during that time?...
My thought is that if the Oswald "story" could have been discounted for some reason (like, Oswald decided to go outside, or had to be taken to the hospital during the shooting, etc...), then Bonnie Ray would possibly have become the "patsy."
The Warren Commission is most likely just as credible as the FBI regarding the assassination...
Arlen Specter's far out single bullet theory, SS agent Bill Greer rubbernecking to see Kennedy get his head blown off while braking the limousine, the quick removal of the "crime scene" (the presidential limousine)... AND, the delay in releasing all classified documents... are enough indicators to suggest a conspiracy of some sort...
-
Mr. BELIN. That day had you eaten any chicken at all, or anything on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Had you eaten any chicken or left a pep bottle on any previous days on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir
That day
Can chicken only be eaten on 11/22?
-
That day
Can chicken only be eaten on 11/22?
Do have other evidence?
please go on...
-
common knowledge. Maybe post less and read more.
-
common knowledge. Maybe post less and read more.
I'm not aware of it. Cite.
-
I'm not aware of it. Cite.
I'm not aware of it.
No doubt. Read and you will be. I have no desire to babysit. Witness statements and the simple fact they are definitely placed in two locations would be a clue.
-
I'm not aware of it.
No doubt. Read and you will be. I have no desire to babysit. Witness statements and the simple fact they are definitely placed in two locations would be a clue.
Just as I thought....
nothing.
-
Just as I thought....
nothing.
Correct, you do not know anything, or there would be no need to explain this to you. You would already know it.
-
It doesn’t specifically say chicken sandwich. However it doesn’t exclude chicken either. The point being that it contradicts Givens’ statement in his testimony of not eating anything.
(https://i.vgy.me/QXIxNS.jpg)
-
It doesn’t specifically say chicken sandwich. However it doesn’t exclude chicken either. The point being that it contradicts Givens’ statement in his testimony of not eating anything.
:D Is there a deli nearby, I can get one of them "chicken-bone" sandwiches?
-
I feel it's important to have a thread highlighting how deceitful and untrustworthy the Warren Commission was in it's approach “to evaluate all the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination”. Feel free to add your own examples. As the examples mount up a pattern of omission, manipulation and outright lying will emerge as the evidence is shaped to reflect a predetermined conclusion - that Oswald was the lone assassin.
So, let’s get this straight, you believe that although the WC published all the testimonies and supporting evidence (including the inconsistencies) that they are guilty of omission, manipulation and outright lying?
The only time he brought it up was weeks later, when questioning Studebaker.
Yet, it appears that the WC requested the FBI to interview BRW and Shelly in May of 1964 to specify where the lunch remains were left and later found. Why would the WC choose to do this if they were in fact ignoring the inconsistencies as you claim?
https://tangodown63.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/brw-fbi-052664.pdf (https://tangodown63.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/brw-fbi-052664.pdf)
It is ridiculous to claim the WC was any of the things you suggest. You can believe whatever you wish to believe regarding what the various witnesses said. I really don’t care. But trying to place some sort of dishonesty on the WC for supposedly ignoring the inconsistencies that are normal and expected when relying on witness accounts is simply not what the records (that, by the way, the WC chose to publish) show.
The collective testimonies/statements I posted of six of the first officers on the scene describe a partially eaten piece of chicken and a small lunch sack on top of one of the stacks of boxes that formed the 'back wall' of the SN - that is a fact.
Brewer and Haygood also mention bottle of Dr. Pepper - that is a fact.
Four of the officers testified before the WC about the lunch remains - that is a fact.
The testimonies/statements of all six men regarding this issue were completely ignored by the WC - that is a fact.
I don't accept your suggestion that the discovery of the lunch remains on the SN and that this fact was completely ignored by the WC are "inconsistencies that are normal".
The fact that the lunch remains were found on top of the SN has a domino effect of ramifications that destroys the WC's narrative. The testimonies/statements of these six officers is proof that Bonnie Ray was less than truthful about where he had his lunch (just as he was less than truthful in his DPD affidavit about even being on the 6th floor).
The only lunch remains discovered on the 6th floor were those attributed to Bonnie Ray and they were initially discovered on the SN.
You may think this is trivial but it's not.
That's why the WC completely omitted any mention of the testimonies of these men.
This omission is a fact you cannot deny.
-
:D Is there a deli nearby, I can get one of them "chicken-bone" sandwiches?
You do realize, of course, that Bonnie Ray Williams specifically described a chicken-bone sandwich?
Mr. BALL. What did you have in your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I had a chicken sandwich.
Mr. BALL. Describe the sandwich. What did it have in it besides chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, it just had chicken in it. Chicken on the bone.
Mr. BALL. Chicken on the bone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. The chicken was not boned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. It was just chicken on the bone. Just plain old chicken.
Mr. BALL. Did it have bread around it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, it did.
Wow, the WC didn't pursue the critical chicken-bone issue to the full satisfaction of CTers. Yep, it was a sham.
-
The collective testimonies/statements I posted of six of the first officers on the scene describe a partially eaten piece of chicken and a small lunch sack on top of one of the stacks of boxes that formed the 'back wall' of the SN - that is a fact.
Brewer and Haygood also mention bottle of Dr. Pepper - that is a fact.
Four of the officers testified before the WC about the lunch remains - that is a fact.
The testimonies/statements of all six men regarding this issue were completely ignored by the WC - that is a fact.
I don't accept your suggestion that the discovery of the lunch remains on the SN and that this fact was completely ignored by the WC are "inconsistencies that are normal".
The fact that the lunch remains were found on top of the SN has a domino effect of ramifications that destroys the WC's narrative. The testimonies/statements of these six officers is proof that Bonnie Ray was less than truthful about where he had his lunch (just as he was less than truthful in his DPD affidavit about even being on the 6th floor).
The only lunch remains discovered on the 6th floor were those attributed to Bonnie Ray and they were initially discovered on the SN.
You may think this is trivial but it's not.
That's why the WC completely omitted any mention of the testimonies of these men.
This omission is a fact you cannot deny.
You are confusing your interpretation and opinion with fact. The WC didn’t omit the testimonies of those men. They actually included them in their published documents for all of the world to see.
-
You do realize, of course, that Bonnie Ray Williams specifically described a chicken-bone sandwich?
Mr. BALL. What did you have in your lunch?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I had a chicken sandwich.
Mr. BALL. Describe the sandwich. What did it have in it besides chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, it just had chicken in it. Chicken on the bone.
Mr. BALL. Chicken on the bone?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.
Mr. BALL. The chicken was not boned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. It was just chicken on the bone. Just plain old chicken.
Mr. BALL. Did it have bread around it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, it did.
Wow, the WC didn't pursue the critical chicken-bone issue to the full satisfaction of CTers. Yep, it was a sham.
Wow, the WC didn't pursue the critical chicken-bone issue to the full satisfaction of CTers. Yep, it was a sham.
Why do you think the testimonies/statements of these six officers regarding the discovery of the lunch remains was omitted?
The lunch remains were found on top of the SN. How did they get there?
Why weren't they considered evidence of an accomplice?
What was Bonnie Ray doing having his lunch in the SN?
Where was Oswald during this time?
Nothing to see here folks ::)
-
You are confusing your interpretation and opinion with fact. The WC didn’t omit the testimonies of those men. They actually included them in their published documents for all of the world to see.
;D
Very clever Charles.
Very slippery.
The testimonies/statements of these men are omitted from the Warren Commission Report.
The fact that the lunch remains were discovered on the SN was omitted from the conclusions of the Warren Commission.
The fact that the lunch remains were discovered on the SN was never even dealt with, as though it had never happened.
That is the omission I am clearly talking about and you should have a long hard think about your need to be so tricky.
Do you really think it was a trivial thing to omit this fact?
-
You do realize, of course, that Bonnie Ray Williams specifically described a chicken-bone sandwich?
Wow, the WC didn't pursue the critical chicken-bone issue to the full satisfaction of CTers. Yep, it was a sham.
What is the critical chicken-bone issue?
-
;D
Very clever Charles.
Very slippery.
The testimonies/statements of these men are omitted from the Warren Commission Report.
The fact that the lunch remains were discovered on the SN was omitted from the conclusions of the Warren Commission.
The fact that the lunch remains were discovered on the SN was never even dealt with, as though it had never happened.
That is the omission I am clearly talking about and you should have a long hard think about your need to be so tricky.
Do you really think it was a trivial thing to omit this fact?
The WC decided to publish the volumes of supporting evidence along with the report. The 26 volumes were published as soon as they could physically publish them (which was very shortly after the report was published). Think long and hard about your claim that they omitted those things, because they most certainly did not.
You may believe that the lunch remains were discovered on the sniper’s nest. That is your opinion, not fact. The evidence shows that they were discovered where they were photographed, where the crime scene investigators testified that they were discovered, where Shelley testified that they were discovered, and where BRW testified he left them. The WC apparently wanted further clarification (for their decisions regarding their conclusions) as late as May 1964 when they asked for BRW and Shelley to be re-interviewed by the FBI. This is not, I repeat not, omitting anything whatsoever.
-
What is the critical chicken-bone issue?
It appears to me that this question should be addressed to Dan, the Chicken-Bone Issue Guy.
-
The WC decided to publish the volumes of supporting evidence along with the report. The 26 volumes were published as soon as they could physically publish them (which was very shortly after the report was published). Think long and hard about your claim that they omitted those things, because they most certainly did not.
They are omitted from the Warren Commission Report.
They are completely ignored. There is no mention made of them as if they never made these statements.
The fact that these officers are collectively telling us that the lunch remains were found on the Sniper's Nest is completely ignored by the Warren Commission.
It is a disgraceful treatment of this testimonial evidence and an unforgivable omission.
It is a clear example of the deceit the Warren Commission narrative was built on.
You may believe that the lunch remains were discovered on the sniper’s nest. That is your opinion, not fact. The evidence shows that they were discovered where they were photographed, where the crime scene investigators testified that they were discovered, where Shelley testified that they were discovered, and where BRW testified he left them. The WC apparently wanted further clarification (for their decisions regarding their conclusions) as late as May 1964 when they asked for BRW and Shelley to be re-interviewed by the FBI. This is not, I repeat not, omitting anything whatsoever.
The evidence shows the lunch remains were originally discovered on the Sniper's Nest - that is a fact.
The testimonies and statements of six of the first responding officers is that evidence.
Your willingness to overlook this evidence comes as no surprise at all.
-
:D Is there a deli nearby, I can get one of them "chicken-bone" sandwiches?
Yum!
(https://i.postimg.cc/wTLWNZWN/chicken-on-bone-sandwich.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/SQwTJkGq/chicken-on-bone-sandwich2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/W1V5w8KH/chicken-on-bone-sandwich3.jpg)
JohnM
-
At the risk of my sanity, I have forced myself to read this entire thread.
Why do you think the testimonies/statements of these six officers regarding the discovery of the lunch remains was omitted?
In effectively demolishing everything you say, Charles has pointed out that they weren't omitted and that the WC attempted to resolve the conflict in the testimony. The chicken-bone issue simply didn't get the attention you think it deserved in the Warren Report, and I assume this is because the WC regarded the testimony as irreconcilable and the issue as trivial.
The lunch remains were found on top of the SN. How did they get there?
It isn't 100% clear to me that this is what was being said. Even if it were, why would that inevitably be of great significance?
Why weren't they considered evidence of an accomplice?
An assassination accomplice eating chicken? Pretty casual assassination, eh? WHY ON EARTH would this be considered evidence of an accomplice?
What was Bonnie Ray doing having his lunch in the SN?
There is no reason to think he was. You are simply making every conceivable conspiracy insinuation and inference out of a piece of chicken of uncertain location and provenance. This is Conspiracy Thinking run amuck.
Where was Oswald during this time?
During the relevant time period, I believe he was in the SN. Whether a piece of chicken was there as well, either before, after or during his occupancy, is not known and never will be.
Nothing to see here folks ::)
No, not nothing. Just nothing particularly relevant or interesting.
P.S. -
You do realize that Williams originally said that he left the 6th floor, went down and got his lunch and then went up to the 5th floor (with his lunch) to watch the motorcade? Photographer Tom Alyea was ADAMANT that the lunch remains were found on the 5th floor, collected as evidence, and taken to the 6th floor. Williams thereafter changed his story to say he had eaten on the 6th floor. For all I know, he was simply confused. Anyway, I think you're trying to make way too much of an issue over something about which there is way too much uncertainty.
Here's Alyea:
Police officers who claim they were on the 6th floor when the assassin's window was found have reported that they saw chicken bones at or near the site. One officer reported that he saw chicken bones on the floor near the location. Another said he saw chicken bones on the barricade boxes, while another reported that he saw chicken bones on the box which was laying across the window sill. Some of these officers have given testimony as to the location of the shell casings. Their testimony differs and none of it is true. I have no idea why they are clinging to these statements. They must have a reason. Perhaps it is because they put it in a report and they must stick to it.
One officer stated that he found the assassin's location at the 6th floor window. He went on to say that as he and his fellow officers were leaving the building, he passed Captain Fritz coming in. He said he stopped briefly to tell Captain Fritz that he had found the assassin's lair at the 6th floor window. This seems highly unlikely because Captain Fritz joined us on the 5th floor and aided in the search. The chances are great that this, or these officers heard the report, that stemmed from WFAA-TV's incorrect announcement that the chicken bones were found on the 6th floor. This officer or officers perhaps used this information to formulate their presence at the scene. There were no chicken bones found on the 6th floor. We covered every inch of it and I filmed everything that could possibly be suspected as evidence. There definitely were no chicken bones on or near the barricade or boxes at the window. I shot close-up shots of the entire area.
Here's the Tom Alyea page at Bart Kamp's excellent site: http://www.prayer-man.com/camera/tom-alyea/
-
Bonnie Ray Williams was likely being set up to be the fall guy, if the Oswald scenario somehow fell through...
-
“Though the fingerprints other than Oswald's on the boxes thus provide no indication of the presence of an accomplice at the window, two Depository employees are known to have been present briefly on the sixth floor during the period between 11:45 a.m., when the floor-laying crew stopped for lunch, and the moment of the assassination. One of these was Charles Givens, a member of the floor-laying crew, who went down on the elevator with the others and then, returned to the sixth floor to get his jacket and cigarettes. He saw Oswald walking away from the southeast corner, but saw no one else on the sixth floor at that time. He then took one of the elevators back to the first floor at approximately 11:55 a.m.”
[Warren Commission Report pg 249, 250]
The discovery of the lunch remains on the SN was simply ignored by the Warren Commission in it's report because it undermined the Oswald-Did-It [ODI] narrative they were trying to sell.
Ignoring evidence is one thing but fabricating evidence is another thing entirely. This is what happened with Charles Givens and his tale about returning to the 6th floor.
Charles Givens never returned to the 6th floor for his jacket and cigarettes. He wasn't even wearing a jacket that day:
Mr. BELIN.
Did you wear a jacket to work that day?
Mr. GIVENS.
I wore a raincoat, I believe. It was misting that morning.
Mr. BELIN.
Did you hang up your coat in that room [Domino Room], too?
Mr. GIVENS.
Yes, sir.
Givens never went back up to the 6th floor and he never saw Oswald “walking away from the southeast corner”. Givens had been questioned in detail many times before without mentioning anything about going back up to the 6th floor, let alone seeing Oswald walking away from the southeast corner. This brand new addition to his story should have come as an immense surprise to Warren Commission counsel David Belin, the lawyer interviewing Givens, instead it was treated as gospel and the fact that Givens had failed to mention it in many previous statements was simply overlooked.
This incredibly suspicious addition to Givens' story is dealt with in detail by Sylvia Meagher (“Accessories After the Fact” and “The Curious Testimony of Mr Givens”) and, in particular, by Pat Speer on his website (in the chapter entitled “Pinning The Tail On Oswald”). [https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4-pinning-the-tale-on-the-oswald]
“In February 2012, I stumbled across the FBI's first teletype regarding Givens. (This teletype can be found in FBI file 62-109060 sec 9 p54 on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website.) Here, only hours after he'd been interviewed, it was claimed "Charles Douglas Givens, Employee, TSBD, worked on sixth floor until about eleven thirty A.M. Left at this time going down on elevator. Saw Oswald on fifth floor as left going down. Oswald told him to close the gates when he got to first floor so Oswald could signal for elevator later. Givens stayed on first floor until twelve o'clock and then walked out of the building to watch the parade pass. Oswald was reading paper in the first floor domino room seven-fifty A.M. November twenty two last when Givens came to work."
Speer's in-depth analysis of this issue leaves no doubt that Givens lied about returning to the 6th floor and that Warren Commission counsel David Belin was instrumental in constructing this fabrication. The whole point of this was so that the Commission could conclude the following:
Additional testimony linking Oswald with the point from which the shots were fired was provided by the testimony of Charles Givens, who was the last known employee to see Oswald inside the building prior to the assassination.
The truth is that Givens was not the last employee to see Oswald inside the building. That was Eddie Piper:
Mr. BALL.
Did you leave the first floor from then on until lunch time, from 11:30 until 12?
Mr. PIPER.
No.
Mr. BALL.
What time was it that you spoke to Oswald and said you thought you would have your lunch?
Mr. PIPER.
Just about 12 o'clock.
Mr. BALL.
And do you remember exactly what he said?
Mr. PIPER.
No, sir; I don't remember exactly. All I remember him was muttering out something---I didn't know whether he said he was going up or going out.
This was a real problem for the WC's ODI narrative. They needed a window of opportunity for Oswald to assemble his rifle and prepare the SN. The only available window was in between the time the floor-laying crew broke for lunch and Bonnie Ray arriving back on the 6th floor. The very last thing they needed was for Oswald to go down to the first floor at lunch time but this is exactly what he did.
The collective testimonies and statements of the floor-laying crew reveal that around 11:45 am they broke for lunch. Everyday they had been having a race down to the first floor in the elevators. As they were passing the 5th floor Oswald called out to Givens to let him on the elevator but, presumably because he was involved in the race, Givens refused. Oswald called after them to close the gate on the elevator so he could call it back up.
Far from hiding in the shadows, biding his time, Oswald was looking to come down to the first floor.
Piper's testimony confirms he did that.
At around 12:00 pm Oswald was on the first floor and Bonnie Ray was on his way up to the 6th floor (presumably to have his lunch in the Sniper's Nest!)
This narrative had to be changed so in stepped Givens with his obvious fabrication and out went Piper's testimony. The pattern of 'ignored testimony' features heavily with the WC.
The WC could now claim that the last employee to see Oswald saw him on the 6th floor somewhere near the southeast corner. Oswald could now assemble his rifle, prepare the SN and silently hide for almost half an hour while Bonnie Ray had his lunch (sat right next to him?).
Anyone genuinely interested in this should check out the work of Meagher and Speer.
-
At the risk of my sanity, I have forced myself to read this entire thread.
In effectively demolishing everything you say, Charles has pointed out that they weren't omitted and that the WC attempted to resolve the conflict in the testimony. The chicken-bone issue simply didn't get the attention you think it deserved in the Warren Report, and I assume this is because the WC regarded the testimony as irreconcilable and the issue as trivial.
It isn't 100% clear to me that this is what was being said. Even if it were, why would that inevitably be of great significance?
An assassination accomplice eating chicken? Pretty casual assassination, eh? WHY ON EARTH would this be considered evidence of an accomplice?
There is no reason to think he was. You are simply making every conceivable conspiracy insinuation and inference out of a piece of chicken of uncertain location and provenance. This is Conspiracy Thinking run amuck.
During the relevant time period, I believe he was in the SN. Whether a piece of chicken was there as well, either before, after or during his occupancy, is not known and never will be.
No, not nothing. Just nothing particularly relevant or interesting.
P.S. -
You do realize that Williams originally said that he left the 6th floor, went down and got his lunch and then went up to the 5th floor (with his lunch) to watch the motorcade? Photographer Tom Alyea was ADAMANT that the lunch remains were found on the 5th floor, collected as evidence, and taken to the 6th floor. Williams thereafter changed his story to say he had eaten on the 6th floor. For all I know, he was simply confused. Anyway, I think you're trying to make way too much of an issue over something about which there is way too much uncertainty.
Here's Alyea:
Police officers who claim they were on the 6th floor when the assassin's window was found have reported that they saw chicken bones at or near the site. One officer reported that he saw chicken bones on the floor near the location. Another said he saw chicken bones on the barricade boxes, while another reported that he saw chicken bones on the box which was laying across the window sill. Some of these officers have given testimony as to the location of the shell casings. Their testimony differs and none of it is true. I have no idea why they are clinging to these statements. They must have a reason. Perhaps it is because they put it in a report and they must stick to it.
One officer stated that he found the assassin's location at the 6th floor window. He went on to say that as he and his fellow officers were leaving the building, he passed Captain Fritz coming in. He said he stopped briefly to tell Captain Fritz that he had found the assassin's lair at the 6th floor window. This seems highly unlikely because Captain Fritz joined us on the 5th floor and aided in the search. The chances are great that this, or these officers heard the report, that stemmed from WFAA-TV's incorrect announcement that the chicken bones were found on the 6th floor. This officer or officers perhaps used this information to formulate their presence at the scene. There were no chicken bones found on the 6th floor. We covered every inch of it and I filmed everything that could possibly be suspected as evidence. There definitely were no chicken bones on or near the barricade or boxes at the window. I shot close-up shots of the entire area.
Here's the Tom Alyea page at Bart Kamp's excellent site: http://www.prayer-man.com/camera/tom-alyea/
I think you're trying to make way too much of an issue over something about which there is way too much uncertainty.
There is no uncertainty.
All six officers specifically state that the lunch remains were discovered in the southeast corner.
At least three of them state that the remains were on top of the boxes that formed the SN.
There is zero uncertainty as to where the lunch remains were originally found.
I understand why you want the testimony of these officers to go away. It's the same reason the WC wanted it to go away.
Am I overstating the importance of discovering Bonnie Ray's lunch remains on the Sniper's Nest?
I don't think so.
But I understand why you do.
-
I think you're trying to make way too much of an issue over something about which there is way too much uncertainty.
There is no uncertainty.
All six officers specifically state that the lunch remains were discovered in the southeast corner.
At least three of them state that the remains were on top of the boxes that formed the SN.
There is zero uncertainty as to where the lunch remains were originally found.
I understand why you want the testimony of these officers to go away. It's the same reason the WC wanted it to go away.
Am I overstating the importance of discovering Bonnie Ray's lunch remains on the Sniper's Nest?
I don't think so.
But I understand why you do.
Good Lord, you are in the grip of 110-degree Conspiracy Fever. Did you even read Alyea's statement? He was one of the first people on the 6th floor and had absolutely no agenda. Consistent with BRW's first statement, Alyea places the chicken and bottle on the 5th floor. And you say there is ZERO UNCERTAINTY??? Let's increase the Conspiracy Fever to 115. Your six officers' statements aren't even consistent. Alyea's statement is entirely plausible. It's also entirely plausible that BRW, a minimum-wage Black guy and surely not the sharpest tool in the shed, might become confused or even intimidated into changing his story to fit the 6th floor narrative - but so what?
And now we have Jake suggesting BRW was the alternative patsy if "the Oswald scenario" fell through. What on earth would this even MEAN??? We will assign Jake a Conspiracy Fever of, oh, we'll say 142.9.
Are you folks serious? Are you so devoid of rationality (well, Conspiracy Fever does have that effect) that you really can't see that you're spouting nonsense of the first magnitude??? BTW, what happened to the "simple" LBJ-Byrd-Cason-Shelley conspiracy - lost interest in THAT pretty fast, eh? So now we're on to Chicken Bone Bonnie, International Man of Mystery and Assassination Accomplice. ::)
-
I always thought it was a little strange that Williams would go to the 6th floor to watch the parade with his mates but not check all the windows, because after all, he went directly to the corner window on the floor directly below, now there is the possibility that he shouted out and after hearing no response simply plonked himself down in the middle of the floor and waited there?
And there is the early slightly conflicting affidavits and FBI reports like where Norman on the 4th of Dec says "About 12:15 P.M. on this same date, after I had eaten my lunch, I went to the fifth floor of the building to watch the parade of the President pass the building. Bonnie Ray Williams and James Jarman, who also worked at this building went with me.", could Norman be covering for Williams who actually went to the sniper's nest saw Oswald, and then had his lunch while standing behind Oswald then after hearing his mates finally arrive on the floor below, left and left his lunch remains on top of the surrounding boxes? I can perfectly understand why Williams would not want to get involved!
This following exchange with Williams during his testimony, when Williams is explaining what he could see from his position and Ford suddenly interjects with the "trouble with the law" comment, kind of tells me that the WC was sort of sus with the entire Williams scenario and perhaps had a similar idea as I just explained?
Mr. DULLES. How much of the room could you see as you finished your lunch there? Was your view obstructed by boxes of books, or could you see a good bit of the sixth floor?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me.
Representative FORD.Have you ever had any trouble with the law at all?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir.
Representative FORD.No difficulty as far as the law is concerned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I have never been inside of a courthouse before.
Rowland who isn't the best eyewitness says he saw an (elderly)negro in the window marked with an "A"?
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe with as much particularity as you can what that man looked like?
Mr. ROWLAND - It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I didn't pay very much attention to him.
Mr. SPECTER - Over how long a time span did you observe the Negro man to be in the window marked "A"?
Mr. ROWLAND - He was there before I noticed the man with the rifle and approximately 12:30 or when the motorcade was at Main and Ervay he was gone when I looked back and I had looked up there about 30 seconds before or a minute before.
(https://i.postimg.cc/63FM2WBZ/CE-356-Rowland-windows.jpg)
EDIT An early SS report from the first week in December, on Jarman where he says he went with Williams and Norman to the fifth floor.
(https://i.ibb.co/HHcY7Fh/0397157-E-5460-47-FC-876-F-E0-C48-E1-C485-A.jpg)
EDIT 2 It seems that Williams was telling the same story that he went initially to the 6th floor as early as the day after.
(https://i.ibb.co/BcwLW9B/92-B87-EBF-2561-4-B81-A453-E4-BE71-F9-CA5-E.jpg)
JohnM
-
As we can see from this thread, there is NO UNCERTAINTY. ;D Let's all just keep repeating that ("No uncertainty, there is no uncertainty ...") until we start to believe it.
-
Someone suspects fowl play! Why did the WC decline to interview Colonel Sanders (no doubt a white supremist and KGB agent) to rule him out as the assassin? What about the Hamburglar? He looks suspicious. So many questions, but never the answers.
-
Someone suspects fowl play! Why did the WC decline to interview Colonel Sanders (no doubt a white supremist and KGB agent) to rule him out as the assassin? What about the Hamburglar? He looks suspicious. So many questions, but never the answers.
Anyone who supports The Traitorous Orange Bird is, at the very least, an unwitting KGB* agent.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS AND THE CHICKEN BONES....
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2025/03/chicken-bones.html
-
Good Lord, you are in the grip of 110-degree Conspiracy Fever. Did you even read Alyea's statement? He was one of the first people on the 6th floor and had absolutely no agenda. Consistent with BRW's first statement, Alyea places the chicken and bottle on the 5th floor. And you say there is ZERO UNCERTAINTY??? Let's increase the Conspiracy Fever to 115. Your six officers' statements aren't even consistent. Alyea's statement is entirely plausible. It's also entirely plausible that BRW, a minimum-wage Black guy and surely not the sharpest tool in the shed, might become confused or even intimidated into changing his story to fit the 6th floor narrative - but so what?
And now we have Jake suggesting BRW was the alternative patsy if "the Oswald scenario" fell through. What on earth would this even MEAN??? We will assign Jake a Conspiracy Fever of, oh, we'll say 142.9.
Are you folks serious? Are you so devoid of rationality (well, Conspiracy Fever does have that effect) that you really can't see that you're spouting nonsense of the first magnitude??? BTW, what happened to the "simple" LBJ-Byrd-Cason-Shelley conspiracy - lost interest in THAT pretty fast, eh? So now we're on to Chicken Bone Bonnie, International Man of Mystery and Assassination Accomplice. ::)
You're starting to sound desperate, Lance.
As you well know, whatever Alyea said has no bearing on the testimonies and statements of the six officers I quoted in the OP.
You need to believe that Alyea somehow makes what these officers has to say, go away.
It doesn't.
Go back and read the OP.
Read what these officers have to say.
THERE IS ZERO UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHERE THE LUNCH REMAINS WERE DISCOVERED.
The right thing to do would be to acknowledge what these officers reported, accept it and accept the WC ignored what they had to say (a little like you're doing. Go figure.)
Why don't you give us an analysis of what the officers reported and why you think it doesn't matter ;)
-
BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS AND THE CHICKEN BONES
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2025/03/chicken-bones.html
"I doubt there was ever any chicken bones right AT or IN the Sniper's Nest. Or on the SN boxes. The chicken bones and lunch sack and Dr. Pepper bottle were further WEST, where Bonnie Ray Williams said he ate lunch.
I think Luke Mooney was incorrect [as were some other police officers] about the precise location where the bones were found."
I've posted what these six officers had to say about where the lunch remains were discovered in the OP.
How can you be unsure as to the precise location these men are describing?
They are clearly describing a half eaten piece of chicken and a small paper lunch sack on top of one of the stacks of boxes that form the'back wall' of the SN.
Two of them mention a bottle of Dr. Pepper in the same area.
There is zero uncertainty as to what they're saying and it is not surprising in the least that many LNers are having a problem with it.
John Mytton is the only LNer who is dealing with this issue honestly.
-
You're starting to sound desperate, Lance.
As you well know, whatever Alyea said has no bearing on the testimonies and statements of the six officers I quoted in the OP.
You need to believe that Alyea somehow makes what these officers has to say, go away.
It doesn't.
Go back and read the OP.
Read what these officers have to say.
THERE IS ZERO UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHERE THE LUNCH REMAINS WERE DISCOVERED.
The right thing to do would be to acknowledge what these officers reported, accept it and accept the WC ignored what they had to say (a little like you're doing. Go figure.)
Why don't you give us an analysis of what the officers reported and why you think it doesn't matter ;)
Click your heels and repeat three times, "I will be rational, I will be rational, I will be rational."
Alyea's observations and statements have NO BEARING??? They would be the EXPLANATION. He says the lunch remains were found on the FIFTH floor and that he believes the officers' testimonies were untruthful efforts to be consistent with their mistaken reports. He was THERE and he expresses CERTAINTY on this. I don't know if he's correct, but to say his statement has no bearing is nonsense. Moreover, the officers' statements are not even consistent; even if they were true, they would not unequivocally establish the precise location. You likewise keep misstating the facts by your insistence the WC ignored all this. They did not ignore it. The officers' testimonies and BRW's statements are there for all to see. The WC was simply unable to resolve the inconsistencies and, like me, ultimately concluded it was unimportant. Your mantra that there is "zero uncertainty" is Conspiracy Goof wishful thinking - there is considerable uncertainty as to the location of the lunch remains and TOTAL UNCERTAINTY as to the significance, if any.
This is yet another issue that has been BEATEN TO DEATH for decades. Do you think you're breaking new ground or adding something new? WHAT'S THE POINT? If you want to expand the uncertainty about the lunch remains into BRW being a possible accomplice to the assassination, go for it - you're simply exposing the sheer irrationality of Conspiracy Thinking.
Here's an idea: Give us your theory in 50 words or less. Explain WHAT in BRW's ENTIRE LIFE would add any plausibility to him being involved in the JFKA in any way. If, in fact, he saw Oswald prepping for the JFKA and said "Oh, Lordy, Mr. Oswald, I don't know what you're about to do, but I'm gonna slide outta here and watch from the fifth floor," the significance would be WHAT? This is Conspiracy Thinking to the nth degree - take some utterly inconsequential piece of evidence and expand it into entirely speculative Evidence of Conspiracy with no regard whatsoever for context, logic or rationality.
-
BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS AND THE CHICKEN BONES
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2025/03/chicken-bones.html
You do know that when you impeach Luke Mooney's claims of Specifically where the Chicken Bones were positioned on the TSBD 6th Floor, you also Impeach his finding a "CARCANO" Rifle on the TSBD 6th Floor too? If Mooney can screw up the specific location of chicken bones, he can also confuse a Carcano with a MAUSER.
-
You're starting to sound desperate, Lance.
As you well know, whatever Alyea said has no bearing on the testimonies and statements of the six officers I quoted in the OP.
You need to believe that Alyea somehow makes what these officers has to say, go away.
It doesn't.
Go back and read the OP.
Read what these officers have to say.
THERE IS ZERO UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHERE THE LUNCH REMAINS WERE DISCOVERED.
The right thing to do would be to acknowledge what these officers reported, accept it and accept the WC ignored what they had to say (a little like you're doing. Go figure.)
Why don't you give us an analysis of what the officers reported and why you think it doesn't matter ;)
THERE IS ZERO UNCERTAINTY AS TO WHERE THE LUNCH REMAINS WERE DISCOVERED.
There is no uncertainty is correct. BRW stated where he ate lunch and the sack, bottle, and chicken bones were discovered there in aisle three just as he stated.
Explain exactly how you have determined this other set belonged to BRW.
-
This passage from Four Days in November captures my thinking nicely. Note the bolded sentence.
During a search of the sixth floor after the assassination, a detective for the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police Department found a lunch bag with chicken bones, a piece of waxed paper, and a little piece of Fritos in it in front of the “third” double-window over from the south easternmost window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. He also found a Dr. Pepper bottle nearby. (7 H 146, WCT Robert Lee Studebaker; CD 1245, p.84, FBI interview of Robert Studebaker on May 29, 1964) Since Bonnie Williams had chicken, Fritos, and a Dr. Pepper for lunch at that exact place, that should have been the end of it. Lieutenant J. C. Day dusted the Dr. Pepper bottle for fingerprints, and no prints of Oswald’s were found. When Day later found out the food and drink had belonged to Williams, he decided the lunch bag and Dr. Pepper bottle had no value to the case and threw the sack and bottle away. (CD 1245, p.83) Not so fast, said conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher, who said that since Day “saw no need to check the empty bottle for fingerprints other than Oswald’s, we will never know if fingerprints were on the bottle, or whose they were.” And even though Studebaker, whose job it was to search the sixth floor, saw the food and drink next to the third double-window over, and several other witnesses said they saw them in the same place (e.g., 6 H 330–331, WCT William H. Shelley), and Williams himself said that’s where he ate his lunch, Meagher proceeded to cite other witnesses who said they saw food elsewhere, for example, Luke Mooney (3H 288–289), who said he saw a piece of chicken on top of one of the boxes surrounding the sniper’s nest. (Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, pp.39–41)
Other than her and her colleagues’ insatiable passion for pointing out normal (not to them) inconsistencies in the recollections of witnesses, nowhere does Meagher tell her readers what the relevance of these inconsistencies was. Was it her point that Williams was lying, that the chicken eater was the assassin in the sniper’s nest (who wasn’t, Meagher would assure us, Oswald), or Williams was not lying, but the assassin in the sniper’s nest was also eating chicken while he waited to kill the president? I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued.
Or, in Dan's case, that the not-wholly-consistent six officers' statements "are an end in themselves" and Alyea's statement and the internal inconsistencies in BRW's statements are irrelevant "and nothing else has to be shown or argued."
-
Good Lord, you are in the grip of 110-degree Conspiracy Fever. Did you even read Alyea's statement? He was one of the first people on the 6th floor and had absolutely no agenda. Consistent with BRW's first statement, Alyea places the chicken and bottle on the 5th floor. And you say there is ZERO UNCERTAINTY??? Let's increase the Conspiracy Fever to 115. Your six officers' statements aren't even consistent. Alyea's statement is entirely plausible. It's also entirely plausible that BRW, a minimum-wage Black guy and surely not the sharpest tool in the shed, might become confused or even intimidated into changing his story to fit the 6th floor narrative - but so what?
And now we have Jake suggesting BRW was the alternative patsy if "the Oswald scenario" fell through. What on earth would this even MEAN??? We will assign Jake a Conspiracy Fever of, oh, we'll say 142.9.
Are you folks serious? Are you so devoid of rationality (well, Conspiracy Fever does have that effect) that you really can't see that you're spouting nonsense of the first magnitude??? BTW, what happened to the "simple" LBJ-Byrd-Cason-Shelley conspiracy - lost interest in THAT pretty fast, eh? So now we're on to Chicken Bone Bonnie, International Man of Mystery and Assassination Accomplice. ::)
I accept the designation... But I just checked, it's 143 at present! Some folks need to think out of the box!!
If there actually were a conspiracy to kill the president and then a cover-up - at the level of the FBI and members of the Warren Commission - you can be absolutely certain they would not have left anything to chance - and BRW - with no clout to protect him - was just as likely a patsy as Oswald.
What is the significance of the whereabouts of the lunch?
That just might depend on which patsy you're trying to pin the deed on...
If the lunch is found in the SN, but someone could testify that Oswald already had lunch in the cafeteria, you've got a problem... Maybe this is why there is conflicting testimony on the lunch whereabouts...
-
I accept the designation... But I just checked, it's 143 at present! Some folks need to think out of the box!!
If there actually were a conspiracy to kill the president and then a cover-up - at the level of the FBI and members of the Warren Commission - you can be absolutely certain they would not have left anything to chance - and BRW - with no clout to protect him - was just as likely a patsy as Oswald.
What is the significance of the whereabouts of the lunch?
That just might depend on which patsy you're trying to pin the deed on...
If the lunch is found in the SN, but someone could testify that Oswald already had lunch in the cafeteria, you've got a problem... Maybe this is why there is conflicting testimony on the lunch whereabouts...
I appreciate your good humor, Jake, because the whole JFKA Thing has become mostly just a kind-of-fun diversion to me. I hereby humbly reduce your Conspiracy Fever to 98.6. ;D Honestly, I TRULY DON'T CARE if Oswald was a patsy and the CIA was behind the whole thing. In fact, I'd LOVE it - the weirder the better! I am not among those who think the Lone Nut narrative is some sort of religious truth.
But your "leaving nothing to chance" statement cuts both ways. How would we explain the 4,000 clues that drive the conspiracy bus? While leaving nothing to chance, they were also such bunglers they left 4,000 clues?
The problem with your scenario above is that it's all speculation. Barring some bombshell - highly unlikely - we'll just never know. I have no problem with the idea that the chicken being found on the 6th floor "had to be" the WC narrative so the officers didn't look like lying fools and that BRW was more-or-less intimidated into going along (although, as John notes above, he was saying the 6th floor by the next day). I have great difficulty picturing Black, minimum-wage, employed-two-months, 20-year-old BRW as any sort of plausible accomplice or patsy.
If conspiracy theorizing were done in the vein of "of course it's all just speculation, but it's fun!" the discussions on forums such as this would be far more enjoyable. Too many LNers and CTers alike seem to feel they are promoting and defending some sort of religious truth.
For lots of people, the JFKA seems to have been some sort of life-shattering event. Researcher Walt Brown is only a couple of years older than me, and it sounded when I read his work like he practically had an emotional meltdown at the age of 15. For me, at age 13, it was nothing more than a couple of days off school to go shoot hoops. It's still just an interesting historical curiosity, a real-life Agatha Christie mystery that is kind of fun to play around with - and I welcome thinking outside the box if it's halfway plausible.
-
Payette:
If conspiracy theorizing were done in the vein of "of course it's all just speculation, but it's fun!" the discussions on forums such as this would be far more enjoyable. Too many LNers and CTers alike seem to feel they are promoting and defending some sort of religious truth. For lots of people, the JFKA seems to have been some sort of life-shattering event. Researcher Walt Brown is only a couple of years older than me, and it sounded when I read his work like he practically had an emotional meltdown at the age of 15. For me, at age 13, it was nothing more than a couple of days off school to go shoot hoops. It's still just an interesting historical curiosity, a real-life Agatha Christie mystery that is kind of fun to play around with - and I welcome thinking outside the box if it's halfway plausible.
Me:
The problem is, the KGB* has made hay from the anomaly-replete assassination from Day One, and the JFKA conspiracy theories it has created and/or promulgated have, along with conspiracy theories about HIV/AIDS, the Rock Cocaine Explosion in "the Ghetto," the Moon Landings, Watergate, 9/11, the DNC Hack, and [fill in the blank] have made our body politic so cynical, apathetic and paranoiac about the government (can you say the evil, evil CIA?) that "former" KGB officer Vladimir Putin was able, with the help of Paul Manafort, GRU officer Konstantin Kilimnik, Putin's mobbed-up oligarch buddy Oleg Deripaska, Roger Stone, Harley Schlanger, Joseph Mifsud, and probable KGB agent Igor Danchenko, et al. ad nauseam, to install "useful idiot" (or worse) Donald Trump as our final President.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
Lance... yes, we shouldn't take ourselves or our theories too seriously... a real challenge for humans in general.
I think some of what drives my thinking on this subject, is knowing - or thinking I know - a little too much about some of the possible players on the stage, like LBJ and Hoover.
AND Arlen Specter's theory about the single bullet! Dang, look at the car Specter... Windshield is shot and the car molding... along with JFK and Connally... and the limo is whisked off the scene to be quickly repaired...
AND driver SS agent Bill Greer's rubbernecking and braking until the fatal shot!
AND Hoover's "exerting pressure" on his boys to quickly end their investigation and conclude that Oswald was the lone assassin...
Hoover, Greer, Specter... don't look in my face and lie to me! Yeah, that drives some of my thinking on this, too...
All right... peace!
-
I think some of what drives my thinking on this subject, is knowing - or thinking I know - a little too much about some of the possible players on the stage, like LBJ and Hoover. AND Arlen Specter's theory about the single bullet! Dang, look at the car Specter... Windshield is shot and the car molding... along with JFK and Connally... and the limo is whisked off the scene to be quickly repaired. AND driver SS agent Bill Greer's rubbernecking and braking until the fatal shot! AND Hoover's "exerting pressure" on his boys to quickly end their investigation and conclude that Oswald was the lone assassin. Hoover, Greer, Specter . . .
It's too bad you're so gullible and so open to being influenced by KGB* disinformation, Maxwell.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
It's too bad you're so gullible and so open to being influenced by KGB* disinformation, Maxwell.
*Today's SVR and FSB
None of the following is disinformation... all well-documented:
AND Arlen Specter's theory about the single bullet! Dang, look at the car Specter... Windshield is shot and the car molding... along with JFK and Connally... and the limo is whisked off the scene to be quickly repaired...
AND driver SS agent Bill Greer's rubbernecking and braking until the fatal shot!
AND Hoover's "exerting pressure" on his boys to quickly end their investigation and conclude that Oswald was the lone assassin...
-
None of the following is disinformation... all well-documented:
AND Arlen Specter's theory about the single bullet! Dang, look at the car Specter... Windshield is shot and the car molding... along with JFK and Connally... and the limo is whisked off the scene to be quickly repaired...
AND driver SS agent Bill Greer's rubbernecking and braking until the fatal shot!
AND Hoover's "exerting pressure" on his boys to quickly end their investigation and conclude that Oswald was the lone assassin...
All of those "incriminating things" can be explained in a non-conspiratorial way, e.g., "THE WINDSHIELD IS SHOT!!!" (don't you mean to say, ". . . with a through-and-through hole, PROVING THAT THE BULLET THAT CAUSED IT MUST HAVE COME FROM THE FRONT!!!"?).
To wit: It wasn't a through-and-through hole; the windshield (and the chrome strip) had been hit by a largish fragment from the Z-313 fatal head shot, the impact caused the laminated windshield to lose a chunk of glass from its outside layer, only, and the lead fragment left a residue of lead on the inside surface of the windshield, not the outside.
D'oh
-
Lance... yes, we shouldn't take ourselves or our theories too seriously... a real challenge for humans in general.
I think some of what drives my thinking on this subject, is knowing - or thinking I know - a little too much about some of the possible players on the stage, like LBJ and Hoover.
AND Arlen Specter's theory about the single bullet! Dang, look at the car Specter... Windshield is shot and the car molding... along with JFK and Connally... and the limo is whisked off the scene to be quickly repaired...
AND driver SS agent Bill Greer's rubbernecking and braking until the fatal shot!
AND Hoover's "exerting pressure" on his boys to quickly end their investigation and conclude that Oswald was the lone assassin...
Hoover, Greer, Specter... don't look in my face and lie to me! Yeah, that drives some of my thinking on this, too...
All right... peace!
One problem is that JFK was detested by such a diverse group of organizations and individuals, and so many stood to benefit from his demise, that weaving superficially plausible conspiracy theories is easy.
Then we factor in that most of the usual suspects - LBJ, Hoover, CIA, Mafia, etc. - were fully capable of ghastly deeds, in some cases up to and including assassinations and murders.
Then we factor in some huge motives - LBJ becomes President, Hoover isn't forced into retirement, the CIA has a friend in the White House, Castro is ousted, the heat is off the Mafia and their Cuban empire is restored, revenge is had for the Bay of Pigs, the oil depletion allowance survives, etc., etc.
It all starts to look, as it once did to me, like "How could this NOT have been a conspiracy??? OF COURSE, it was - the only issue is exactly who did it and how."
However, over my decades as a lawyer my conspiracy-prone mindset was gradually subordinated to the need for real evidence, reasonable inferences and critical thinking rather than Gee Whiz speculation and leaps of logic.
The more I studied and analyzed, the more the LN perspective made sense - not rock-solid sense, not a religious belief, but simply the most plausible explanation. If ever a conspiracy theory seems more plausible, I'll change my mind.
In many ways, the CT community is its own worst enemy. The wild diversity of theories, some of the most prominent being preposterous. The focus on anomalies and inconsistencies that in themselves go nowhere and that the CTers don't even attempt to fit into a coherent theory. The obsession with the WC as though its shortcomings were somehow proof of something. The absurd effort to play defense counsel for Oswald. The venom toward the LN position as though this were a religious debate (many of the LNers being equally guilty, of course).
If there were a single, reasonably evidence-based, reasonably plausible and coherent theory, one that at least generated interest among professional historians and journals, I and pretty much everyone else would listen and perhaps be swayed. As it is, the leading conspiracy exponents simply don't generate this sort of interest and strike most reasonable people, including me, as self-promoting cranks and hucksters.
-
You do know that when you impeach Luke Mooney's claims of Specifically where the Chicken Bones were positioned on the TSBD 6th Floor, you also Impeach his finding a "CARCANO" Rifle on the TSBD 6th Floor too? If Mooney can screw up the specific location of chicken bones, he can also confuse a Carcano with a MAUSER.
But Mooney didn't find the rifle. Eugene Boone did.
-
If there were a single, reasonably evidence-based, reasonably plausible and coherent theory, one that at least generated interest among professional historians and journals, I and pretty much everyone else would listen and perhaps be swayed. As it is, the leading conspiracy exponents simply don't generate this sort of interest and strike most reasonable people, including me, as self-promoting cranks and hucksters.
Otherwise known as "useful idiots" in the unwitting service of "former" KGB* officer, Vladimir Putin and his favorite "useful idiot" (or worse), Donald J. Trump.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
You do know that when you impeach Luke Mooney's claims of Specifically where the Chicken Bones were positioned on the TSBD 6th Floor, you also Impeach his finding a "CARCANO" Rifle on the TSBD 6th Floor too? If Mooney can screw up the specific location of chicken bones, he can also confuse a Carcano with a MAUSER.
That’s nonsense. A witness can most certainly be wrong about one aspect of their account but be correct about another aspect.
-
Click your heels and repeat three times, "I will be rational, I will be rational, I will be rational."
Alyea's observations and statements have NO BEARING??? They would be the EXPLANATION. He says the lunch remains were found on the FIFTH floor and that he believes the officers' testimonies were untruthful efforts to be consistent with their mistaken reports. He was THERE and he expresses CERTAINTY on this. I don't know if he's correct, but to say his statement has no bearing is nonsense. Moreover, the officers' statements are not even consistent; even if they were true, they would not unequivocally establish the precise location. You likewise keep misstating the facts by your insistence the WC ignored all this. They did not ignore it. The officers' testimonies and BRW's statements are there for all to see. The WC was simply unable to resolve the inconsistencies and, like me, ultimately concluded it was unimportant. Your mantra that there is "zero uncertainty" is Conspiracy Goof wishful thinking - there is considerable uncertainty as to the location of the lunch remains and TOTAL UNCERTAINTY as to the significance, if any.
This is yet another issue that has been BEATEN TO DEATH for decades. Do you think you're breaking new ground or adding something new? WHAT'S THE POINT? If you want to expand the uncertainty about the lunch remains into BRW being a possible accomplice to the assassination, go for it - you're simply exposing the sheer irrationality of Conspiracy Thinking.
Here's an idea: Give us your theory in 50 words or less. Explain WHAT in BRW's ENTIRE LIFE would add any plausibility to him being involved in the JFKA in any way. If, in fact, he saw Oswald prepping for the JFKA and said "Oh, Lordy, Mr. Oswald, I don't know what you're about to do, but I'm gonna slide outta here and watch from the fifth floor," the significance would be WHAT? This is Conspiracy Thinking to the nth degree - take some utterly inconsequential piece of evidence and expand it into entirely speculative Evidence of Conspiracy with no regard whatsoever for context, logic or rationality.
Alyea reporting lunch remains on the 5th floor has no bearing on the testimonies/statements of the six officers who discovered lunch remains on the 6th floor.
It is irrational and desperate to suggest otherwise.
There is zero uncertainty as to where these officers discovered the lunch remains,
Suggesting otherwise is also desperate and irrational.
To suggest that the WC did not ignore the testimonies/statements of these officers regarding the discovery of the lunch remains is also desperate and irrational.
These officers collectively report lunch remains discovered on the Sniper's Nest - fact.
This vitally important evidence is ignored by the WC - fact.
It's a disgrace and is just one example of the deception contained in the Warren Commission Report.
As a Lone Nutter all your eggs are in the Warren Commission basket.
All of them.
Your willingness to suggest these officers were lying is a symptom of the corner you have painted yourself into.
-
As a Lone Nutter all your eggs are in the Warren Commission basket.
O'meara,
Does Vladimir Putin pay you, or do you do it for free?
-
This passage from Four Days in November captures my thinking nicely. Note the bolded sentence.
During a search of the sixth floor after the assassination, a detective for the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police Department found a lunch bag with chicken bones, a piece of waxed paper, and a little piece of Fritos in it in front of the “third” double-window over from the south easternmost window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. He also found a Dr. Pepper bottle nearby. (7 H 146, WCT Robert Lee Studebaker; CD 1245, p.84, FBI interview of Robert Studebaker on May 29, 1964) Since Bonnie Williams had chicken, Fritos, and a Dr. Pepper for lunch at that exact place, that should have been the end of it. Lieutenant J. C. Day dusted the Dr. Pepper bottle for fingerprints, and no prints of Oswald’s were found. When Day later found out the food and drink had belonged to Williams, he decided the lunch bag and Dr. Pepper bottle had no value to the case and threw the sack and bottle away. (CD 1245, p.83) Not so fast, said conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher, who said that since Day “saw no need to check the empty bottle for fingerprints other than Oswald’s, we will never know if fingerprints were on the bottle, or whose they were.” And even though Studebaker, whose job it was to search the sixth floor, saw the food and drink next to the third double-window over, and several other witnesses said they saw them in the same place (e.g., 6 H 330–331, WCT William H. Shelley), and Williams himself said that’s where he ate his lunch, Meagher proceeded to cite other witnesses who said they saw food elsewhere, for example, Luke Mooney (3H 288–289), who said he saw a piece of chicken on top of one of the boxes surrounding the sniper’s nest. (Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, pp.39–41)
Other than her and her colleagues’ insatiable passion for pointing out normal (not to them) inconsistencies in the recollections of witnesses, nowhere does Meagher tell her readers what the relevance of these inconsistencies was. Was it her point that Williams was lying, that the chicken eater was the assassin in the sniper’s nest (who wasn’t, Meagher would assure us, Oswald), or Williams was not lying, but the assassin in the sniper’s nest was also eating chicken while he waited to kill the president? I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued.
Or, in Dan's case, that the not-wholly-consistent six officers' statements "are an end in themselves" and Alyea's statement and the internal inconsistencies in BRW's statements are irrelevant "and nothing else has to be shown or argued."
I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued.
I need to explain the relevance of the Warren Commission ignoring vital evidence in a thread entitled "The Warren Commission Sham"?
Really?
The Warren Commission was a fake investigation in that the result of the investigation had been determined before the investigation had even begun.
Oswald was the lone assassin. Hoover had determined this outcome less than 48 hours after the assassination.
The point of the Warren Commission was to construct the Oswald-Did-It narrative from the available evidence and testimonies.
This thread is going to be a compilation of the evidence/testimonies the Warren Commission had to ignore/manipulate/fabricate in order to make the Oswald-Did-It narrative work.
The discovery of lunch remains on top of the SN had to be ignored because it indicated someone other than Oswald had their lunch in the SN.
To suggest the officers lied in their testimonies and the reports they made the day after the assassination is as wild as any Tinfoil nonsense.
The fabrication of Charles Givens' 'return to the 6th floor' while ignoring the testimonies/statements of the floor-laying crew and Eddie Piper had to be done in order to create a window of opportunity for Oswald to assemble the rifle and prepare the SN. Any testimony showing that Oswald had actually come down to the first floor had to be ignored but worse than that was the fabrication of the Givens nonsense so they could say that the last employee saw Oswald on the 6th floor somewhere near the southeast corner.
The testimony of Arnold Rowland had to be discredited. His observation of the man with the rifle on the 6th floor destroyed the narrative the WC was trying to build. The sleight of hand the WC used to side-step this damning evidence demonstrates the depths they were willing to sink to in order to make the Oswald-Did-It narrative work.
The testimony of Vicki Adams also had to be discredited. This was done by stating an outright lie in the Report - that Lovelady had seen Adams on the first floor when he entered the building (Lovelady had said no such thing). They also ignored the blatant lie both Shelley and Lovelady introduced about Baker and Truly not entering the TSBD building for at least 3 minutes. The Commission knew this was a lie as they had conducted there own time trials showing Baker and Truly entered the building within seconds.
Then there is the manipulation of evidence such as CE399. Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley all refused to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day. CE399 was entered into evidence as the bullet found in Parkland "subject to further proof". This proof never materialized and was never going to materialize. It was entered into evidence without being identified by anyone. The most startling aspect of this is the testimony of Darrell Tomlinson, the man who discovered the bullet - he was not asked a single question about the bullet itself. Not one. Even though it was a chance to finally identify CE399 he wasn't shown the bullet or a picture of it or even asked to describe it.
And then there is the mystery of Day's missing palmprint. How was it that the palmprint and black powder on the barrel of the rifle when Day sent it away had completely disappeared by the time it reached Latona? The way this issue was side-stepped reveals more deception.
These are a few things off the top of my head and that's without getting into the witnesses who should have been called.
The Warren Commission was a pantomime of deception. The illusion of an investigation attempting to uncover the truth about the assassination.
If it was the case that Oswald was the lone assassin then none of this deception would have been necessary. It would have been a simple story revealed by a straight forward investigation.
That the Warren Commission Report is rife with deception tells it's own story.
-
O'meara,
Does Vladimir Putin pay you, or do you do it for free?
;D
Tommy the Commie strikes again!
-
I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued.
I need to explain the relevance of the Warren Commission ignoring vital evidence in a thread entitled "The Warren Commission Sham"?
Really?
The Warren Commission was a fake investigation in that the result of the investigation had been determined before the investigation had even begun.
Oswald was the lone assassin. Hoover had determined this outcome less than 48 hours after the assassination.
The point of the Warren Commission was to construct the Oswald-Did-It narrative from the available evidence and testimonies.
This thread is going to be a compilation of the evidence/testimonies the Warren Commission had to ignore/manipulate/fabricate in order to make the Oswald-Did-It narrative work.
The discovery of lunch remains on top of the SN had to be ignored because it indicated someone other than Oswald had their lunch in the SN.
To suggest the officers lied in their testimonies and the reports they made the day after the assassination is as wild as any Tinfoil nonsense.
The fabrication of Charles Givens' 'return to the 6th floor' while ignoring the testimonies/statements of the floor-laying crew and Eddie Piper had to be done in order to create a window of opportunity for Oswald to assemble the rifle and prepare the SN. Any testimony showing that Oswald had actually come down to the first floor had to be ignored but worse than that was the fabrication of the Givens nonsense so they could say that the last employee saw Oswald on the 6th floor somewhere near the southeast corner.
The testimony of Arnold Rowland had to be discredited. His observation of the man with the rifle on the 6th floor destroyed the narrative the WC was trying to build. The sleight of hand the WC used to side-step this damning evidence demonstrates the depths they were willing to sink to in order to make the Oswald-Did-It narrative work.
The testimony of Vicki Adams also had to be discredited. This was done by stating an outright lie in the Report - that Lovelady had seen Adams on the first floor when he entered the building (Lovelady had said no such thing). They also ignored the blatant lie both Shelley and Lovelady introduced about Baker and Truly not entering the TSBD building for at least 3 minutes. The Commission knew this was a lie as they had conducted there own time trials showing Baker and Truly entered the building within seconds.
Then there is the manipulation of evidence such as CE399. Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley all refused to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day. CE399 was entered into evidence as the bullet found in Parkland "subject to further proof". This proof never materialized and was never going to materialize. It was entered into evidence without being identified by anyone. The most startling aspect of this is the testimony of Darrell Tomlinson, the man who discovered the bullet - he was not asked a single question about the bullet itself. Not one. Even though it was a chance to finally identify CE399 he wasn't shown the bullet or a picture of it or even asked to describe it.
And then there is the mystery of Day's missing palmprint. How was it that the palmprint and black powder on the barrel of the rifle when Day sent it away had completely disappeared by the time it reached Latona? The way this issue was side-stepped reveals more deception.
These are a few things off the top of my head and that's without getting into the witnesses who should have been called.
The Warren Commission was a pantomime of deception. The illusion of an investigation attempting to uncover the truth about the assassination.
If it was the case that Oswald was the lone assassin then none of this deception would have been necessary. It would have been a simple story revealed by a straight forward investigation.
That the Warren Commission Report is rife with deception tells it's own story.
Explain again how you know the chicken bones were BRW’s. Bear in mind Mr. Shelley stated where he saw the lunch in the third aisle, and he also shed light on the whole chicken lunch story. As in:
“ Mr. SHELLEY - .... those colored boys are always eating chicken.”
Nice recap of all of the other failed attempts to prove the WC was misleading the world.
-
Alyea reporting lunch remains on the 5th floor has no bearing on the testimonies/statements of the six officers who discovered lunch remains on the 6th floor.
It is irrational and desperate to suggest otherwise.
There is zero uncertainty as to where these officers discovered the lunch remains,
Suggesting otherwise is also desperate and irrational.
To suggest that the WC did not ignore the testimonies/statements of these officers regarding the discovery of the lunch remains is also desperate and irrational.
These officers collectively report lunch remains discovered on the Sniper's Nest - fact.
This vitally important evidence is ignored by the WC - fact.
It's a disgrace and is just one example of the deception contained in the Warren Commission Report.
As a Lone Nutter all your eggs are in the Warren Commission basket.
All of them.
Your willingness to suggest these officers were lying is a symptom of the corner you have painted yourself into.
You actually cannot see that you are making no sense?
Alyea was a respected local photographer. He had utterly no agenda to lie about anything. He insists the lunch remains were, in fact, found on the 5th floor, which just happens to be where BRW first said he ate lunch. He suggests the officers' heard an erroneous newscast saying the 6th floor, put this in their reports, and then maintained the fiction. If true - and we'll never know, but Alyea was credible and adamant - your "facts" go poof. Moreover, as Bugliosi points out, the totality of the descriptions apart from Alyea do not place the remains where you would like them to be but rather where BRW subsequently said he left them.
In addition, as Bugliosi points out, the lunch remains, even if on the 6th floor, are of no clear significance. You are doing exactly what Bugliosi described - assigning significance to an inconsistency in the evidence while being unable to explain why it is significant. Contrary to your narrative, the WC did not ignore the inconsistency but attempted to resolve it and then left it in the record for all to see. The HSCA likewise failed to see the significance you now see. As a reasonably sane and rational individual, it is difficult for me even to hypothesize any particular significance. And yet, this nothingburger is your lead story for the WC being a sham!
I have a difficult time believing, since I do see intelligence in your posts, that you actually cannot see the absurdity in ones like I have quoted here. "No bearing," "irrational," "desperate," "zero uncertainty," "fact" - come on, you know every one of these statements is false.
In what corner of the LN narrative does this silly issue fit? Wouldn't the WC and the LN community presumably have preferred a consistent narrative with the lunch remains either being found on the 5th floor or where BRW subsequently said, at some distance from the SN? Why would the "sham" WC not have simply cleaned up the issue instead of leaving it for all to see? Like so many CT efforts, yours just makes no sense at all, and you seemingly don't care.
-
If I were accused of a crime and my attorney learned that there were memos on file showing that the Chief of Police "ordered" and "exerted pressure" on the police department to "quickly" complete its investigation, so they could issue a public report stating that I was guilty of the crime... AND my attorney didn't see these memos as probable evidence the police department was trying to cover up something, and didn't use this to argue in court for my innocence...
Well... I'll let you come up with the appropriate words to describe my attorney....
This is exactly what FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover did, just hours following the assassination... he "exerted pressure" on his bureau to "quickly" complete the investigation in order to quickly issue a public statement asserting Oswald's guilt...
I'll let you come up with the appropriate words to describe Hoover... and those who believe his report...
-
If I were accused of a crime and my attorney learned that there were memos on file showing that the Chief of Police "ordered" and "exerted pressure" on the police department to "quickly" complete its investigation, so they could issue a public report stating that I was guilty of the crime... AND my attorney didn't see these memos as probable evidence the police department was trying to cover up something, and didn't use this to argue in court for my innocence...
Well... I'll let you come up with the appropriate words to describe my attorney....
This is exactly what FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover did, just hours following the assassination... he "exerted pressure" on his bureau to "quickly" complete the investigation in order to quickly issue a public statement asserting Oswald's guilt...
I'll let you come up with the appropriate words to describe Hoover... and those who believe his report...
No one is going to argue that Hoover was a saint. For purely personal reasons (i.e., LBJ was a friend and there would be no forced retirement, as well as his disdain for JFK and RFK), I'm sure he shed no tears after the assassination.
HOWEVER, it is entirely possible to put a different spin on your facts. Because of the state of relations with Russia and Cuba, and Oswald's obvious connections to both, the public leaping to a conclusion of conspiracy and demanding retribution (and the military being only too happy to provide it) was a very legitimate fear. It is not at all implausible that this was an immediate fear on the part of LBJ (as he said it was) and that he would convey this to Hoover (as he did). LBJ used this fear to convince Earl Warren to head the WC (and reportedly brought Warren to tears in so doing).
The Katzenbach memo and Hoover's statements just days after the assassination can be viewed in this non-conspiratorial light: It was important to convince the public that Oswald had acted alone to forestall any public outcry about a conspiracy - not to mention the fact that the evidence did tend to suggest he had, and he was dead anyway. Katzenbach specifically expressed concern in his memo because the public outcry was already starting. I tend to believe this is what the "wrap it up and convince the public stuff" was all about.
Are you aware that in documents released in 1977 Hoover (who died in 1972) was revealed to have expressed deep concern about a possible conspiracy. He didn't doubt the LN scenario as far as Dealey Plaza was concerned, but he was very concerned that Cuba was involved. The FBI had received letters - hoaxes, as Hoover suspected - pointing toward Cuban involvement. This NY Times article summarizes the documents: https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/08/archives/hoover-was-certain-oswald-was-killer-fbi-files-dont-dispute-finding.html.
I quote:
"Two weeks after John F, Kennedy's death, J. Edgar Hoover was convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President, but he wondered whether Oswald had had help from secret conspirators in Cuba, according to bureau files released today. The documents show that Mr. Hoover had concluded within hours of Kennedy's death that Oswald had fired the fatal bullets. But the agency later obtained letters written to Oswald from Cuba, and those messages raised the questions about conspiracy that linger to this day."
"Because of the letters and the difficulty in checking their validity, Mr. Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said, 'I urged strongly that we not reach the conclusion Oswald was the only man.'"
...
"But on Dec. 12, Mr. Hoover confided to his chief aides that he was troubled by the conspiracy questions and was unsure how to resolve them. Reporting on a conversation with a caller, he wrote: 'I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters ... written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship and stating when it was all over, he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief."
"Some of the F.B.I. memos suggest that Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, then the Deputy Attorney General, was putting pressure on the bureau for a prompt public announcement that Oswald, acting alone, was the assassin. Three days after the assassination, he wrote the bureau to express concern about the growing rumors of conspiracy and said that it was important to satisfy the public that Oswald was the assassin and that no conspirators were still at large."
I believe there was (1) an immediate "public face" that Oswald was the lone assassin for the reasons stated above, (2) lingering concern about a possible conspiracy as described by the NY Times; and (3) a more legitimate investigation by the time of the WC, perhaps with a predisposition toward the LN scenario. I don't think the situation is as black-and-white, good-vs.-evil as CTers would like to make it.
-
Another snip from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 408:
The process by which the commission put together its report provided one of the most convincing, although rarely explained, bases for the accuracy of its facts and the undeniable support for its conclusions. After four months of basic investigation by staff, the commission approved a proposed outline of the report at its April 30 meeting. From then through mid-September, the members received a steady flow of memos, reports, and drafts. The members consistently focused on how their conclusions on the seventy-two questions would be expressed and how the evidence to support them would be most effectively explained. Throughout the commission’s work, Warren and Rankin talked at least two or three times each week about the investigation, schedule of witnesses, interagency problems, and much more. As should be evident, there was no “rush to judgment” here. The commission supervised Rankin’s handling of the investigation on a regular basis and considered every part of the report carefully during the three months from mid-June to mid-September.
Again, if you want to know more details about the Warren Commission and how they functioned, read Willens’ book along with other books, and writings by people who were actually there and knew what went on during the investigation. Belin and Spector both have written excellent books that address these things.
-
No one is going to argue that Hoover was a saint. For purely personal reasons (i.e., LBJ was a friend and there would be no forced retirement, as well as his disdain for JFK and RFK), I'm sure he shed no tears after the assassination.
HOWEVER, it is entirely possible to put a different spin on your facts. Because of the state of relations with Russia and Cuba, and Oswald's obvious connections to both, the public leaping to a conclusion of conspiracy and demanding retribution (and the military being only too happy to provide it) was a very legitimate fear. It is not at all implausible that this was an immediate fear on the part of LBJ (as he said it was) and that he would convey this to Hoover (as he did). LBJ used this fear to convince Earl Warren to head the WC (and reportedly brought Warren to tears in so doing).
The Katzenbach memo and Hoover's statements just days after the assassination can be viewed in this non-conspiratorial light: It was important to convince the public that Oswald had acted alone to forestall any public outcry about a conspiracy - not to mention the fact that the evidence did tend to suggest he had, and he was dead anyway. Katzenbach specifically expressed concern in his memo because the public outcry was already starting. I tend to believe this is what the "wrap it up and convince the public stuff" was all about.
Are you aware that in documents released in 1977 Hoover (who died in 1972) was revealed to have expressed deep concern about a possible conspiracy. He didn't doubt the LN scenario as far as Dealey Plaza was concerned, but he was very concerned that Cuba was involved. The FBI had received letters - hoaxes, as Hoover suspected - pointing toward Cuban involvement. This NY Times article summarizes the documents: https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/08/archives/hoover-was-certain-oswald-was-killer-fbi-files-dont-dispute-finding.html.
I quote:
"Two weeks after John F, Kennedy's death, J. Edgar Hoover was convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President, but he wondered whether Oswald had had help from secret conspirators in Cuba, according to bureau files released today. The documents show that Mr. Hoover had concluded within hours of Kennedy's death that Oswald had fired the fatal bullets. But the agency later obtained letters written to Oswald from Cuba, and those messages raised the questions about conspiracy that linger to this day."
"Because of the letters and the difficulty in checking their validity, Mr. Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said, 'I urged strongly that we not reach the conclusion Oswald was the only man.'"
...
"But on Dec. 12, Mr. Hoover confided to his chief aides that he was troubled by the conspiracy questions and was unsure how to resolve them. Reporting on a conversation with a caller, he wrote: 'I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters ... written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship and stating when it was all over, he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief."
"Some of the F.B.I. memos suggest that Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, then the Deputy Attorney General, was putting pressure on the bureau for a prompt public announcement that Oswald, acting alone, was the assassin. Three days after the assassination, he wrote the bureau to express concern about the growing rumors of conspiracy and said that it was important to satisfy the public that Oswald was the assassin and that no conspirators were still at large."
I believe there was (1) an immediate "public face" that Oswald was the lone assassin for the reasons stated above, (2) lingering concern about a possible conspiracy as described by the NY Times; and (3) a more legitimate investigation by the time of the WC, perhaps with a predisposition toward the LN scenario. I don't think the situation is as black-and-white, good-vs.-evil as CTers would like to make it.
Yes, as an attorney I'm sure you know there are multiple ways to spin facts, as attorneys do every day.
While we're looking at motives and intent, consider this spin:
LBJ was a bully and loved his political power, and he knew that JFK and brother Bobby had solidified power in the White House, likely for years to come. His bullying, threats and characteristic intimidation are most likely what brought Warren to tears, if that happened.
Hoover was no saint as you say, and disliked JFK.
It is unwise to trust much of what either said in public or private.
A plot to kill JFK was hatched and masterminded by some powerful figures, most likely including Hoover.
Oswald was one of several potential patsy's on site in Dallas... perhaps even their number one pick. If they could just pin it on him alone, Kennedy's political power and their fear of being exposed for conspiring to kill our president, would go away.
The SPIN comes from Hoover and LBJ and Katzenbach and all who claim their "quick" and sorry "investigation," if you can even call it an investigation at all... was to avert a war with any other nation. Hogwash! They were trying to save themselves.
Suggesting that they had concern for US citizens calling for war and retribution, is simply a COVER, that a good attorney should easily point out.
As the 1976 Senate Committee states, Hoover was not concerned with the truth of the matter, or with national security, but with the reputation of his agency. SO, that is why he put pressure on his bureau to quickly pronounce Oswald guilty... and likely put pressure to see him eliminated. Dead men don't talk.
It's the players in Kennedy's murder who do all the spinning.
And, I would think most any attorney would easily dismantle Specter's single bullet theory... a specious argument designed, no doubt, to mislead and contain the assassination to one person, Oswald.
-
You actually cannot see that you are making no sense?
Alyea was a respected local photographer. He had utterly no agenda to lie about anything. He insists the lunch remains were, in fact, found on the 5th floor, which just happens to be where BRW first said he ate lunch. He suggests the officers' heard an erroneous newscast saying the 6th floor, put this in their reports, and then maintained the fiction. If true - and we'll never know, but Alyea was credible and adamant - your "facts" go poof. Moreover, as Bugliosi points out, the totality of the descriptions apart from Alyea do not place the remains where you would like them to be but rather where BRW subsequently said he left them.
In addition, as Bugliosi points out, the lunch remains, even if on the 6th floor, are of no clear significance. You are doing exactly what Bugliosi described - assigning significance to an inconsistency in the evidence while being unable to explain why it is significant. Contrary to your narrative, the WC did not ignore the inconsistency but attempted to resolve it and then left it in the record for all to see. The HSCA likewise failed to see the significance you now see. As a reasonably sane and rational individual, it is difficult for me even to hypothesize any particular significance. And yet, this nothingburger is your lead story for the WC being a sham!
I see from your posts that your involvement in the JFKA amounts to a few months. To borrow your pet term, are you "desperate" for attention, desperate to be a player in the Conspiracy Game? I have a difficult time believing, since I do see intelligence in your posts, that you actually cannot see the absurdity in ones like I have quoted here. "No bearing," "irrational," "desperate," "zero uncertainty," "fact" - come on, you know every one of these statements is false.
In what corner of the LN narrative does this silly issue fit? Wouldn't the WC and the LN community presumably have preferred a consistent narrative with the lunch remains either being found on the 5th floor or where BRW subsequently said, at some distance from the SN? Why would the "sham" WC not have simply cleaned up the issue instead of leaving it for all to see? Like so many CT efforts, yours just makes no sense at all, and you seemingly don't care.
With respect to the confusion over whether the chicken bones were discovered on the 5th or 6th floor, You have to consider that this confusion is due to the cattywampus layout of the TSBD. The general assumption is that when you walk UP those steps to enter the building, you are then on the 2nd Floor. That's WRONG. You are then on the 1st Floor. There is also a Basement within this building. The 1st Floor of the TSBD is technically Not at "ground level". The windows running along the TSBD exterior are also misleading. This is why there is sometimes confusion over a shooter firing from the 5th or 6th floor window. This is how Oswald managed to simply walk out of the building. Oswald Knew his way around that building/maze. I believe the strange construction of this building is why Law Enforcement did Not "secure" the TSBD for at least 2 hrs following the Kill Shot. The Dallas Police Dept had no idea regarding the nooks and crannies that ran throughout this building. Just look at the utter confusion of DPD Officer Baker when he entered the TSBD. He needed Roy Truly to take him by-the-hand and lead him to the freight elevator/stairway.
-
LBJ was a bully and loved his political power, and he knew that JFK and brother Bobby had solidified power in the White House, likely for years to come. His bullying, threats and characteristic intimidation are most likely what brought Warren to tears, if that happened.
Hoover was no saint as you say, and disliked JFK.
It is unwise to trust much of what either said in public or private.
A plot to kill JFK was hatched and masterminded by some powerful figures, most likely including Hoover.
I would simply say, bear in mind that anyone involved in the JFKA was risking certain EXECUTION. Do we really think the Vice President of the United States and the Director of the FBI were going to risk ending their 50-year careers that way?
Yes, I know all about compartmentalization, yada yada. The fact is, any "mastermind" was risking execution and putting his fate in the hands of some pretty low-level clucks who, at least according to most conspiracy theories, were world-class bunglers. Once any link in the chain failed, it was eventually going to lead to the top.
LBJ and Hoover? Possible, of course, but it seems extremely unlikely to me.
-
I would simply say, bear in mind that anyone involved in the JFKA was risking certain EXECUTION. Do we really think the Vice President of the United States and the Director of the FBI were going to risk ending their 50-year careers that way?
Yes, I know all about compartmentalization, yada yada. The fact is, any "mastermind" was risking execution and putting his fate in the hands of some pretty low-level clucks who, at least according to most conspiracy theories, were world-class bunglers. Once any link in the chain failed, it was eventually going to lead to the top.
LBJ and Hoover? Possible, of course, but it seems extremely unlikely to me.
Hoover was FBI Director for decades... he most likely had enough in his files to blackmail anyone... He wasn't scared of execution and that is ridiculous to suggest.
Hoover felt insulated, most likely... AND to boot... just pull it off, Hoover, and your good friend is now president, and in a position to pardon you of anything...
-
I would simply say, bear in mind that anyone involved in the JFKA was risking certain EXECUTION. Do we really think the Vice President of the United States and the Director of the FBI were going to risk ending their 50-year careers that way?
Yes, I know all about compartmentalization, yada yada. The fact is, any "mastermind" was risking execution and putting his fate in the hands of some pretty low-level clucks who, at least according to most conspiracy theories, were world-class bunglers. Once any link in the chain failed, it was eventually going to lead to the top.
LBJ and Hoover? Possible, of course, but it seems extremely unlikely to me.
If you're dealing with the CIA, you are Not dealing with "clucks". If you're dealing with the the Mafia/Trafficante (that level), you're Not dealing with "clucks". And by extension, THEY do Not deal with "clucks". Files would Not be anywhere close to "1st Call" when it comes to taking out a POTUS.
-
Hoover was FBI Director for decades... he most likely had enough in his files to blackmail anyone... He wasn't scared of execution and that is ridiculous to suggest.
Hoover felt insulated, most likely... AND to boot... just pull it off, Hoover, and your good friend is now president, and in a position to pardon you of anything...
Dang, why didn't I think of that? I'm really slipping. Yeah, Hoover had compromising photos and tapes of RFK with a hooker, so he could be confident the Attorney General of the United States and the entire Kennedy family would back off on any investigation of the assassination of their brother. Ditto for every career attorney and investigator with the USDOJ, FBI and umpteen other agencies - photos and tapes of the whole seedy bunch with hookers. Explains it's all, I'll have to admit.
-
Dang, why didn't I think of that? I'm really slipping. Yeah, Hoover had compromising photos and tapes of RFK with a hooker, so he could be confident the Attorney General of the United States and the entire Kennedy family would back off on any investigation of the assassination of their brother. Ditto for every career attorney and investigator with the USDOJ, FBI and umpteen other agencies - photos and tapes of the whole seedy bunch with hookers. Explains it's all, I'll have to admit.
This is sadly the case... :(
-
Dang, why didn't I think of that? I'm really slipping. Yeah, Hoover had compromising photos and tapes of RFK with a hooker, so he could be confident the Attorney General of the United States and the entire Kennedy family would back off on any investigation of the assassination of their brother. Ditto for every career attorney and investigator with the USDOJ, FBI and umpteen other agencies - photos and tapes of the whole seedy bunch with hookers. Explains it's all, I'll have to admit.
This is a summary from ChatGPT:
Yes, J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime director of the FBI, was known for collecting information on numerous public figures, including Robert F. Kennedy (RFK). Hoover kept extensive secret files on politicians, activists, and celebrities, which he sometimes used to maintain influence or control.
RFK and Hoover had a tense relationship. As Attorney General under his brother President John F. Kennedy, RFK tried to rein in Hoover’s unchecked power.... Hoover, in turn, was believed to have gathered compromising information on RFK and other Kennedy family members, though the extent of this material remains debated. Some claims are likely exaggerated, but Hoover’s surveillance and files were real.
-
You actually cannot see that you are making no sense?
Alyea was a respected local photographer. He had utterly no agenda to lie about anything. He insists the lunch remains were, in fact, found on the 5th floor, which just happens to be where BRW first said he ate lunch. He suggests the officers' heard an erroneous newscast saying the 6th floor, put this in their reports, and then maintained the fiction. If true - and we'll never know, but Alyea was credible and adamant - your "facts" go poof. Moreover, as Bugliosi points out, the totality of the descriptions apart from Alyea do not place the remains where you would like them to be but rather where BRW subsequently said he left them.
In addition, as Bugliosi points out, the lunch remains, even if on the 6th floor, are of no clear significance. You are doing exactly what Bugliosi described - assigning significance to an inconsistency in the evidence while being unable to explain why it is significant. Contrary to your narrative, the WC did not ignore the inconsistency but attempted to resolve it and then left it in the record for all to see. The HSCA likewise failed to see the significance you now see. As a reasonably sane and rational individual, it is difficult for me even to hypothesize any particular significance. And yet, this nothingburger is your lead story for the WC being a sham!
I have a difficult time believing, since I do see intelligence in your posts, that you actually cannot see the absurdity in ones like I have quoted here. "No bearing," "irrational," "desperate," "zero uncertainty," "fact" - come on, you know every one of these statements is false.
In what corner of the LN narrative does this silly issue fit? Wouldn't the WC and the LN community presumably have preferred a consistent narrative with the lunch remains either being found on the 5th floor or where BRW subsequently said, at some distance from the SN? Why would the "sham" WC not have simply cleaned up the issue instead of leaving it for all to see? Like so many CT efforts, yours just makes no sense at all, and you seemingly don't care.
Having to wade through your nonsense posts is starting to get a bit tedious, Lance.
I have to assume that you are a through-and-through Lone Nutter and in highlighting the disgraceful sham that was the Warren Commission, I'm attacking your 'scripture' which you will defend with any amount of irrational nonsense.
Where to start? ::)
"Alyea was a respected local photographer. He had utterly no agenda to lie about anything. He insists the lunch remains were, in fact, found on the 5th floor, which just happens to be where BRW first said he ate lunch. He suggests the officers' heard an erroneous newscast saying the 6th floor, put this in their reports, and then maintained the fiction. If true - and we'll never know, but Alyea was credible and adamant - your "facts" go poof."
This is the crux of your argument against the fact that six of the first officers on the scene described seeing lunch remains in the southeast corner of the 6th floor.
According to your embarrassing suggestion, all six officers heard an "erroneous newscast saying the 6th floor, put this in their reports".
Wow!
It is a FACT that all six officers describe features specific to the southeast corner of the 6th floor as the location of the lunch remains. The notion that they were all somehow individually fooled by an erroneous newscast is truly foolish and something you should retract. Just in case you genuinely don't understand this incredibly simple point let's take a section of the report of Luke Mooney written up the day after the assassination:
I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken. The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor,
Mooney discovers the Sniper's Nest. He is describing this moment in his report. He is describing what he sees - "an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books", "three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle", "a half-eaten piece of chicken" and "expended shells on the floor".
There is zero uncertainty as to the location Mooney (or any of the other officers) is describing - the Sniper's Nest in the southeast corner of the 6th floor.
Are you seriously suggesting that Mooney heard an erroneous newscast that made him believe he saw a half eaten piece of chicken on one of the Sniper's Nest boxes?
Did this fictional erroneous newscast mention a half eaten piece of chicken?
Is there any evidence of this fictional and completely bogus erroneous newscast? Of course there isn't.
Fact - all six officers describe lunch remains in the location of the Sniper's Nest.
Fact - this discovery was made before Fritz, Alyea or the crime lab officers were on the scene.
Fact - the discovery of these remains on the Sniper's Nest was completely ignored by the Warren Commission
Remember, this forum is a written record and once you've posted something it stays up for all to see.
Your suggestion - that all six officers independently heard the same erroneous newscast which tricked them into believing they were seeing lunch remains on top of the stacks of boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest - is as bad as any Tinfoil nonsense I've ever heard of.
Didn't you think this through?
Aren't you embarrassed for suggesting this.
Your desperation to try to make this testimony go away is making you post some real nonsense.
"You are doing exactly what Bugliosi described - assigning significance to an inconsistency in the evidence while being unable to explain why it is significant"
Nutters have a variety of strategies for dealing with issues that reveal the lie of their narrative, most just disappear for a while and come back spouting the same nonsense when the coast is clear. Those who stick around they rely on misrepresentation, willful ignorance, selective memory loss and outright lying.
The above quote come under "selective memory loss".
Here, Lance is accusing me of being unable to explain why this issue is significant.
He made the same accusation a few posts ago [REPLY#40] and it was answered in full [REPLY#54]
I have no doubt a few more posts will go by and he will make the same accusation again.
It's really tedious.
"Why would the "sham" WC not have simply cleaned up the issue instead of leaving it for all to see? "
How, exactly, would the WC have "cleaned up the issue"?
This just seems like another nonsensical comment, another meaningless contribution to the discussion.
Whatever the case, in a previous post I asked you this:
Why don't you give us an analysis of what the officers reported and why you think it doesn't matter
Rather than your meaningless posts why not go through the testimonies/statements of the officers in the OP.
Explain where the uncertainty is in the location these officers are describing.
Explain how Alyea's report of lunch remains on the 5th floor changes the testimonies/statements of these officers.
Explain why this evidence of someone other than Oswald being in the Sniper's Nest is irrelevant.
If the only argument you can offer is that Ayeas comments mean these officers didn't really see what they saw, then you should take a step back and maybe return to the thread when the topic has moved on.
-
Having to wade through your nonsense posts is starting to get a bit tedious, Lance.
I have to assume that you are a through-and-through Lone Nutter and in highlighting the disgraceful sham that was the Warren Commission, I'm attacking your 'scripture' which you will defend with any amount of irrational nonsense.
Where to start? ::)
"Alyea was a respected local photographer. He had utterly no agenda to lie about anything. He insists the lunch remains were, in fact, found on the 5th floor, which just happens to be where BRW first said he ate lunch. He suggests the officers' heard an erroneous newscast saying the 6th floor, put this in their reports, and then maintained the fiction. If true - and we'll never know, but Alyea was credible and adamant - your "facts" go poof."
This is the crux of your argument against the fact that six of the first officers on the scene described seeing lunch remains in the southeast corner of the 6th floor.
According to your embarrassing suggestion, all six officers heard an "erroneous newscast saying the 6th floor, put this in their reports".
Wow!
It is a FACT that all six officers describe features specific to the southeast corner of the 6th floor as the location of the lunch remains. The notion that they were all somehow individually fooled by an erroneous newscast is truly foolish and something you should retract. Just in case you genuinely don't understand this incredibly simple point let's take a section of the report of Luke Mooney written up the day after the assassination:
I then went on back to the 6th floor and went direct to the far corner and then discovered a cubby hole which had been constructed out of cartons which protected it from sight and found where someone had been in an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books. Inside this cubby hole affair was three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle. On one of these cartons was a half-eaten piece of chicken. The minute that I saw the expended shells on the floor,
Mooney discovers the Sniper's Nest. He is describing this moment in his report. He is describing what he sees - "an area of perhaps 2 feet surrounded by cardboard cartons of books", "three more boxes so arranged as to provide what appeared to be a rest for a rifle", "a half-eaten piece of chicken" and "expended shells on the floor".
There is zero uncertainty as to the location Mooney (or any of the other officers) is describing - the Sniper's Nest in the southeast corner of the 6th floor.
Are you seriously suggesting that Mooney heard an erroneous newscast that made him believe he saw a half eaten piece of chicken on one of the Sniper's Nest boxes?
Did this fictional erroneous newscast mention a half eaten piece of chicken?
Is there any evidence of this fictional and completely bogus erroneous newscast? Of course there isn't.
Fact - all six officers describe lunch remains in the location of the Sniper's Nest.
Fact - this discovery was made before Fritz, Alyea or the crime lab officers were on the scene.
Fact - the discovery of these remains on the Sniper's Nest was completely ignored by the Warren Commission
Remember, this forum is a written record and once you've posted something it stays up for all to see.
Your suggestion - that all six officers independently heard the same erroneous newscast which tricked them into believing they were seeing lunch remains on top of the stacks of boxes that formed the Sniper's Nest - is as bad as any Tinfoil nonsense I've ever heard of.
Didn't you think this through?
Aren't you embarrassed for suggesting this.
Your desperation to try to make this testimony go away is making you post some real nonsense.
"You are doing exactly what Bugliosi described - assigning significance to an inconsistency in the evidence while being unable to explain why it is significant"
Nutters have a variety of strategies for dealing with issues that reveal the lie of their narrative, most just disappear for a while and come back spouting the same nonsense when the coast is clear. Those who stick around they rely on misrepresentation, willful ignorance, selective memory loss and outright lying.
The above quote come under "selective memory loss".
Here, Lance is accusing me of being unable to explain why this issue is significant.
He made the same accusation a few posts ago [REPLY#40] and it was answered in full [REPLY#54]
I have no doubt a few more posts will go by and he will make the same accusation again.
It's really tedious.
"Why would the "sham" WC not have simply cleaned up the issue instead of leaving it for all to see? "
How, exactly, would the WC have "cleaned up the issue"?
This just seems like another nonsensical comment, another meaningless contribution to the discussion.
Whatever the case, in a previous post I asked you this:
Why don't you give us an analysis of what the officers reported and why you think it doesn't matter
Rather than your meaningless posts why not go through the testimonies/statements of the officers in the OP.
Explain where the uncertainty is in the location these officers are describing.
Explain how Alyea's report of lunch remains on the 5th floor changes the testimonies/statements of these officers.
Explain why this evidence of someone other than Oswald being in the Sniper's Nest is irrelevant.
If the only argument you can offer is that Alyeas comments mean these officers didn't really see what they saw, then you should take a step back and maybe return to the thread when the topic has moved on.
How many bad guys and bad gals do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up, O'meara?
Oodles and gobs?
-
How many bad guys and bad gals do you figure were involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting, and the all-important cover up, O'meara?
Oodles and gobs?
Two for the planning, patsy-ing and shooting.
A patsy called Oswald.
No cover up, just massive incompetence and an overwhelming certainty that Oswald was their man from the moment he was arrested. The DPD seemed absolutely convinced Oswald was a lone assassin from the get go. Hoover determined Oswald was the lone assassin less than 48 hours after the assassination. Nearly all investigating went down this trail.
The Warren Commission rubber stamped the FBI's pre-determined conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin.
-
Two [bad guys or bad gals were needed] for the planning, the patsy-ing, and the shooting.
A patsy called Oswald.
No cover up, just massive incompetence and an overwhelming certainty that Oswald was their man from the moment he was arrested. The DPD seemed absolutely convinced Oswald was a lone assassin from the get go. Hoover determined Oswald was the lone assassin less than 48 hours after the assassination. Nearly all investigating went down this trail.
The Warren Commission rubber stamped the FBI's pre-determined conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin.
Do you think the evil, evil CIA tricked Oswald into killing JFK after it found out that the motorcade would be passing by the TSBD?
If not, which bad guy or bad gal either got LHO the job in the TSBD or arranged for the motorcade to pass by it?
How many shots, if any, were fired from the 6th-floor "Sniper's Nest"?
If any, did the bad guy or bad gal who fired it (or fired them) work in the TSBD? If not, how and when did they get into the TSBD?
If any shots were fired from the sixth-floor "Sniper's Nest," was it / were they fired from the Carcano short-rifle that was found on the sixth floor?
Was the Carcano short-rifle that was found on the sixth floor Oswald's?
If not, who made it look as though it was his, and who placed his prints and fibers similar to those comprising the blanket in Mrs. Paine's garage on it?
Did CE-399 wound JFK and/or JBC?
If so, do you think CE-399 wounded both JFK and JBC the way "The Single Bullet Hypothesis" says it did?
If not, how and why did the bad guys and/or bad gals deform CE-399 the way they did?
If at least one of the shots was fired from some place other than the sixth-floor "Sniper's Nest," where was it / were they fired from?
Did any of them hit JFB or JBC?
Regardless, why were only JFK and JBC wounded, and why was the only damage to the limo that which was sustained by the chrome strip in the front and the windshield (which had lost a chunk of glass from its outer layer and had a residue of lead on its inside surface)?
I could go on and on . . .
-
Do you think the evil, evil CIA tricked Oswald into killing JFK after it found out that the motorcade would be passing by the TSBD?
No
If not, which bad guy or bad gal either got LHO the job in the TSBD or arranged for the motorcade to pass by it?
Any motorcade going from Love Field to the Trade Mart goes past the Depository building.
The '60 Kennedy motorcade passed directly in front of the TSBD building.
How many shots, if any, were fired from the 6th-floor "Sniper's Nest"?
I think three but Jack Nessan makes a good argument for two.
If any, did the bad guy or bad gal who fired it (or fired them) work in the TSBD? If not, how and when did they get into the TSBD?
In keeping my conspiracy theory as simple as possible I believe the assassination was 'in-house' and that the shooter was an employee of the TSBD.
If any shots were fired from the sixth-floor "Sniper's Nest," was it / were they fired from the Carcano short-rifle that was found on the sixth floor?
I believe so although I'm not certain.
Every single piece of useful ballistics evidence was tampered with in some way.
Is that suspicious or just massive incompetence, it's hard to say.
Was the Carcano short-rifle that was found on the sixth floor Oswald's?
I accept that it was.
I'm not sure I see the point of trying to frame Oswald with someone else's rifle.
If not, who made it look as though it was his, and who placed his prints and fibers similar to those comprising the blanket in Mrs. Paine's garage on it?
Doesn't require an answer as I believe it was his rifle.
Did CE-399 wound JFK and/or JBC?
Not a chance.
The admission of CE399 into evidence is one of the more disgraceful episodes in the Warren Commission sham
If so, do you think CE-399 wounded both JFK and JBC the way "The Single Bullet Hypothesis" says it did?
I am totally convinced by the evidence that both JFK and JBC were simultaneously shot through by the same bullet.
There is not a chance that this bullet was CE399
If not, how and why did the bad guys and/or bad gals deform CE-399 the way they did?
You deform a bullet by firing it into something.
Test firing into goats ribs deformed the bullet in a similar way to CE399
However, firing a bullet into wrist bone smashed the bullet up in a way that CE399 most certainly was not.
If at least one of the shots was fired from some place other than the sixth-floor "Sniper's Nest," where was it / were they fired from?
I don't believe shots were fired from anywhere other than the Sniper's Nest.
Did any of them hit JFB or JBC?
Doesn't require an answer as I don't believe shots were fired from elsewhere.
Regardless, why were only JFK and JBC wounded, and why was the only damage to the limo that which was sustained by the chrome strip in the front and the windshield (which had lost a chunk of glass from its outer layer and had a residue of lead on its inside surface)?
JFK and JBC were shot through by the first bullet. This bullet fragmented upon striking JBC's wristbone.
The second bullet was the headshot. This bullet also fragmented. Some of these fragments struck the windshield and chrome trim causing Greer and Kellerman to duck from the "flurry" of shots.
I believe the third shot was pulled high, hit a concrete manhole cover and fragmented, part of this went on to injure Tague.
I could go on and on . . .
Please do, I'm just getting started.
-
1) Who brought Oswald's short-rifle into the TSBD and put it on the sixth floor?
2) What "tampered" ballistics evidence prevents you from believing the bullets were fired from it?
3) Where do you believe CE-399 was found -- in the limo or in Parkland Hospital?
4) How did CE-399 end up with no damage to its nose?
-
1) Who brought Oswald's short-rifle into the TSBD and put it on the sixth floor?
I know nothing about rifles but I am a bit confused about why you keep calling it a "short-rifle". As I understand it, Oswald ordered and paid for a 36" rifle but the rifle found on the 6th floor was a 40" rifle. Would they both be referred to as short-rifles?
There are a multitude of details about this case that trouble me and one is Oswald supposedly disassembling his rifle before bringing it to work. I never understood that. Even disassembled this rifle was 36" which was the same length as the rifle he originally ordered so it's not like he was bringing a package to work that wasn't the length of a rifle. And why did he feel the need to make a special case for it when he already had one at home? And when did he make this paper case? Because of the tape used he would have had to have made it at the wrapping table. When did that happen? Why would he think to do that? Troy West hardly ever left his position at the wrapping table, even during lunch. And why did Frazier and his sister constantly insist the package Oswald carried was so short it couldn't possibly have carried a rifle, disassembled or not. They were hardly more than kids being threatened by the DPD, why not just say it was a few inches longer?
Fortunately, because I don't believe Oswald took the shots and was an unwitting participant in the assassination, I don't have to bother with any of this.
The ideal situation would be to have a conspirator who arrived at the TSBD before anyone else did and had the place to himself. He could place a fully assembled rifle wherever he wanted. What we do know is that Oswald didn't assemble the rifle as he hid in the southeast corner of the 6th floor after the floor-laying crew had gone down to lunch.
2) What "tampered" ballistics evidence prevents you from believing the bullets were fired from it?
Apart from a couple of small pieces removed from JFK's head and some tiny fragments found in the limo ALL the ballistic evidence is highly dubious in terms of how it was handled.
3) Where do you believe CE-399 was found -- in the limo or in Parkland Hospital?
Neither.
4) How did CE-399 end up with no damage to its nose?
It never struck JBC's wrist bone.
-
The ideal situation would be to have a conspirator arrive at the TSBD before anyone else did and have the place to himself.
A conspirator with Oswald's short-rifle?
Apart from a couple of small pieces removed from JFK's head and some tiny fragments found in the limo, ALL of the ballistic evidence is highly dubious in terms of how it was handled.
How were the large bullet fragments that were found inside the limo and matched to Oswald's short-rifle mishandled?
I believe CE-399 was found neither in the limo nor in Parkland Hospital. (paraphrased)
How did a bad guy or bad gal get it admitted into evidence?
CE-399 never struck JBC's wrist bone.
How, specifically, did your two conspirators damage CE-399, and why did they deform it so strangely?
-
A conspirator with Oswald's short-rifle?
Maybe.
It saves on all the disassembled rifle shtick.
Why might a conspirator have Oswald's rifle? Because he was fooled into handing it over or he was ordered to hand it over or he handed it over willingly or....
How were the large bullet fragments that were found inside the limo and matched to Oswald's short-rifle mishandled?
They weren't found as part of an investigation.
An unnamed Secret Service agent handed them over to Deputy Chief Paul Paterni who handed them to Orrin Bartlett of the FBI.
Apparently.
How did a bad guy or bad gal get it admitted into evidence?
By handing it over to the FBI
How, specifically, did your two conspirators create the damage to CE-399, and why did they deform it so strangely?
??
The two conspirators had nothing to do with CE399 or any damage to it.
Darell Tomlinson found a bullet in Parkland. He handed this bullet to O P Wright.
The bullet Wright received was a "hunting slug" with a pointed tip. It was not CE399, Wright is adamant about that.
Wright handed this pointed bullet to SSA Johnsen, who then handed it to Chief Rowley.
All four of these men refused to identify CE399 as the bullet they handled that day.
Wright and Johnsen were not asked to testify by the WC.
Rowley testified but was never asked about the bullet.
Unbelievably, Darrell Tomlinson, the man who discovered the bullet, testified and was not asked a single question about the bullet!!
Let that sink in. He wasn't given the bullet to identify, or shown a picture of it or even asked to just describe it. What a joke.
As part of the Sham, CE399 was entered into evidence "subject to further proof". This proof never materialized and was never going to materialize.
Nobody ever vouched for CE399 as the bullet found in Parkland.
Wright categorically denied that CE399 was the bullet.
CE399 magically appears in the chain of custody when Elmer Todd hands it over to Robert Frazier.
-
Why might a conspirator have Oswald's rifle? Because he was fooled into handing it over, or he was ordered to hand it over, or he handed it over willingly, or ...
Oswald may have been fooled by whom into handing his short-rifle over to them? -- By one of your two conspirators? Can you imagine a plausible scenario in which that occurred?
Handed it over when? That morning?
Oswald may have been ordered to hand his short-rifle over to them? By one of your two conspirators that morning?
Oswald may have handed his short-rifle over willingly to one of your two conspirators? Does that sound like something Oswald would do?
The large bullet fragments weren't found as part of an investigation.
What's your definition of "investigation"?
An unnamed Secret Service agent handed them over to Deputy Chief Paul Paterni who handed them to Orrin Bartlett of the FBI.
If they lied, doesn't that make them conspirators?
By handing it over to the FBI.
Do you think the FBI conspired in the "patsy-ing," the shooting, or the cover up?
The two conspirators had nothing to do with CE399 or any damage to it.
If your two conspirators had nothing to do with CE-399, who created it, how did they create it with such unusual damage (none to the nose, but flattened in the rear and lead core extruded out its base), and who "planted" it?
-
I know nothing about rifles but I am a bit confused about why you keep calling it a "short-rifle". As I understand it, Oswald ordered and paid for a 36" rifle but the rifle found on the 6th floor was a 40" rifle. Would they both be referred to as short-rifles,
[Clipped the remainder]
Tom wasn't asking you to do so, but you never flesh out your conspiracy theory sufficiently to expose how complex, unlikely and silly it is. Sure, LBJ and Byrd hatched the plot, Byrd recruited Cason without telling him of LBJ's involvement, Cason recruited Shelley without telling him of LBJ's or Byrd's involvement, Shelley recruited a TSBD employee without telling him of LBJ's, Byrd's or Cason's involvement, and poor Oswald thought it was just another day at work. Simple, uncomplicated, no problem.
We'll start at the bottom: "An employee" of the TSBD does the shooting. This employee, according to what you have suggested, is recruited by Bill Shelley. Is any known employee of the TSBD a plausible recruit? Who? On what basis? How is this employee convinced by Bill Shelley to shoot the President of the United States? What is offered to this employee for these remarkable services? Is there any evidence that this employee subsequently came into great wealth or otherwise benefitted to an extent commensurate with the unbelievable risks he took? Did this employee die a mysterious death almost immediately after the assassination or was he allowed to walk around as a ticking time bomb for years?
Who had control of Oswald while the gunman employee was doing the shooting? It obviously wasn't Shelley. Was there no control of Oswald at all - what sense would that make? How did Oswald manage to walk out of the building? Why did he walk out of the building, go home and get his pistol and all the rest? Why didn't he cooperate with the authorities once he was in custody?
How did Oswald's rifle get into the building? Did Shelley sneak into Ruth Paine's garage? Was it just pure happenstance that Oswald picked the night before the assassination to go to Ruth's for curtain rods, left the light on in the garage, and left Marina with a large amount of cash and his wedding ring?
Shelley, we are told, was recruited by TSBD President Jack Cason. How and why? What would have made Shelley amenable to participating in a plot to assassinate the President of the United States? He spent his entire working life, 40 years, at the TSBD - is there any evidence he subsequently came into great wealth or otherwise benefitted to an extent commensurate with the unbelievable risks he took? He lived until 1996 - no one had any concern he might crack?
If Shelley recruited the assassin and presumably made at least minimal arrangements for the control of Oswald, how do we explain his actions during the motorcade and after the shots were fired? He just stood on the TSBD steps, walked down toward the railroad tracks with Lovelady, etc. - really? He offered nothing incriminating about his chosen patsy, no ironclad alibi for the gunman he had recruited - really? He wasn't even bright enough to clean up those incriminating chicken bones in the sniper's nest (BWAHAHA).
Cason was home eating lunch when the assassination happened. What would have made Byrd think Cason would be amenable to participating in a plot to assassinate the POTUS? What did the wealthy Byrd promise Cason? Is there any evidence Cason came into great wealth or otherwise benefitted from the unbelievable risks he took? Why would Cason have thought of recruiting Shelley and why would he have trusted him? He lived until 1985 - no one had any concern he might crack?
Cason was recruited by the very wealthy David Harold Byrd. Why would Byrd have entrusted Cason with a plot that would get them both executed if discovered? Why would Byrd have trusted Cason to recruit Shelley and Shelley to recruit some TSBD employee?
Byrd, you say, either hatched the plot and sold it to LBJ or vice versa. How would this have worked? LBJ was going to trust his life to Byrd, Cason, Shelley and some TSBD employee - really? You can talk about "compartmentalization" all you want, but if this went wrong at the Shelley or gunman level everyone was going to fry. What story could the gunman have told that wouldn't implicate Shelley - and who could be confident he wouldn't implicate Shelley? What story could Shelley have told that wouldn't implicate Cason - and who could be confident he wouldn't implicate Cason? Likewise Cason with Byrd, and Byrd with LBJ?
Oh, yes, I know - Shelley was "ex-CIA," Cason was active with the American Legion, blah blah blah. It's all "Six Degrees of Separation from Kevin Bacon" sort of nonsense and doesn't begin to explain the five participants' mutual participation in a plot to kill the President of the United States.
And BTW, what was the necessity of all the post-assassination shenanigans you posit? Why did the WC need to be a sham? You appear to me to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth, or perhaps you aren't convinced by your own "simple and uncomplicated" theory?
Your theory, in my humble opinion, is completely irrational. I'm done with you, but Tom might be fascinated by your explanation as to how your theory makes any sense at all.
-
Oswald may have been fooled by whom into handing his short-rifle over to them? -- By one of your two conspirators? Can you imagine a plausible scenario in which that occurred?
Handed it over when? That morning?
Oswald may have been ordered to hand his short-rifle over to them? By one of your two conspirators that morning?
Oswald may have handed his short-rifle over willingly to one of your two conspirators? Does that sound like something Oswald would do?
The point I'm making is that because there is a conspiracy Oswald is not bound to bring his rifle in on the morning of the assassination as he is in your theory.
There is no need for him to unnecessarily disassemble the rifle (something that anyone who knew anything about rifles would avoid at all costs).
Your own theory is full of holes and conjecture surrounding these points - when did Oswald assemble the rifle? When did he make the long paper sack? Why did he disassemble the rifle?
All JFKA theories are full of conjecture and speculation and yours is no different.
For aspects of the case for which there is no evidence there can only be speculation.
Oswald believed he was involved in something really serious, his actions before and after the assassination reveal that, but I don't believe he knew it was the assassination of JFK not when there were targets like LBJ or John Connally in the motorcade.
What's your definition of "investigation"?
The forensic examination and recording of a crime scene including the recorded collection of any relevant evidence.
What do you think I mean?
What's your definition of an "investigation"?
The point is there was no initial forensic examination of the limo which was part of the crime scene.
Are you satisfied with the explanation that an unnamed Secret Service agent handed over two fragments to the Deputy Chief?
If they lied, doesn't that make them conspirators?
Not necessarily.
Do you think the FBI conspired in the "patsy-ing," the shooting, or the cover up?
They didn't conspire in the patsy-ing or shooting.
As for a cover up...it's actually a difficult question to answer.
If Hoover insisted that the evidence had to show that Oswald was the lone assassin are they covering up or just following orders.
If your two conspirators had nothing to do with CE-399, who created it, how did they create it with such unusual damage (none to the nose, but flattened in the rear and lead core extruded out its base), and who "planted" it?
It wasn't planted.
It miraculously appeared in the chain of custody as if out of thin air. Don't you think that's unusual?
Don't you think it's unusual that Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley all refused to ID CE399 as the bullet they handled that day?
Or that none of them were brought before the WC to identify it?
Or that it was entered into evidence without any vouching that it was the bullet found at Parkland?
Or that Wright categorically denied CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland.
During ballistic testing, bullets were fired into goat ribs and created very similar damage to that seen on CE399.
Who created CE399? You would have to ask Elmer Todd as he seems to be the person who first handled CE399.
-
Tom wasn't asking you to do so, but you never flesh out your conspiracy theory sufficiently to expose how complex, unlikely and silly it is. Sure, LBJ and Byrd hatched the plot, Byrd recruited Cason without telling him of LBJ's involvement, Cason recruited Shelley without telling him of LBJ's or Byrd's involvement, Shelley recruited a TSBD employee without telling him of LBJ's, Byrd's or Cason's involvement, and poor Oswald thought it was just another day at work. Simple, uncomplicated, no problem.
We'll start at the bottom: "An employee" of the TSBD does the shooting. This employee, according to what you have suggested, is recruited by Bill Shelley. Is any known employee of the TSBD a plausible recruit? Who? On what basis? How is this employee convinced by Bill Shelley to shoot the President of the United States? What is offered to this employee for these remarkable services? Is there any evidence that this employee subsequently came into great wealth or otherwise benefitted to an extent commensurate with the unbelievable risks he took? Did this employee die a mysterious death almost immediately after the assassination or was he allowed to walk around as a ticking time bomb for years?
Who had control of Oswald while the gunman employee was doing the shooting? It obviously wasn't Shelley. Was there no control of Oswald at all - what sense would that make? How did Oswald manage to walk out of the building? Why did he walk out of the building, go home and get his pistol and all the rest? Why didn't he cooperate with the authorities once he was in custody?
How did Oswald's rifle get into the building? Did Shelley sneak into Ruth Paine's garage? Was it just pure happenstance that Oswald picked the night before the assassination to go to Ruth's for curtain rods, left the light on in the garage, and left Marina with a large amount of cash and his wedding ring?
Shelley, we are told, was recruited by TSBD President Jack Cason. How and why? What would have made Shelley amenable to participating in a plot to assassinate the President of the United States? He spent his entire working life, 40 years, at the TSBD - is there any evidence he subsequently came into great wealth or otherwise benefitted to an extent commensurate with the unbelievable risks he took? He lived until 1996 - no one had any concern he might crack?
If Shelley recruited the assassin and presumably made at least minimal arrangements for the control of Oswald, how do we explain his actions during the motorcade and after the shots were fired? He just stood on the TSBD steps, walked down toward the railroad tracks with Lovelady, etc. - really? He offered nothing incriminating about his chosen patsy, no ironclad alibi for the gunman he had recruited - really? He wasn't even bright enough to clean up those incriminating chicken bones in the sniper's nest (BWAHAHA).
Cason was home eating lunch when the assassination happened. What would have made Byrd think Cason would be amenable to participating in a plot to assassinate the POTUS? What did the wealthy Byrd promise Cason? Is there any evidence Cason came into great wealth or otherwise benefitted from the unbelievable risks he took? Why would Cason have thought of recruiting Shelley and why would he have trusted him? He lived until 1985 - no one had any concern he might crack?
Cason was recruited by the very wealthy David Harold Byrd. Why would Byrd have entrusted Cason with a plot that would get them both executed if discovered? Why would Byrd have trusted Cason to recruit Shelley and Shelley to recruit some TSBD employee?
Byrd, you say, either hatched the plot and sold it to LBJ or vice versa. How would this have worked? LBJ was going to trust his life to Byrd, Cason, Shelley and some TSBD employee - really? You can talk about "compartmentalization" all you want, but if this went wrong at the Shelley or gunman level everyone was going to fry. What story could the gunman have told that wouldn't implicate Shelley - and who could be confident he wouldn't implicate Shelley? What story could Shelley have told that wouldn't implicate Cason - and who could be confident he wouldn't implicate Cason? Likewise Cason with Byrd, and Byrd with LBJ?
Oh, yes, I know - Shelley was "ex-CIA," Cason was active with the American Legion, blah blah blah. It's all "Six Degrees of Separation from Kevin Bacon" sort of nonsense and doesn't begin to explain the five participants' mutual participation in a plot to kill the President of the United States.
And BTW, what was the necessity of all the post-assassination shenanigans you posit? Why did the WC need to be a sham? You appear to me to be arguing out of both sides of your mouth, or perhaps you aren't convinced by your own "simple and uncomplicated" theory?
Your theory, in my humble opinion, is completely irrational. I'm done with you, but Tom might be fascinated by your explanation as to how your theory makes any sense at all.
"...and poor Oswald thought it was just another day at work"
Start off with lies and misrepresentation and build your case from there.
You seem upset, Lance.
Did I upset you buddy?
-
In my theory, Oswald is not bound to bring his rifle in on the morning of the assassination as he is in your theory. (paraphrased)
Do you think he brought it in some other morning?
Oswald believed he was involved in something really serious; his actions before and after the assassination reveal that, but I don't believe he knew it was the assassination of JFK -- not when there were targets like LBJ or John Connally in the motorcade.
Do you think he brought it in so another person who worked in the TSBD could shoot Connally or Johnson, maybe even for him?
Are you satisfied with the explanation that an unnamed Secret Service agent handed over two fragments to the Deputy Chief?
Yes.
Why aren't you?
CE-399 wasn't planted. It miraculously appeared in the chain of custody as if out of thin air.
In other words, just like the largish bullet fragments, it was planted.
Since you believe there were only two conspirators, the planting must have been done by one of them, right?
During ballistic testing, bullets were fired into goat ribs and created very similar damage to that seen on CE399.
Were the test bullets flattened on one side towards the rear?
You would have to ask Elmer Todd as he seems to be the person who first handled CE399.
Did he say that he was the first person to handle it?
-
Do you think he brought it in some other morning?
Do you think he brought it in so another person who worked in the TSBD could shoot Connally or Johnson for him?
Yes.
Why aren't you?
In other words, it was planted.
Since you believe there were only two conspirators, it must have been done by one of them, right?
Were the test bullets flattened on one side towards the rear?
Did he say that he was the first person to handle it?
This is going nowhere, which is a pity.
Time to get back to the thread:
“Though the fingerprints other than Oswald's on the boxes thus provide no indication of the presence of an accomplice at the window, two Depository employees are known to have been present briefly on the sixth floor during the period between 11:45 a.m., when the floor-laying crew stopped for lunch, and the moment of the assassination. One of these was Charles Givens, a member of the floor-laying crew, who went down on the elevator with the others and then, returned to the sixth floor to get his jacket and cigarettes. He saw Oswald walking away from the southeast corner, but saw no one else on the sixth floor at that time. He then took one of the elevators back to the first floor at approximately 11:55 a.m.”
[Warren Commission Report pg 249, 250]
The discovery of the lunch remains on the SN was simply ignored by the Warren Commission in it's report because it undermined the Oswald-Did-It [ODI] narrative they were trying to sell.
Ignoring evidence is one thing but fabricating evidence is another thing entirely. This is what happened with Charles Givens and his tale about returning to the 6th floor.
Charles Givens never returned to the 6th floor for his jacket and cigarettes. He wasn't even wearing a jacket that day:
Mr. BELIN.
Did you wear a jacket to work that day?
Mr. GIVENS.
I wore a raincoat, I believe. It was misting that morning.
Mr. BELIN.
Did you hang up your coat in that room [Domino Room], too?
Mr. GIVENS.
Yes, sir.
Givens never went back up to the 6th floor and he never saw Oswald “walking away from the southeast corner”. Givens had been questioned in detail many times before without mentioning anything about going back up to the 6th floor, let alone seeing Oswald walking away from the southeast corner. This brand new addition to his story should have come as an immense surprise to Warren Commission counsel David Belin, the lawyer interviewing Givens, instead it was treated as gospel and the fact that Givens had failed to mention it in many previous statements was simply overlooked.
This incredibly suspicious addition to Givens' story is dealt with in detail by Sylvia Meagher (“Accessories After the Fact” and “The Curious Testimony of Mr Givens”) and, in particular, by Pat Speer on his website (in the chapter entitled “Pinning The Tail On Oswald”). [https://www.patspeer.com/chapter4-pinning-the-tale-on-the-oswald]
“In February 2012, I stumbled across the FBI's first teletype regarding Givens. (This teletype can be found in FBI file 62-109060 sec 9 p54 on the Mary Ferrell Foundation website.) Here, only hours after he'd been interviewed, it was claimed "Charles Douglas Givens, Employee, TSBD, worked on sixth floor until about eleven thirty A.M. Left at this time going down on elevator. Saw Oswald on fifth floor as left going down. Oswald told him to close the gates when he got to first floor so Oswald could signal for elevator later. Givens stayed on first floor until twelve o'clock and then walked out of the building to watch the parade pass. Oswald was reading paper in the first floor domino room seven-fifty A.M. November twenty two last when Givens came to work."
Speer's in-depth analysis of this issue leaves no doubt that Givens lied about returning to the 6th floor and that Warren Commission counsel David Belin was instrumental in constructing this fabrication. The whole point of this was so that the Commission could conclude the following:
Additional testimony linking Oswald with the point from which the shots were fired was provided by the testimony of Charles Givens, who was the last known employee to see Oswald inside the building prior to the assassination.
The truth is that Givens was not the last employee to see Oswald inside the building. That was Eddie Piper:
Mr. BALL.
Did you leave the first floor from then on until lunch time, from 11:30 until 12?
Mr. PIPER.
No.
Mr. BALL.
What time was it that you spoke to Oswald and said you thought you would have your lunch?
Mr. PIPER.
Just about 12 o'clock.
Mr. BALL.
And do you remember exactly what he said?
Mr. PIPER.
No, sir; I don't remember exactly. All I remember him was muttering out something---I didn't know whether he said he was going up or going out.
This was a real problem for the WC's ODI narrative. They needed a window of opportunity for Oswald to assemble his rifle and prepare the SN. The only available window was in between the time the floor-laying crew broke for lunch and Bonnie Ray arriving back on the 6th floor. The very last thing they needed was for Oswald to go down to the first floor at lunch time but this is exactly what he did.
The collective testimonies and statements of the floor-laying crew reveal that around 11:45 am they broke for lunch. Everyday they had been having a race down to the first floor in the elevators. As they were passing the 5th floor Oswald called out to Givens to let him on the elevator but, presumably because he was involved in the race, Givens refused. Oswald called after them to close the gate on the elevator so he could call it back up.
Far from hiding in the shadows, biding his time, Oswald was looking to come down to the first floor.
Piper's testimony confirms he did that.
At around 12:00 pm Oswald was on the first floor and Bonnie Ray was on his way up to the 6th floor (presumably to have his lunch in the Sniper's Nest!)
This narrative had to be changed so in stepped Givens with his obvious fabrication and out went Piper's testimony. The pattern of 'ignored testimony' features heavily with the WC.
The WC could now claim that the last employee to see Oswald saw him on the 6th floor somewhere near the southeast corner. Oswald could now assemble his rifle, prepare the SN and silently hide for almost half an hour while Bonnie Ray had his lunch (sat right next to him?).
Anyone genuinely interested in this should check out the work of Meagher and Speer.
-
This is going nowhere, which is a pity.
In other words, it's getting difficult for you, and you're "bailing."
Which I totally understand.
-
In other words, it's getting difficult for you, and you're "bailing."
Which I totally understand.
It's getting banal and boring.
Redundant questions going nowhere.
It's getting off topic and it's not worth it.
-
It's getting banal and boring.
But you're "sticking to your guns" in saying there were only two conspirators (and Oswald wasn't one of them), right?
If so, could you please tell us specifically what these two people did?
Thanks!
PS Which one fired CE-399 through a pig carcass?
-
But you're "sticking to your guns" in saying there were only two conspirators (and Oswald wasn't one of them), right?
If so, could you please tell us specifically what these two people did?
Thanks!
PS Which one fired CE-399 through a pig carcass?
Your not de-railing this thread.
I'll start another and you can ask your silly questions there but on a quid pro quo basis.
-
Where is the WC testimony of Dorothy Garner?
Where is the WC testimony of Sandra Stiles?
Why did FBI agent Odum deny having ever made a report that CE399 was verified?
Why was not a forensic autopsy expert selected to do the autopsy of JFK?
Bullet fragments said to be found in the limo, ( 3 under the seat of Mrs Connally) why were they not photographed in the position they were said to be in, under that seat?
Why was the limo windshield and the limo itself not kept as evidence?
Why was the paraffin test of Oswald’s cheeks negative, when an experiment with 7 persons who fire a rifle show all 7 test positive?
Why was it impossible to have a tape recording of Oswald’s interrogations and have an attorney present as well?
How could Oswalds blue jacket have been found in TSBD when Whaley the taxi driver said Oswald was wearing that jacket?
Why was Earlene Roberts not able to confirm Oswald was wearing the light gray jacket when he left the boarding house?
Why was no gunpowder residue found on the jacket, shirt sleeves or T shirt of Oswald?
Was there ever a report of gunpowder residue found in the breech, chamber or rifle grooves of the barrel of the MC rifle found on the 6th floor TSBD?
Are any of these questions relevant? 😳
-
Why did FBI agent Odum deny having ever made a report that CE399 was verified?
Question: How old was Odum in 2002 when he allegedly said that to Gary "Rudeness" Aguilar?
Answer: Eighty-two
-
Dan O'meara said:
I am totally convinced by the evidence that both JFK and JBC were simultaneously shot through by the same bullet.
There is not a chance that this bullet was CE-399
My comment:
Neutron activation analysis expert witness Vincent P. Guinn told the HSCA that the injures to Connally's wrist were very probably caused by CE-399
-
Where is the WC testimony of Dorothy Garner?
Where is the WC testimony of Sandra Stiles?
Why did FBI agent Odum deny having ever made a report that CE399 was verified?
Why was not a forensic autopsy expert selected to do the autopsy of JFK?
Bullet fragments said to be found in the limo, ( 3 under the seat of Mrs Connally) why were they not photographed in the position they were said to be in, under that seat?
Why was the limo windshield and the limo itself not kept as evidence?
Why was the paraffin test of Oswald’s cheeks negative, when an experiment with 7 persons who fire a rifle show all 7 test positive?
Why was it impossible to have a tape recording of Oswald’s interrogations and have an attorney present as well?
How could Oswalds blue jacket have been found in TSBD when Whaley the taxi driver said Oswald was wearing that jacket?
Why was Earlene Roberts not able to confirm Oswald was wearing the light gray jacket when he left the boarding house?
Why was no gunpowder residue found on the jacket, shirt sleeves or T shirt of Oswald?
Was there ever a report of gunpowder residue found in the breech, chamber or rifle grooves of the barrel of the MC rifle found on the 6th floor TSBD?
Are any of these questions relevant? 😳
Yes Zeon, these questions are relevant to this thread and others should be making the same contribution.
Why wasn't George Lumpkin asked to testify? He was the officer in charge of the TSBD until Fritz arrived. He was driving the lead car.
Why wasn't every single witness who saw the shooting close up asked to testify or, at least, give a full statement about what they saw and heard?
Why was there an agreement by the WC to have 'pre-interviews', where witnesses could be coached or their testimony manipulated before it went on record.
Why were CE 1381's designed to limit the witnesses reports?
-
Dan O'meara said:
My comment:
Neutron activation analysis expert witness Vincent P. Guinn told the HSCA that the injures to Connally's wrist were very probably caused by CE-399
And Cyril Wecht, a man who had dealt with thousands of shooting incidents, reckoned they weren't.
So what?
What's your point?
Is that the sum total of your argument against that point?
All the ballistic testing involving bullets fired into the wrists of cadavers ALL produced bullets with massively deformed noses. How did Guinn explain that?
-
All the ballistic testing involving bullets fired into the wrists of cadavers ALL produced bullets with massively deformed noses. How did Guinn explain that?
What's to explain? CE399 was slowed by Kennedy's neck and further slowed by Connally's torso and this massively slowed bullet went on to only fracture Connally's wrist and in addition CE399 left behind lead fragments which indicates that CE399 tumbled backwards into Connally's wrist, whereas a full speed bullet as you rightfully point out will smash a wrist and severely deform the nose.
(https://i.ibb.co/hFsJ0JPR/Milesandthewrist1.jpg)
JohnM
-
OK. And what was the condition of the alleged Carcano Bullet that rendered the Kill Shot? Yeah, thought so.
-
OK. And what was the condition of the alleged Carcano Bullet that rendered the Kill Shot? Yeah, thought so.
Oops!
I'll add "Ballistics Ignoramus" to your list of failures!
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a case containing bullet fragments marked Commission Exhibit 857 and ask if you have ever seen those fragments before.
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. SPECTER. And under what circumstances have you viewed those before, please?
Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered outside of the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the fragments without deforming them. There are some smaller fragments in here that were obtained from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment. We melted the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within the cranial cavity.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, I show you two fragments designated as Commission Exhibits 567 and 579 heretofore identified as having been found on the front seat of the President's car on November 22, 1963, and ask you if you have had an opportunity to examine those before.
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. SPECTER. And have you had an opportunity to compare those to the two fragments identified as Commission Exhibit 857?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. SPECTER. And what did that comparison show?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar.
(https://i.ibb.co/gbF1y2s0/CE-857-2-fragments-similar-to-CE-567-CE-569.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/cXV44Z2b/ce-399-567-569.jpg)
JohnM
-
Oops!
I'll add "Ballistics Ignoramus" to your list of failures!
Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a case containing bullet fragments marked Commission Exhibit 857 and ask if you have ever seen those fragments before.
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. SPECTER. And under what circumstances have you viewed those before, please?
Dr. OLIVIER. There were, the two larger fragments were recovered outside of the skull in the cotton waste we were using to catch the fragments without deforming them. There are some smaller fragments in here that were obtained from the gelatin within the cranial cavity after the experiment. We melted the gelatin out and recovered the smallest fragments from within the cranial cavity.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, I show you two fragments designated as Commission Exhibits 567 and 579 heretofore identified as having been found on the front seat of the President's car on November 22, 1963, and ask you if you have had an opportunity to examine those before.
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. SPECTER. And have you had an opportunity to compare those to the two fragments identified as Commission Exhibit 857?
Dr. OLIVIER. Yes, I have.
Mr. SPECTER. And what did that comparison show?
Dr. OLIVIER. They are quite similar.
(https://i.ibb.co/gbF1y2s0/CE-857-2-fragments-similar-to-CE-567-CE-569.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/cXV44Z2b/ce-399-567-569.jpg)
JohnM
Mr. SPECTER. What bullets were used [for the tests]?
Dr. OLIVIER. It was the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Western ammunition lot 6,000.
This is like Groundhog Conspiracy Day. Sixty years of it. The same old stuff that is knocked down day-after-day.
-
Mr. SPECTER. What bullets were used [for the tests]?
Dr. OLIVIER. It was the 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Western ammunition lot 6,000.
This is like Groundhog Conspiracy Day. Sixty years of it. The same old stuff that is knocked down day-after-day.
Yeah, you've emerged to catch Royell out.
Way to go.
Where are you when the tricky questions are being asked?
-
Yeah, you've emerged to catch Royell out.
Way to go.
Where are you when the tricky questions are being asked?
I think the point Royell was trying to make is that in his opinion, it makes no sense that the head shot bullet fragmented whereas CE-399 didn't.
Which can be explained by the fact that, as the autopsy doctors indicated, the head shot bullet struck near JFK's thick External Occipital Protuberance whereas CE-399 just rode along JBC's fifth rib and sideswiped his radial bone.
-
Cyril Wecht reckoned the injuries to JBC's wrist weren't caused by CE-399.
How many of the other forensic pathologists on the panel of nine agreed with him?
All of the bullets fired in the experiment ended up with massively deformed noses. How did Guinn explain that?
Was the muzzle velocity of any of those test bullets significantly reduced (to compensate for the fact that CE-399 had already passed through JFK's lower neck and JBC's chest), and were any of them already tumbling when they sideswiped the cadaver's radial bone?
-
No one else ever seems to be, but I was always impressed with a Carcano bullet penetrating 31" of solid pine and being more pristine than CE 399 when it was retrieved. Do I think CE 399, both its condition and its discovery, is problematical? Sure. Is CE 399 a deal-breaker? The very fact that its condition and discovery are problematical argues in favor of authenticity. What sort of whacked-out conspirators would have crafted the scenario of a suspiciously clean bullet being found in dubious circumstances at Parkland? Again, it's the same old story of the conspirators being Geniuses as the conspiracy theory requires and Dolts as the theory requires.
-
No one else ever seems to be, but I was always impressed with a Carcano bullet penetrating 31" of solid pine and being more pristine than CE 399 when it was retrieved. Do I think CE 399, both its condition and its discovery, is problematical? Sure. Is CE 399 a deal-breaker? The very fact that its condition and discovery are problematical argues in favor of authenticity. What sort of whacked-out conspirators would have crafted the scenario of a suspiciously clean bullet being found in dubious circumstances at Parkland? Again, it's the same old story of the conspirators being Geniuses as the conspiracy theory requires and Dolts as the theory requires.
When I watched the PBS NOVA special, "Cold Case JFK," I was very impressed by the penetration and physical stability of that kind of bullet when fired from LHO's kind of short-rifle. I was also impressed by the fact that it has a tendency to start tumbling upon exiting something soft -- like a block of ballistics gel or a human neck.
-
How many of the other forensic pathologists on the panel of nine agreed with him?
The point was you said one guy said this I said one guy said the opposite. So what?
(https://i.postimg.cc/FRD8pkqJ/jbcwristbullet.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The bullet on the far right is a bullet that hit a wrist bone.
That's evidence.
That's what CE399 should've looked like.
Was the muzzle velocity of any of those test bullets significantly reduced (to compensate for the fact that CE-399 had already passed through JFK's lower neck and JBC's chest), and were any of them already tumbling when they sideswiped the cadaver's radial bone?
Just to clear up your use of the word "sideswiped".
Is it your understanding that the tumbling bullet passed straight through JBC's radial bone or did the tumbling bullet just glance the bone?
Your use of the word "sideswiped" seems to suggest it was just a glancing blow.
(https://i.postimg.cc/wBkGxs9b/jbcwristnumbered.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Note - the wrist bone has been shattered into multiple pieces.
Note - there is no sign of a hole through which the tumbling bullet passed.
Note - there are multiple metal fragments in a non-linear spread.
-
The point was you said one guy said this I said one guy said the opposite. So what?
Do you think those eight other forensic pathologists were controlled by the evil, evil CIA?
-
The point was you said one guy said this I said one guy said the opposite. So what?
(https://i.postimg.cc/FRD8pkqJ/jbcwristbullet.png) (https://postimages.org/)
The bullet on the far right is a bullet that hit a wrist bone.
That's evidence.
That's what CE399 should've looked like.
Except the bullet on the right hit the radial bone neither the same way (tumbling / twirling) nor as slowly as CE-399 did.