Carolyn Walther
Sean Murphy
> On Mar 4, 9:54 pm, jbarge <anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Fascinating stuf about Rowland.
> > Any insight on Carolyn Walther?
>
> Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History", p. 835-836:
>
> Another Dealey Plaza witness quoted often by conspiracy theorists is
> Carolyn Walther. She told the FBI on December 5, 1963, that from her
> vantage point on the east side of Houston near Elm, within a minute before
> the shooting she saw a man standing in the southeasternmost window of
> either the fourth or the fifth floor of the Book Depository Building. (She
> said she was "positive" the window wasn't as high as the sixth floor.) The
> man was leaning out the window holding a weapon that looked like a machine
> gun. He had blond or light brown hair. In the same window, to the left of
> this man, she saw a portion of another man in a brown suit coat. She could
> not see his head and she gave no description of him.Walther repeated her
> story to "the investigators" for a 1967 book and in 1967 to the Dallas
> Morning News.
>
> Apart from the fact that we know from photographs and testimony that the
> fourth-floor window was closed and the fifth-floor window occupied by
> identified Book Depository employees (James Jarman, Bonnie Ray Williams
> and Harold Norman, one of whom, Norman, can be seen leaning out the window
> in the Robert Hughes film, and undoubtedly is the person whom Walther
> saw), there is another very serious problem with Walther's statement. She
> was watching the motorcade with her friend, Pearl Springer, who told the
> FBI that not only didn't she see any armed man standing in the window, but
> much more importantly,Walther, after the shooting, did not mention to her
> anything about seeing any man in the window holding a rifle, machine gun,
> or any other type of weapon. Apparently Walther never considered her
> observation important enough to waste a breath on. I understand.
This is shockingly thin gruel from Bugliosi.
His attack on Carolyn Walther is easily refuted:
1. Many witnesses looking at the TSBD from the outside thought it only had
six floors. Why? They started counting from the second floor up. Why? No
(obvious) windows on the first floor.
Carolyn Walther said the two men were on "either the fourth or fifth
floors", and not the "sixth". No reason why she cannot be referring to the
very top floor as the "sixth". None at all.
2. Bugliosi writes that Walther's friend Pearl Springer "told the FBI that
[she] didn't see any armed man standing in the window". This is
misleading.
What Bugliosi doesn't mention is that there was a reason why Springer
didn't see any armed man standing in the window. That reason is contained
in the very same FBI interview report which Bugliosi is citing:
"During that time, she looked around at the crowd but *never looked up
above the ground floor of the Texas School Book Depository* building
located diagonally across the stree from where she was standing." So:
Springer didn't see the man holding the gun because she didn't see the
window. Walther, on the other hand, did. And what she saw up there - two
men, one holding a gun and another standing beside him - informs us that
there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy.
3. Why didn't Walther say anything to Springer about the two men? Easy:
like Arnold Rowland, she would have presumed that the men were there to
protect the President. Only later did she understand the true meaning of
what she had seen.
If Bugliosi's assault on Carolyn Walther is the very best that Lone Nut
theorists can come up with, then it's game over.
Sean
dcwi...@yahoo.com
But she's not necessarily. And she said 4th or 5th. I'm looking at
the Weaver Polaroid, taken at the same time as Walther looked away
from the window--i.e., as the limo was turning onto Houston. In the
actual 6th floor corner window, I see nothing different from what we
see in, say, the Hughes film--the same boxes. But in the 5th-floor
corner window, I see *something* occupying almost the whole bottom
half. It can't be just Norman--his build was very slight. (See any
of the available photos.) It could be Norman, Williams & Jarman, all
scrunching in there together, but they never described such a
congregating. However, it could also be the scene which Walther
describes, whereas there was hardly room enuf for the rifleman to lean
out the 6th-floor window, with the ledge box taking up maybe half the
ledge--let alone enuf room to fit in a portion of a *2nd* person to
his left (as seen from outside).
In sum, there's something inexplicable about the corner 5th-floor
window in the Weaver, but nothing inexplicable about the corner 6th-
floor window.
dw
yeuhd
> His attack on Carolyn Walther is easily refuted:
>
> 1. Many witnesses looking at the TSBD from the outside thought it only had
> six floors. Why? They started counting from the second floor up. Why? No
> (obvious) windows on the first floor.
>
> Carolyn Walther said the two men were on "either the fourth or fifth
> floors", and not the "sixth". No reason why she cannot be referring to the
> very top floor as the "sixth". None at all.
Dallas resident Carolyn Walther worked in the Dal-Tex building across the
street from the TSBD. She gave her FBI statement on December 5, 1963.
You're trying to convince us she couldn't count how many floors the
building across the street had?
How about an obvious ENTRANCE being on the first floor?
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/2/2c/Photo_wcd81-1_0097.jpg
Mrs. Walther had ample time between November 22 and December 5, 1963 to
understand, from the sniper's nest window being circled or arrowed in
photographs in newspapers, magazines, and television, that what was
repeatedly referred to as the "sixth floor" was not the top floor.
And even a child can figure out that a row of double hung drop-sash
windows aren't going to be placed near the ceiling of a 20-foot high first
floor, i.e., that the row of windows above the entrance level constituted
a *second* floor. Mrs. Walther, working in the Dal-Texas Building across
the street, might have noticed now and then in the months or years that
she worked at Dal-Tex that employees were sitting and working and
occasionally opening and closing those windows across the street, and that
they weren't floating in mid-air.
Mrs. Walther placed her mystery men behind an open window on the Elm
Street side of the fourth or fifth floor. But we know from photographs and
testimony that the fourth-floor windows were closed and the open
fifth-floor windows were occupied by identified Book Depository employees.
One of Mrs. Walther's men not only was leaning out the window, his hands
were *outside* the window, and a rifle was in his hands, with the barrel
pointing downward! For an assassin, he was quite a show-off. And nobody
noticed this but Mrs. Walther.
But she didn't think that sight was remarkable enough to mention to her
co-worker Pearl Springer before, during, or in the two weeks after the
assassination, long after it was established that shots came from the
TSBD.
Sean Murphy
Don,
Have you ever compared the fifth floor in Weaver with the fifth floor
in the Hughes film?
Sean
Sean Murphy
You can be as retrospectively wise as you please about how many floors
there were in the TSBD, the fact remains that many witnesses DID NOT
count the bottom floor.
You want some proof that perfectly intelligent witnesses could under-
count?
Here you go:
Ronald Fischer & Bob Edwards both said in their 11/22/63 affidavits
that the man they saw was in the southeastern window of the "fifth
floor".
You want some proof that the reason they did so was because they
didn't count the bottom floor?
Here you go:
"Mr. BELIN - All right, now, you signed an affidavit for the sheriff's
department where you stated that you saw a man at the window on the
fifth floor, and the window was wide open all the way, and there was a
stack of books around him, I could see. And you just told me you
didn't see a man on the fifth floor. Was that affidavit correct or
not?
Mr. EDWARDS - That is incorrect. That has been straightened out since.
Mr. BELIN - What do you mean it has been straightened out?
Mr. EDWARDS - Well, they discussed it with me later and I took that
back. That was the FBI. It was the sixth floor, though.
Mr. BELIN - How do you know it was the sixth floor? Sixth floor rather
than the fifth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - I went with them and I showed them the window, and *I
didn't count the bottom floor*.
Mr. BELIN - You mean the first time when you made the affidavit you
didn't count the bottom floor?
Mr. EDWARDS - That's right."
Now unless you're going to argue that Edwards and Fischer both
invented the man they saw, I'm afraid you're stuck with the men
Carolyn Walther saw - and with the inconvenient truth that their
presence together at that window demolishes the Lone Nut theory all by
itself.
Yes, it's really that simple.
The only remaining question now becomes whether or not Lee Oswald had
any active role in the conspiracy.
***
> But she didn't think that sight was remarkable enough to mention to her
> co-worker Pearl Springer before, during, or in the two weeks after the
> assassination, long after it was established that shots came from the
> TSBD.
Can you quote Pearl Springer saying that Carolyn Walther didn't
mention the two men "in the two weeks after the assassination"?
Thanks.
Sean
dcwi...@yahoo.com
Well, several other witnesses described the suspect as a show-off. Brennan
had the guy *sitting on the window sill*! Fischer & Edwards had him
acting in a *funny way*, & the guy was so strangely visible that Fischer
could describe his slacks! These 4 witnesses all seem to be describing
the same suspect, altho, yes, no one else saw the funny rifle. And which
witness--Brennan or Walther--sounds more absurd? That's apparently the
condition the suspect forced the witnesses into....
dw
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. A lot of witnesses were confused about the numbering of the floor
and heights of the windows.
claviger
Excellent observation. Just reading her statement things don't ring true.
I wonder if dreams play a part in a situation like this. It was a
traumatic event and the mind absorbs all kinds of data from the news and
conversations with friends, neighbors, and fellow workers. All that gets
scrambled up in the subconscious and one night comes together jumbled up
in a dream. When they wake up they believe they really saw these things
from a suppressed memory.
Then there is the influence of people they know who say, "You were right
there! Surely you saw something going on before or during the shooting!!
It happened right above your head!!!" There are people who missed out
seeing anything relevant but want to be part of this historic tragedy.
They convince themselves its OK to exaggerate or tell a fib so they can
attach themselves to the event. I believe Mrs. Walther is this kind of
witness. Otherwise her testimony indicates she is a complete idiot and a
lousy citizen.
Bud
You think this is enough to support the extraordinary idea that a
couple of people went into the TSBD, fired some shots with a machine
gun, and left?
Good thing nobody on the Titanic reported a wake, or you would swear
it was a torpedo and not the iceberg that did her in.
> Sean
Sean Murphy
You have failed miserably to put the slightest dent in Carolyn
Walther's account.
Next?
Sean Murphy
Next!
yeuhd
> Now unless you're going to argue that Edwards and Fischer both
> invented the man they saw,
They saw one man, on the 6th floor.
> I'm afraid you're stuck with the men
> Carolyn Walther saw
Mrs. Walther had plenty of time to correct any miscounting of which
floor was what. Unlike Fischer and Edwards, she gave her affidavit on
December 5, not November 22. Photos of the building with the sniper's
window circled or arrowed, with references again and again to the
window being on the "6th floor", were published in numerous
newspapers, magazines, and on television.
Mrs. Walther in her affidavit said she worked for "Miller and
Randazzo, a dress factory, on the third floor of the Dal-Tex Mart
Building". Miller & Randazzo was indeed located on the third floor of
the Dal-Tex Building when you count the entrance level as the first
floor.
Two good reasons to believe that when Mrs. Walther said on Dec. 5 that
she saw the men in the southeast corner window, Elm Street side, of
the fourth or fifth floor of the TSBD, and that she was "positive" the
window was not as high as the sixth floor, she was counting the
entrance level of the TSBD as the first floor.
But we know from photos, the Hughes film, and witnesses, that the
fourth floor window was closed, and known TSBD employees were in the
fifth floor windows.
Sean Murphy
> On Apr 23, 7:42 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Now unless you're going to argue that Edwards and Fischer both
> > invented the man they saw,
>
> They saw one man, on the 6th floor.
Right, their affidavits say "fifth floor" but they are actually
referring to the 6th floor. No problem.
Carolyn Walther says "fourth or fifth floors" but she is actually
referring to the 5th or 6th floor. No problem.
***
> > I'm afraid you're stuck with the men
> > Carolyn Walther saw
>
> Mrs. Walther had plenty of time to correct any miscounting of which
> floor was what. Unlike Fischer and Edwards, she gave her affidavit on
> December 5, not November 22. Photos of the building with the sniper's
> window circled or arrowed, with references again and again to the
> window being on the "6th floor", were published in numerous
> newspapers, magazines, and on television.
Yes, this only adds to Walther's credibility. If she were fabricating
the whole thing, which is what Lone Nut Theory believers *must*
believe to cope with her account, she would be sure to say "sixth
floor" in order to match her recollection with the media reports.
***
> Mrs. Walther in her affidavit said she worked for "Miller and
> Randazzo, a dress factory, on the third floor of the Dal-Tex Mart
> Building". Miller & Randazzo was indeed located on the third floor of
> the Dal-Tex Building when you count the entrance level as the first
> floor.
Right, she wasn't a TSBD employee.
***
> Two good reasons to believe that when Mrs. Walther said on Dec. 5 that
> she saw the men in the southeast corner window, Elm Street side, of
> the fourth or fifth floor of the TSBD, and that she was "positive" the
> window was not as high as the sixth floor, she was counting the
> entrance level of the TSBD as the first floor.
Two good reasons? Where?
***
> But we know from photos, the Hughes film, and witnesses, that the
> fourth floor window was closed, and known TSBD employees were in the
> fifth floor windows.
Exactly, it must have been the sixth floor.
Sean
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 23, 7:42 pm, Sean Murphy<seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Now unless you're going to argue that Edwards and Fischer both
>> invented the man they saw,
>
> They saw one man, on the 6th floor.
>
>> I'm afraid you're stuck with the men
>> Carolyn Walther saw
>
> Mrs. Walther had plenty of time to correct any miscounting of which
> floor was what. Unlike Fischer and Edwards, she gave her affidavit on
> December 5, not November 22. Photos of the building with the sniper's
> window circled or arrowed, with references again and again to the
> window being on the "6th floor", were published in numerous
> newspapers, magazines, and on television.
>
So, you think a witness should base her testimony on what she read in
the newspaper?
> Mrs. Walther in her affidavit said she worked for "Miller and
> Randazzo, a dress factory, on the third floor of the Dal-Tex Mart
> Building". Miller& Randazzo was indeed located on the third floor of
> the Dal-Tex Building when you count the entrance level as the first
> floor.
>
> Two good reasons to believe that when Mrs. Walther said on Dec. 5 that
> she saw the men in the southeast corner window, Elm Street side, of
> the fourth or fifth floor of the TSBD, and that she was "positive" the
> window was not as high as the sixth floor, she was counting the
> entrance level of the TSBD as the first floor.
>
> But we know from photos, the Hughes film, and witnesses, that the
> fourth floor window was closed, and known TSBD employees were in the
> fifth floor windows.
>
SO? You think a known TSBD employee was in the sixth floor window.
yeuhd
> Yes, this only adds to Walther's credibility. If she were fabricating
> the whole thing, which is what Lone Nut Theory believers *must*
> believe to cope with her account, she would be sure to say "sixth
> floor" in order to match her recollection with the media reports.
Who said she was trying to match her recollection with the media reports?
Only you. She may well have been offering her affidavit in *contradiction*
to the media reports of one man, sixth floor.
> > Two good reasons to believe that when Mrs. Walther said on Dec. 5 that
> > she saw the men in the southeast corner window, Elm Street side, of
> > the fourth or fifth floor of the TSBD, and that she was "positive" the
> > window was not as high as the sixth floor, she was counting the
> > entrance level of the TSBD as the first floor.
>
> Two good reasons? Where?
Reason #1:
Mrs. Walther had plenty of time to correct any miscounting of which floor
was what. Unlike Fischer and Edwards, she gave her affidavit on December
5, not November 22. Photos of the building were published in numerous
newspapers, magazines, and on television with the sniper's window circled
or arrowed, and with references again and again to that window being on
the "6th floor".
In other words, on December 5, she had no doubt seen numerous visual
references to the "6th floor" window being on the second floor from the
top. So if on December 5, Mrs. Walther STILL said she saw men on the 4th
or 5th floor, she was very likely referring to the two floors *below* the
6th and 7th floors.
Reason #2:
Mrs. Walther in her Dec. 5 affidavit said she worked for "Miller and
Randazzo, a dress factory, on the third floor of the Dal-Tex Mart
Building". Miller & Randazzo was indeed located on the third floor of the
Dal-Tex Building when you count the entrance level as the first floor;
therefore, it is very likely that she would also count the entrance level
of the TSBD as the first floor. You would have us believe that Mrs.
Walther had two different floor-counting systems: one for the TSBD,
another for the neighboring Dal-Tex Building.
So, those are two good reasons to believe that when Mrs. Walther said she
saw two men on the fourth or fifth floor of the TSBD, she was counting the
entrance level as the first floor.
Sean Murphy
No, I asked for two *good* reasons.
yeuhd
> On 4/24/2009 8:51 AM, yeuhd wrote:
> > Mrs. Walther had plenty of time to correct any miscounting of which
> > floor was what. Unlike Fischer and Edwards, she gave her affidavit on
> > December 5, not November 22. Photos of the building with the sniper's
> > window circled or arrowed, with references again and again to the
> > window being on the "6th floor", were published in numerous
> > newspapers, magazines, and on television.
>
> So, you think a witness should base her testimony on what she read in
> the newspaper?
I'm not talking about what she "should" have done. I'm saying that if Mrs.
Walther considered the floor above the entrance level to be the "first"
floor (as alleged without any evidence), she had numerous opportunities
between Nov. 22 and Dec. 5 to realize that the TSBD was considered to have
seven floors, and that the 6th floor was considered to be the second floor
from top. I assume Mrs. Walther's intention was that her affidavit be
understood and not misunderstood.
> > But we know from photos, the Hughes film, and witnesses, that the
> > fourth floor window was closed, and known TSBD employees were in the
> > fifth floor windows.
>
> SO? You think a known TSBD employee was in the sixth floor window.
Yes I do. And unless you are implying that Harold Norman or James
Jarman was shooting at the president, what is your point?
claviger
> You have failed miserably to put the slightest dent
> in Carolyn Walther's account.
>
> Next?
Well, actually I was trying to be polite in questioning how and why Mrs.
Walther would tell such a ridiculous story after almost two weeks to think
about it. Or maybe that is the problem. This story was not taken seriously
by anyone in law enforcement, with good reason. It's almost totally
implausible anyway you look at it.
First let's examine the 4th or 5th floor part of the story. Photographs of
the TSBD minutes before and after the motorcade show which windows were
open at the time. There were 6 windows open on the 5th floor but there
were also 3 employees on that floor who heard shots coming from the floor
above them. No mention of any gunfire on the 5th floor. So witnesses rule
out the 5th floor.
There was one, possibly 2 windows, on the 4th floor open. The one for sure
was in the third column from the right (east) side of the TSBD opened
slightly, not enough for a guy to be hanging out brandishing a machine
gun. The other window is questionable in the second column from the left
(west) side. If it was open it was large enough to allow someone to show
off his machine gun to the crowd below, but it may not have been open. The
trajectory from this angle doesn't work anyway. So there is no way for any
shots that struck the President to have come from either the 4th or 5th
floor. Three credible witnesses testified they distinctly heard loud shots
come from the floor just above where they were standing. One of those
witnesses even got dust in his hair from vibration caused by the gun
blast.
Now there were 5 windows open on the 6th floor. One on the east side and 4
on the west side. If this is where she saw the two guys then it would be
interesting to compare her story to the Rowlands, but Mrs. Walther is
positive this window was not on the 6th floor. That is the fatal flaw in
her story, otherwise we can assume she actually saw LHO on the 6th floor
although he did not have a machine gun, but did have a scope and sling on
his rifle. She doesn't remember that kind of weapon.
So did Mrs. Walther see the same guy the Rowlands claim to see on the 6th
floor on the west side of the building? What is interesting about her
story is by December 5th she should know exactly what Oswald's rifle
looked like, but stuck with the machine gun description. One other witness
claimed to see a man in a long coat with a machine gun in the parking lot
after the shooting. Could this be the same man? Even if this story is true
there is no evidence of a machine gun fired at the motorcade from the TSBD
or the GK. A majority of ear witnesses say they only heard 3 shots and 2/3
witnesses on the 5th floor heard 3 shots from the 6th floor.
Now, as I said before, unless Mrs. Walther literally dreamed up this
story, or she is the type of person who can easily be influenced by
others, or has a hard time separating imagination from reality, or
subconsciously absorbs information from the media that commingles with
memory (the Jean Hill syndrome), then there are some big problems with her
story. The way she reacted to this whole event is almost completely
implausible.
She sees a guy with a machine gun in a building and does nothing about it.
She doesn't go tell a policeman. Now it's true a few other witnesses saw a
man in the TSBD with a rifle but assumed he was guarding the Presidential
motorcade so we can let Mrs. Walther off the hook on this one. However,
from this point the story is incredulous. She hears gunfire from above but
it never occurs to her to look up to see if its coming from the guy with
the machine gun! After hearing shots she and Mrs. Springer run to the TSBD
but are turned back and apparently she makes no attempt to tell a DPD
officer what she just saw before the parade.
Instead she and Mrs. Springer go back to work and that's that. Just
another day at the office. Right across the street is a police station
full of law enforcement officers to tell her story to. All she has to do
is walk a few paces past when she watched the parade to begin with and
find all kinds of people who need to hear this story. Even a secretary for
the police could take her statement, but she makes no attempt to report
her observations in spite of the fact the President of the United States
was murdered before her very eyes. And she doesn't even mention this to
Pearl Springer who stood right next to her! Does Mrs. Walthers have mental
problems or what?
I would say there is a 98% chance there is something fishy about this
whole story. However, lets talk about the 2%. What is odd about this story
is why did she wait two weeks and then decide to come forth? And she did
stick with the machine gun part of the story and not on the 6th floor. Was
there a man with a machine gun and did he chicken out at the last minute?
Maybe he froze up when he saw women in the Limousine. Even if the story is
true the way Mrs. Walters handled it is incomprehensible, therefore not
believable.
Bud
Certainly not enough to stop you from clinging to this extraordinary
account that has no support, only contradiction, outside of this witness.
Interesting this witness is allowed to get floors wrong, with so many
reasons why she should get it right, while Baker, who had good reason to
get the floors wrong in the information he provided, was not.
Compare an actual credible witness like Brennan to this witness.
Brennan`s account has corroboration on several issues, he put a shooter in
a place other people said there was a shooter, that window was open,
physical evidence was found at that window, he correctly placed people
under the window, ect. So, in a search for truth, is it justifiable to put
what Carolyn Walther supplied on a pedestal, while trashing the account
that had much more support?
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 24, 8:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 4/24/2009 8:51 AM, yeuhd wrote:
>>> Mrs. Walther had plenty of time to correct any miscounting of which
>>> floor was what. Unlike Fischer and Edwards, she gave her affidavit on
>>> December 5, not November 22. Photos of the building with the sniper's
>>> window circled or arrowed, with references again and again to the
>>> window being on the "6th floor", were published in numerous
>>> newspapers, magazines, and on television.
>>
>> So, you think a witness should base her testimony on what she read in
>> the newspaper?
>
> I'm not talking about what she "should" have done. I'm saying that if Mrs.
> Walther considered the floor above the entrance level to be the "first"
> floor (as alleged without any evidence), she had numerous opportunities
> between Nov. 22 and Dec. 5 to realize that the TSBD was considered to have
> seven floors, and that the 6th floor was considered to be the second floor
> from top. I assume Mrs. Walther's intention was that her affidavit be
> understood and not misunderstood.
>
The point of an affidavit is not to verify every point, but to let the
witness put down her impressions at the time. A lot of witnesses were
confused by the floors. Even the police.
>
>>> But we know from photos, the Hughes film, and witnesses, that the
>>> fourth floor window was closed, and known TSBD employees were in the
>>> fifth floor windows.
>>
>> SO? You think a known TSBD employee was in the sixth floor window.
>
> Yes I do. And unless you are implying that Harold Norman or James
> Jarman was shooting at the president, what is your point?
>
Not my theory. Someone else's.
But at the moment of the shooting you don't go around eliminating
suspects based on bias. That's why Baker let Oswald go. He couldn't
possibly be the assassin because he worked there, for Christ's sake.
Sean Murphy
Baker was inside the building, Walther outside. Duh.
***
> Compare an actual credible witness like Brennan to this witness.
> Brennan`s account has corroboration on several issues, he put a shooter in
> a place other people said there was a shooter, that window was open,
> physical evidence was found at that window, he correctly placed people
> under the window, ect. So, in a search for truth, is it justifiable to put
> what Carolyn Walther supplied on a pedestal, while trashing the account
> that had much more support?
So Carolyn Walther lied?
Sean
Sean Murphy
the second floor up:
Her FBI interview report states:
"She noticed a man wearing a brown suit and a very dark shirt leaning
out a window of the third floor, somewhere about the middle window of
the third floor."
She timestamps this to shortly before the epileptic seizure, which
happened around 12:17pm.
For a man to be leaning out of a window, it naturally has to be open.
(If you're reading, Bud, feel free to disagree.)
Photos of the TSBD taken in the minutes before and after the
assassination show no open window anywhere near the middle window of
the third floor. But they *do* show an open window about the middle of
the fourth floor.
Again, it's clear that Mrs. Walther simply didn't know to count the
bottom floor.
Thus we can safely say she saw two men together on the sixth floor,
one of whom was holding a gun.
No hallucination. No lie. No mental problems.
Just proof beyond reasonable doubt of conspiracy.
Sean
tomnln
"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:68c3da94-c0a8-4a02...@y6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Typical claviger;
He believes the Impossible SBT that did NOT Exist until April 22, of
1964.>>>
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/april_22.htm
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:7e390678-a1c0-4033...@s20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Brennan is a Proven Liar who needed "Immunity" from the HSCA.
Name the police officer that Brennan gave the shooter's description to?
Bud
Your point being that Walther could count the windows from the
ground up, whereas Baker couldn`t?
> ***
>
> > Compare an actual credible witness like Brennan to this witness.
> > Brennan`s account has corroboration on several issues, he put a shooter in
> > a place other people said there was a shooter, that window was open,
> > physical evidence was found at that window, he correctly placed people
> > under the window, ect. So, in a search for truth, is it justifiable to put
> > what Carolyn Walther supplied on a pedestal, while trashing the account
> > that had much more support?
>
> So Carolyn Walther lied?
Sometimes when a person thinks hard on a event, the mind embellishes
impressions into observations. She may have gotten a glimpse of Oswald,
with the boxes around him, and the machine gun, other person, ect became
provided by her imagination.
> Sean
Bud
<snicker> Proof?
> Sean
yeuhd
> Brennan is a Proven Liar who needed "Immunity" from the HSCA.
You've been asked many times to present evidence that Brennan ever asked
for or "needed" immunity, and you've never given any. Not evidence that
the HSCA talked *about* giving Brennan immunity.
This has been explained to you numerous times: Brennan was called to
testify at the HSCA hearings in Washington. The HSCA was willing to pay
his travel expenses. But Brennan wanted the HSCA to also pay travel
expenses for his wife to visit Washington with him. When the HSCA balked
at that, Brennan petulantly refused to go to Washington. Documents show
that the HSCA mistakenly thought that Brennan was holding out for
immunity, but Brennan never asked for any such thing. Repeat: never. Nor
does any HSCA document say that Brennan wanted OR "needed" immunity.
The HSCA ended up dispatching investigators to Dallas. Brennan said that
he believed all the shots came from the direction of the TSBD, said that
he did not think any shots came from behind the fence, and reconfirmed the
testimony he gave the WC in 1964.
Brennan testified in 1964 and 1978 *without* immunity, and gave
essentially the same testimony both times. If you're implying by your
claim that Brennan "needed" immunity that Brennan intended to give false
testimony to the HSCA, then the logical inference is that what he said
*without* immunity was factual.
jbarge
I have a problem witb this - examining photos shows many people who never
contacted the police, INCLUDING PEOPLE FILMING.
I'm not saying CW is lying, but not contacting the police was fairly
common and in of itself meaningless. People are just plain eccentric.
Bud
Brennan was the guy who saw who shot your President, Tom. You should
be thankful he was there, or else people might get the idea that
Oswald was innocent.
> Name the police officer that Brennan gave the shooter's description to?
Whoever he told broadcast it over the police radio.
yeuhd
Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History", endnotes:
… Brennan wrote in his 1987 book that he spoke with Sawyer before his
encounter with Sorrels and that he gave Sawyer the same description he
later gave Sorrels (Brennan with Cherryholmes, "Eyewitness to
History", pp.17–18, 104 note 5). [Sylvia] Meagher’s claim that Sawyer
did not remember speaking to Brennan or anyone who resembled him is
only a quarter-truth. Although he didn’t recall Brennan by name, when
he was asked about the person who supplied the description, Sawyer
testified, “That description came to me mainly from one witness who
claimed to have seen the rifle barrel in the fifth or sixth floor of
the building and claimed to have been able to see the man up there” (6
H 322). Asked to provide details about the witness, Sawyer remembered
that he was a “white man” who was “a few years either way” of thirty-
five. Sawyer also recalled sending the witness “with an escort to the
sheriff’s office to give fuller or more complete detail.” (6 H 322–
323) Only two witnesses who claimed to have seen the gunman firing the
rifle were known to police at that time—the fifteen-year-old black
youth, Amos Euins, and the forty-five-year-old white construction
worker, Howard Brennan. Clearly, Sawyer is referring to Brennan.
Sean Murphy
No, my point being that Baker was inside the building, Walther
outside.
***
>
> > ***
>
> > > Compare an actual credible witness like Brennan to this witness.
> > > Brennan`s account has corroboration on several issues, he put a shooter in
> > > a place other people said there was a shooter, that window was open,
> > > physical evidence was found at that window, he correctly placed people
> > > under the window, ect. So, in a search for truth, is it justifiable to put
> > > what Carolyn Walther supplied on a pedestal, while trashing the account
> > > that had much more support?
>
> > So Carolyn Walther lied?
>
> Sometimes when a person thinks hard on a event, the mind embellishes
> impressions into observations. She may have gotten a glimpse of Oswald,
> with the boxes around him, and the machine gun, other person, ect became
> provided by her imagination.
So you are not suggesting that Carolyn Walther lied, and you accept
that this could indeed have been the sixth floor.
Good.
Sean
Sean Murphy
tomnln
"Sean Murphy" <seanmu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9473c024-5b38-4c7c...@f41g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
When you hit LN's with evidence/testimony, they don't wanna "chit-chat" any
more.
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:db0e6a00-5a4f-4b20...@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
You seerm to be having trouble with this one ! ! ! !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
claviger
Arnold Louis Rowland saw: A Man Standing Back from a Window
Location: Sixth Floor, two open windows
Sex: male
Race: either a Latin or a Caucasian, light complexion
Age:
Hair: dark hair, probably black, close cut, well combed
Weight: 140 to 150 pounds.
Build: slender in build in proportion with his width
Height:
Clothing: "a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a
color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was
unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T-shirt, a polo
shirt under. He had on dark slacks or blue jeans."
Weapon: appeared to be a .30-06 deer rifle / fairly large scope,
sling not mentioned
Position: standing and holding a rifle
________________________________________________
Mrs. Carolyn Walther saw: Three Men in Windows
# 1 Man in Window
Location: Third Floor, middle window
Description -
Sex: male
Race:
Age:
Hair:
Weight:
Build:
Height:
Clothing: wearing a brown suit and a very dark shirt
Weapon: none
Position: leaning out a window
"...a man wearing a brown suit and a very dark shirt leaning out a
window of the third floor, somewhere about the middle window of the
third floor."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# 2 Man with Gun
Location: Fourth or Fifth Floor, "She is positive this window was not
as high as the sixth floor."
"This man had the window open and was standing up leaning out the
window with both his hands extended outside the window ledge. In his
hands, this man was holding a rifle with the barrel pointed downward,
and the man was looking south on Houston Street."
Description -
Sex: male
Race:
Age:
Hair: blond or light brown
Weight:
Build:
Height:
Clothing: wearing a white shirt
Weapon: machine gun, no scope, no sling
"The rifle had a short barrel and seemed large around the stock or end
of the rifle. Her impression was that the gun was a machine gun. She
noticed nothing like a telescope sight on the rifle or a leather strap
or sling on the rifle."
Position: standing
# 3 "Second Man"
Location: Fourth or Fifth Floor, same window
Description -
Sex: male
Race:
Age:
Hair:
Weight:
Build:
height:
Clothing: brown suit coat
Weapon: none
Position: standing erect
Rowland gives an accurate description of the open windows on the 6th
floor of the TSBD. There were two open windows side-by-side on the 6th
floor of TSBD. The physical description would match LHO. The weapon
observed was a rifle with a scope.
Mrs. Walther's description is more confusing and problematic. There
was an open window on the 4th floor in the middle section, column 5
(see below)*. It was slightly open before and after the motorcade. It
does not appear to be open enough for a man to hang out as
described.
The TSBD had 7 floors and 7 columns of double windows.
7 floor: 0
6 floor: 5 open windows [ columns 1 - 2 - 3 - 7 ]
5 floor: 6 open windows [ columns 1 - 3 - 5 - 6 - 7 ]
4 floor: 2 open windows [ columns 2 - 5 ]*
3 floor: 0
2 floor: 2 open windows [columns 4 & 6]**
1 floor: 0
*(unclear if col 2 window is open or not)
**(unclear if open or curtains were pulled back)
It is possible Mrs. Walther is talking about the 6th floor if she did
not count the ground floor. That would give her observations a little
more credibility. There were no windows open on the 7th floor, that
she may be confusing with the 6th floor in her story, which explains
why she was adamant the window was not as high as the sixth floor. So
if in her story the "5th floor" is actually the 6th floor then there
are three possibilities:
1) She observed the same man A L Rowland saw. His description fits
LHO. So it might just be possible LHO had not made his mind up yet and
was considering taking a shot from the west end of the 6th floor, but
moved back to the east side of the building. It could be he was afraid
the flooring crew was not going to break for lunch soon enough for him
to fire on the motorcade. When he saw them leave, he moved back into
position in the SN so he could see the motorcade as it turned on
Houston Street.
As for the "4th floor" we know there were men visible to the crowd on
the street in 3 windows on the actual 5th floor, but none wearing a
brown suit.
The physical description is close enough in that Mrs. Walther said the
man with the weapon was wearing a white shirt. LHO may have taken off
his long sleeve shirt before firing on the motorcade. Rowland said he
had dark hair and in the mug shot LHO appears to have dark brown hair.
Mrs. Walther said it was blond or light brown hair. The sunlight may
have had something to do with that. So Mrs. Walther may have actually
seen LHO making a last minute decision on where to shoot at the
mororcade.
However, the description of the weapon is the big problem. LHO had a
rifle with a scope and a sling. Mrs. Walther described the weapon she
saw in detail which had no scope, sling or strap. To her it looked
like a machine gun more than a rifle.
2) She saw a different man than Rowland saw.
3) She was confused about what she saw.
Question: Are you suggesting Mrs. Walther saw a man other than LHO who
also took part in the assassination by firing at the motorcade with
his machine gun?
Anthony Marsh
> Sean,
>
> Arnold Louis Rowland saw: A Man Standing Back from a Window
>
> Location: Sixth Floor, two open windows
> Sex: male
> Race: either a Latin or a Caucasian, light complexion
> Age:
> Hair: dark hair, probably black, close cut, well combed
> Weight: 140 to 150 pounds.
> Build: slender in build in proportion with his width
> Height:
> Clothing: "a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a
> color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was
> unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T-shirt, a polo
> shirt under. He had on dark slacks or blue jeans."
> Weapon: appeared to be a .30-06 deer rifle / fairly large scope,
> sling not mentioned
> Position: standing and holding a rifle
>
And THAT looks like a SS agent to you? Show me any SS agent in the
motorcade dressed like that.
> ________________________________________________
>
> Mrs. Carolyn Walther saw: Three Men in Windows
>
When? Which windows?
> # 1 Man in Window
>
> Location: Third Floor, middle window
> Description -
> Sex: male
> Race:
> Age:
> Hair:
> Weight:
> Build:
> Height:
> Clothing: wearing a brown suit and a very dark shirt
> Weapon: none
> Position: leaning out a window
>
> "...a man wearing a brown suit and a very dark shirt leaning out a
> window of the third floor, somewhere about the middle window of the
> third floor."
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> # 2 Man with Gun
>
> Location: Fourth or Fifth Floor, "She is positive this window was not
> as high as the sixth floor."
>
> "This man had the window open and was standing up leaning out the
> window with both his hands extended outside the window ledge. In his
> hands, this man was holding a rifle with the barrel pointed downward,
> and the man was looking south on Houston Street."
>
Can't be the sniper's nest. That window was not open wide enough for
anyone to be out the window.
> Description -
> Sex: male
> Race:
> Age:
> Hair: blond or light brown
> Weight:
> Build:
> Height:
> Clothing: wearing a white shirt
T-shirt?
> Weapon: machine gun, no scope, no sling
What SHE thought looked like a machine gun.
> "The rifle had a short barrel and seemed large around the stock or end
> of the rifle. Her impression was that the gun was a machine gun. She
> noticed nothing like a telescope sight on the rifle or a leather strap
> or sling on the rifle."
> Position: standing
>
> # 3 "Second Man"
> Location: Fourth or Fifth Floor, same window
> Description -
> Sex: male
> Race:
> Age:
> Hair:
> Weight:
> Build:
> height:
> Clothing: brown suit coat
> Weapon: none
> Position: standing erect
>
> Rowland gives an accurate description of the open windows on the 6th
> floor of the TSBD. There were two open windows side-by-side on the 6th
> floor of TSBD. The physical description would match LHO. The weapon
> observed was a rifle with a scope.
>
Which two windows were open side by side on the 6th floor?
> Mrs. Walther's description is more confusing and problematic. There
> was an open window on the 4th floor in the middle section, column 5
> (see below)*. It was slightly open before and after the motorcade. It
> does not appear to be open enough for a man to hang out as
> described.
>
> The TSBD had 7 floors and 7 columns of double windows.
> 7 floor: 0
> 6 floor: 5 open windows [ columns 1 - 2 - 3 - 7 ]
> 5 floor: 6 open windows [ columns 1 - 3 - 5 - 6 - 7 ]
> 4 floor: 2 open windows [ columns 2 - 5 ]*
> 3 floor: 0
> 2 floor: 2 open windows [columns 4& 6]**
Sean Murphy
> Sean,
>
> > You have failed miserably to put the slightest dent
> > in Carolyn Walther's account.
>
> > Next?
>
> Well, actually I was trying to be polite in questioning how and why Mrs.
> Walther would tell such a ridiculous story after almost two weeks to think
> about it.
You were anything but polite about Mrs. Walther. With absolutely no
evidence to go on, you merrily declared an ordinary, decent, soft-
spoken lady of being either an hallucinatory psychotic, an immoral
liar or a complete idiot. For shame.
***
> Or maybe that is the problem. This story was not taken seriously
> by anyone in law enforcement, with good reason.
The reason it was not taken seriously by law enforcement was that it
destroyed the Lone Nut Theory.
***
> It's almost totally
> implausible anyway you look at it.
>
> First let's examine the 4th or 5th floor part of the story. Photographs of
> the TSBD minutes before and after the motorcade show which windows were
> open at the time. There were 6 windows open on the 5th floor but there
> were also 3 employees on that floor who heard shots coming from the floor
> above them. No mention of any gunfire on the 5th floor. So witnesses rule
> out the 5th floor.
>
> There was one, possibly 2 windows, on the 4th floor open. The one for sure
> was in the third column from the right (east) side of the TSBD opened
> slightly, not enough for a guy to be hanging out brandishing a machine
> gun. The other window is questionable in the second column from the left
> (west) side. If it was open it was large enough to allow someone to show
> off his machine gun to the crowd below, but it may not have been open. The
> trajectory from this angle doesn't work anyway. So there is no way for any
> shots that struck the President to have come from either the 4th or 5th
> floor. Three credible witnesses testified they distinctly heard loud shots
> come from the floor just above where they were standing. One of those
> witnesses even got dust in his hair from vibration caused by the gun
> blast.
All of this has already been dealt with. Like Ron Fischer & Bob
Edwards & others, Mrs. Walther didn't count the bottom floor. Are you
proposing to crucify the two aforementioned men too?
I thought not.
***
> Now there were 5 windows open on the 6th floor. One on the east side and 4
> on the west side. If this is where she saw the two guys then it would be
> interesting to compare her story to the Rowlands, but Mrs. Walther is
> positive this window was not on the 6th floor. That is the fatal flaw in
> her story, otherwise we can assume she actually saw LHO on the 6th floor
> although he did not have a machine gun, but did have a scope and sling on
> his rifle. She doesn't remember that kind of weapon.
The only fatal flaw here is in your analysis, which brackets out the
simple fact that many witnesses looking at the Texas School Book
Depository from the outside did not count the bottom floor.
***
> So did Mrs. Walther see the same guy the Rowlands claim to see on the 6th
> floor on the west side of the building? What is interesting about her
> story is by December 5th she should know exactly what Oswald's rifle
> looked like, but stuck with the machine gun description.
This speaks for her integrity. If she were making the thing up, she
would match her account to what the press were saying. Please note
also that she freely admitted to the FBI that she was not an expert on
guns.
***
> One other witness
> claimed to see a man in a long coat with a machine gun in the parking lot
> after the shooting. Could this be the same man? Even if this story is true
> there is no evidence of a machine gun fired at the motorcade from the TSBD
> or the GK. A majority of ear witnesses say they only heard 3 shots and 2/3
> witnesses on the 5th floor heard 3 shots from the 6th floor.
>
> Now, as I said before, unless Mrs. Walther literally dreamed up this
> story, or she is the type of person who can easily be influenced by
> others, or has a hard time separating imagination from reality, or
> subconsciously absorbs information from the media that commingles with
> memory (the Jean Hill syndrome), then there are some big problems with her
> story. The way she reacted to this whole event is almost completely
> implausible.
More character assassination. Nice.
***
> She sees a guy with a machine gun in a building and does nothing about it.
> She doesn't go tell a policeman. Now it's true a few other witnesses saw a
> man in the TSBD with a rifle but assumed he was guarding the Presidential
> motorcade so we can let Mrs. Walther off the hook on this one.
Big of you.
***
> However,
> from this point the story is incredulous.
No, it's perfectly credible. Your incredulity, on the other hand, is
incredible. You will show every indulgence towards witnesses you like,
yet a conspiracy-supporting witness will fall prey to your emotional
need for Lee Oswald to be the Lone Nut assassin of Kennedy.
***
> She hears gunfire from above but
> it never occurs to her to look up to see if its coming from the guy with
> the machine gun! After hearing shots she and Mrs. Springer run to the TSBD
> but are turned back and apparently she makes no attempt to tell a DPD
> officer what she just saw before the parade.
>
> Instead she and Mrs. Springer go back to work and that's that. Just
> another day at the office.
Just another day at the office? How dare you speak of what you don't
know. Many people were traumatised by this horrific event. If you've
ever listened to Mrs. Walther being interviewed, you will have heard
her break down in tears when describing the shooting.
Shame on you.
***
> Right across the street is a police station
> full of law enforcement officers to tell her story to. All she has to do
> is walk a few paces past when she watched the parade to begin with and
> find all kinds of people who need to hear this story. Even a secretary for
> the police could take her statement, but she makes no attempt to report
> her observations in spite of the fact the President of the United States
> was murdered before her very eyes.
Kindly share with us the fruits of your research into the
circumstances under which Mrs. Walther's story came to the attention
of the FBI.
***
> And she doesn't even mention this to
> Pearl Springer who stood right next to her! Does Mrs. Walthers have mental
> problems or what?
Again: for shame, sir.
***
> I would say there is a 98% chance there is something fishy about this
> whole story. However, lets talk about the 2%. What is odd about this story
> is why did she wait two weeks and then decide to come forth? And she did
> stick with the machine gun part of the story and not on the 6th floor. Was
> there a man with a machine gun and did he chicken out at the last minute?
> Maybe he froze up when he saw women in the Limousine. Even if the story is
> true the way Mrs. Walters handled it is incomprehensible, therefore not
> believable.
You have still failed to put the merest dent in Mrs. Walther's
credibility.
Sean
tomnln
Mr. BELIN. Was that said before or after you came down from the elevator?
Mr. SAWYER. That was after.
Mr. BELIN. Was that before or after you told the men there to guard the front door and not let anyone in or out?
Mr. SAWYER. That was after.
Mr. BELIN. Now the next time that No. 9 appears is at what time?
Mr. SAWYER. Immediately after 12:43 and before 12:45.
Mr. BELIN. What did you say then?
Mr. SAWYER. "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5 feet 10, 165, carrying what looks to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester."
Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made from the home office, "It was a rifle?"
Mr. SAWYER. I answered, "Yes, a rifle."
Mr. BELIN. Then the reply to you, "Any clothing description ?"
Mr. SAWYER. "Current witness can't remember that."
Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made sometime before 12:45 p.m., and after the 12:43 p.m., call, "Attention all squads, description was broadcast and no further information at this time."
Does that mean the description you made was rebroadcast?
Mr. SAWYER. I rebroadcast that description. That is what that means.
yeuhd blows another one !
Sean Murphy
Glad to see you are no longer reducing this topic to speculations as to
Carolyn Walther's delusive, mendacious and/or idiotic personality
structure. Hopefully we can now discuss the lady's account on its merits.
Some points below.
Sean
***
On Apr 26, 4:44 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sean,
>
> Arnold Louis Rowland saw: A Man Standing Back from a Window
>
> Location: Sixth Floor, two open windows
> Sex: male
> Race: either a Latin or a Caucasian, light complexion
> Age:
> Hair: dark hair, probably black, close cut, well combed
> Weight: 140 to 150 pounds.
> Build: slender in build in proportion with his width
> Height:
> Clothing: "a very light-colored shirt, white or a light blue or a
> color such as that. This was open at the collar. I think it was
> unbuttoned about halfway, and then he had a regular T-shirt, a polo
> shirt under. He had on dark slacks or blue jeans."
> Weapon: appeared to be a .30-06 deer rifle / fairly large scope,
> sling not mentioned
> Position: standing and holding a rifle
Arnold Rowland saw *two* men on the sixth floor at 12:15/12:16pm. The
second was leaning out of what later became known as the Sniper's Nest
window. Here is how Rowland describes this second man in his WC testimony:
"Mr. ROWLAND - He was very thin, an elderly gentleman, bald or
practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn't bald. Had on a plaid
shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color, that is why I
remember it.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us an estimate as to age?
Mr. ROWLAND - Fifty; possibly 55 or 60.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us an estimate as to height?
Mr. ROWLAND - 5'8", 5'10", in that neighborhood. He was very slender,
very thin.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us a more definite description as to
complexion?
Mr. ROWLAND - Very dark or fairly dark, not real dark compared to some
Negroes, but fairly dark. Seemed like his face was either--I can't
recall detail but it was either very wrinkled or marked in some way."
This does not describe Bonnie Ray Williams.
***
>
> ________________________________________________
>
> Mrs. Carolyn Walther saw: Three Men in Windows
>
> # 1 Man in Window
>
> Location: Third Floor, middle window
> Description -
> Sex: male
> Race:
> Age:
> Hair:
> Weight:
> Build:
> Height:
> Clothing: wearing a brown suit and a very dark shirt
> Weapon: none
> Position: leaning out a window
>
> "...a man wearing a brown suit and a very dark shirt leaning out a
> window of the third floor, somewhere about the middle window of the
> third floor."
NB: Mrs. Walther saw the man on the "third floor" *before the epileptic
episode* on Houston St. - i.e. at around 12:15pm. He is not associated
with the assassination.
Photos taken of the TSBD front wall in the minutes before and after the
assassination show an open window "about the middle" of the fourth floor.
This supports the contention that Mrs. Walther, like Fischer & Edwards &
plenty of others, was under-counting by one floor.
***
I disagree. If the Dillard & Powell photos are anything to go by, there
would have been ample room for someone to "lean out" of the open window
near the middle of the fourth floor. Ditto for the SN window, which was
open to an almost identical extent.
***
> The TSBD had 7 floors and 7 columns of double windows.
> 7 floor: 0
> 6 floor: 5 open windows [ columns 1 - 2 - 3 - 7 ]
> 5 floor: 6 open windows [ columns 1 - 3 - 5 - 6 - 7 ]
> 4 floor: 2 open windows [ columns 2 - 5 ]*
> 3 floor: 0
> 2 floor: 2 open windows [columns 4 & 6]**
> 1 floor: 0
>
> *(unclear if col 2 window is open or not)
> **(unclear if open or curtains were pulled back)
>
> It is possible Mrs. Walther is talking about the 6th floor if she did
> not count the ground floor. That would give her observations a little
> more credibility. There were no windows open on the 7th floor, that
> she may be confusing with the 6th floor in her story, which explains
> why she was adamant the window was not as high as the sixth floor.
Yes - and credit to you for acknowledging this.
***
> So
> if in her story the "5th floor" is actually the 6th floor then there
> are three possibilities:
>
> 1) She observed the same man A L Rowland saw. His description fits
> LHO. So it might just be possible LHO had not made his mind up yet and
> was considering taking a shot from the west end of the 6th floor, but
> moved back to the east side of the building. It could be he was afraid
> the flooring crew was not going to break for lunch soon enough for him
> to fire on the motorcade. When he saw them leave, he moved back into
> position in the SN so he could see the motorcade as it turned on
> Houston Street.
>
> As for the "4th floor" we know there were men visible to the crowd on
> the street in 3 windows on the actual 5th floor, but none wearing a
> brown suit.
>
> The physical description is close enough in that Mrs. Walther said the
> man with the weapon was wearing a white shirt. LHO may have taken off
> his long sleeve shirt before firing on the motorcade. Rowland said he
> had dark hair and in the mug shot LHO appears to have dark brown hair.
> Mrs. Walther said it was blond or light brown hair. The sunlight may
> have had something to do with that.
Bob Edwards said the man he & Fischer saw had "light brown" hair. While I
don't believe the man in question was Lee Oswald - and while both Edwards
& Fischer declined to identify him as Oswald - I do feel it is worth
pointing out that Oswald's hair does show up light(ish) brown in a photo
taken outside the Texas Theatre - an effect due, yes, to sunlight.
Furthermore, Wesley Frazier in his Shaw trial testimony describes Oswald's
hair as follows: "He had a light colored hair. It looked like he had
blond, kind of blond browny, maybe it had a red tint to it." So can
Walther & Edwards' description of the man's hair be used to exclude
Oswald? No.
***
> So Mrs. Walther may have actually
> seen LHO making a last minute decision on where to shoot at the
> mororcade.
***
> However, the description of the weapon is the big problem. LHO had a
> rifle with a scope and a sling. Mrs. Walther described the weapon she
> saw in detail which had no scope, sling or strap.
Not quite true. She simply stated - no doubt in response to questions
being put to her - that she had "noticed nothing like a telescope sight on
the rifle or a leather strap or sling on the rifle". This is not the same
thing as actively claiming there *was* no scope, sling or strap on the
weapon.
***
> To her it looked
> like a machine gun more than a rifle.
Yes, that was her impression. But she immediately qualified that
statement by saying she knew "nothing about rifles or guns of any
type".
***
>
> 2) She saw a different man than Rowland saw.
>
> 3) She was confused about what she saw.
>
> Question: Are you suggesting Mrs. Walther saw a man other than LHO who
> also took part in the assassination by firing at the motorcade with
> his machine gun?
I don't believe Lee Oswald was the gun-holding man seen by Carolyn
Walther.
But let's suppose for a moment that he was.
How does that alter the stark fact that Walther saw *two* men at the
window?
LHO + A.N.Other = Conspiracy
just as much as:
Not-LHO + A.N.Other = Conspiracy
We cannot consider Arnold Rowland's west window man without also
taking into account his east window man.
Nor can we consider Carolyn Walther's gunman without taking into
account the confederate standing beside him.
Sean
claviger
Sean,
There are a few problems with Mrs. Walther's story. First and foremost,
her delay in reporting what she thought she saw. The logical police
reaction: "What can we do about it two weeks later? Had you told us
immediately we could have looked for the man in the brown suit with a dark
shirt, a man with a brown coat, and possibly all employees wearing a white
T-shirt that day. And we could have continued to search for a 2nd weapon
after we found the rifle. We could have lined up all employees and let you
take a look at them. We could have put officers in some of the windows to
help you identify exactly which window you saw. But you didn't let us know
in time to do anything about it. And why did it take you two weeks to come
forth when you work right around the corner?"
Police know the best time to take witnesses testimony is immediately after
the event when everything is fresh and before the witness is exposed to
radio, TV, newspaper, etc. The longer a witness takes to come forward the
more their recall is subject to adulteration from a number of sources.
Walther's information is almost worthless two weeks later.
Several more problems with her testimony. Why would an assassin hold his
weapon outside the window with both hands? That makes no sense at all. For
one thing he could accidently drop it and have it come crashing down in
the street below. Another thing, she said the guy was standing up at the
time he held his weapon out the window. They way the windows are situated
that is unlikely, but the idea an assassin would reveal his weapon in that
way prior to using it is akin to the portable smoke machine used by the
sniper on the GK.
For Walther to walk to the TSBD and not tell any police officer what she
saw is amazing. She should have been screaming her head off she saw a man
with a gun and pointing to the window. And the fact she never discussed
this with Pearl Stringer as they walked back to work is inexplicable.
It's hard to put a dent in someone's credibility when they have no
credibility.
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message news:Fw7Jl.68035$Ji5....@newsfe21.iad...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So much for Bugloisi, Brennan, Sorrels, Sawyer ! ! ! !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bud
How does what Walther related prove anything (other than this is
what she said)?
Bud
You allow only outside people to be fallible?
> ***
>
>
>
>
>
> > > ***
>
> > > > Compare an actual credible witness like Brennan to this witness.
> > > > Brennan`s account has corroboration on several issues, he put a shooter in
> > > > a place other people said there was a shooter, that window was open,
> > > > physical evidence was found at that window, he correctly placed people
> > > > under the window, ect. So, in a search for truth, is it justifiable to put
> > > > what Carolyn Walther supplied on a pedestal, while trashing the account
> > > > that had much more support?
>
> > > So Carolyn Walther lied?
>
> > Sometimes when a person thinks hard on a event, the mind embellishes
> > impressions into observations. She may have gotten a glimpse of Oswald,
> > with the boxes around him, and the machine gun, other person, ect became
> > provided by her imagination.
>
> So you are not suggesting that Carolyn Walther lied,
Naw, just imagination run wild. Like Jean Hill. If Hill can see a
dog and Secret Servicemen returning fire, Walther can see machine guns
and a shooter with company.
>and you accept
> that this could indeed have been the sixth floor.
Well, thats where the only shooter (Oswald) was.
> Good.
>
> Sean
claviger
Ironically Mrs. Carolyn Walther is one of the few witnesses with a
close up photo:
Biography: Carolyn Walther
Carolyn Walther lived in Dallas, Texas and on 22nd November, 1963, ...
later in the alleged assassin's window by Mrs. Carolyn Walther who also
signed an ...
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKwalther.htm
Sean Murphy
> Sean,
>
> There are a few problems with Mrs. Walther's story. First and foremost,
> her delay in reporting what she thought she saw. The logical police
> reaction: "What can we do about it two weeks later?
Claviger, what information has your research yielded as to the
circumstances under which Carolyn Walther's account came to the
attention of the authorities?
***
> Had you told us
> immediately we could have looked for the man in the brown suit with a dark
> shirt, a man with a brown coat, and possibly all employees wearing a white
> T-shirt that day. And we could have continued to search for a 2nd weapon
> after we found the rifle. We could have lined up all employees and let you
> take a look at them. We could have put officers in some of the windows to
> help you identify exactly which window you saw. But you didn't let us know
> in time to do anything about it. And why did it take you two weeks to come
> forth when you work right around the corner?"
How do you know it was two weeks? December 4th is merely the date of
the FBI interview.
No doubt Mrs. Walther did hesitate to come forward because she knew
her information ran directly counter to the official story of a lone
nut gunman. Can't say I blame her.
It is instructive also to compare Ruby Henderson's response:
"Mrs. HENDERSON said after the shooting she stood transfixed for some
time before returning to work. She said she returned to her place of
employment at approximately 12:43 PM.
Mrs. HENDERSON said she became extremely upset and nervous after the
President's assassination and it was necessary for her to take the
following Monday off her job. She said she hesitated to mention
anything about her observations but felt she should relate same as
they might possibly be of some benefit." (F.B.I. interview, 12/5/63)
I take it you consider Mrs. Henderson another fantasist?
***
> Police know the best time to take witnesses testimony is immediately after
> the event when everything is fresh and before the witness is exposed to
> radio, TV, newspaper, etc. The longer a witness takes to come forward the
> more their recall is subject to adulteration from a number of sources.
Fair enough, but if you are to be consistent, then you must allow for
the possibility that Howard Brennan's recollection of the assassin's
face was 'adulterated' by the TV images he saw of Oswald on the
afternoon of the assassination. That, as you know, was the very reason
Brennan himself gave for refusing to make a positive ID of Oswald.
Does that worry you too?
In Walther's case, of course, the problem is far less acute. She
merely needs to be correct about the bare numbers - TWO men rather
than ONE - in order to delete the Lone Nut Theory. The FBI was
painfully aware of this, of course, and even tried to persuade her
that the second man was just boxes! But she had too much courage and
integrity to fall for such shenanigans.
***
> Walther's information is almost worthless two weeks later.
>
> Several more problems with her testimony. Why would an assassin hold his
> weapon outside the window with both hands? That makes no sense at all.
Walther said the gun was pointed downwards and the man was looking
down Houston St. Big deal.
***
> For
> one thing he could accidently drop it and have it come crashing down in
> the street below.
I know and you know that if Carolyn Walther had recalled seeing only
one man up there, you would not be throwing up such flimsy arguments
as this.
***
>Another thing, she said the guy was standing up at the
> time he held his weapon out the window. They way the windows are situated
> that is unlikely,
Howard Brennan thought the sniper was standing too. An understandable
error, which weakens neither witness's testimony one jot.
Once again, you're just reaching for problems because you don't like
what the witness is saying.
***
>but the idea an assassin would reveal his weapon in that
> way prior to using it is akin to the portable smoke machine used by the
> sniper on the GK.
So now you reject Arnold Rowland's testimony about a man showing his
weapon at the west window?
Besides, the behaviour of the SN gunman was anything but shy.
According to Howard Brennan, he made no attempt to keep himself
hidden.
***
> For Walther to walk to the TSBD and not tell any police officer what she
> saw is amazing.
Only on the mistaken assumption that she walked to the TSBD because
she had already identified it as the source of the shots. For the real
reason, let us turn to her companion, Pearl Springer: "She and Mrs.
WALTHER ran across the street for a moment toward the Texas School
Book Depository building *to see if they could see anything down
toward the Elm Street underpass*, but they could not, so they returned
to the building where they work." Real 'amazing', huh.
***
>She should have been screaming her head off she saw a man
> with a gun and pointing to the window. And the fact she never discussed
> this with Pearl Stringer as they walked back to work is inexplicable.
Actually it's perfectly explicable. We need only read Mrs. Walther's
FBI interview report to understand her behaviour: she had "thought
that apparently there were guards everywhere". Everywhere. All over
the place. Throughout the area.
Thus she had no good reason at this point in time to draw any
necessary connection between the two TSBD "guards" and the
assassination. Indeed, she would have presumed that the assassination
had taken place *despite* these men, not because of them. Only later
would a more appalling possibility be brought home to her.
***
> It's hard to put a dent in someone's credibility when they have no
> credibility.
If the Lone Nut theory is correct, then Carolyn Walther's story is
ridiculous.
If Carolyn Walther's story is correct, then the Lone Nut theory is
ridiculous.
Over 40 posts in, and I've yet to see anyone lay a finger on Carolyn
Walther's story.
Sean
Sean Murphy
How does what Howard Brennan related prove anything (other than this
is what he said)?
Sean Murphy
Only witnesses on the outside under-counted because of the windows.
***
>
>
> > ***
>
> > > > ***
>
> > > > > Compare an actual credible witness like Brennan to this witness.
> > > > > Brennan`s account has corroboration on several issues, he put a shooter in
> > > > > a place other people said there was a shooter, that window was open,
> > > > > physical evidence was found at that window, he correctly placed people
> > > > > under the window, ect. So, in a search for truth, is it justifiable to put
> > > > > what Carolyn Walther supplied on a pedestal, while trashing the account
> > > > > that had much more support?
>
> > > > So Carolyn Walther lied?
>
> > > Sometimes when a person thinks hard on a event, the mind embellishes
> > > impressions into observations. She may have gotten a glimpse of Oswald,
> > > with the boxes around him, and the machine gun, other person, ect became
> > > provided by her imagination.
>
> > So you are not suggesting that Carolyn Walther lied,
>
> Naw, just imagination run wild. Like Jean Hill. If Hill can see a
> dog and Secret Servicemen returning fire, Walther can see machine guns
> and a shooter with company.
Walther saw machine guns? Quotation, please. Otherwise we'll know
whose imagination it is that's been running wild.
***
>
> >and you accept
> > that this could indeed have been the sixth floor.
>
> Well, thats where the only shooter (Oswald) was.
So you concede, albeit with the help of yet more tritely circular
reasoning, that it could indeed have been the sixth floor. That leaves you
with just one last objection to Walther's having seen a second man on that
floor - the fact that you don't like it. Boo hoo.
Sean
yeuhd
> Over 40 posts in, and I've yet to see anyone lay a finger on Carolyn
> Walther's story.
Only in your opinion.
Bud
I never said it did. You, on the other hand, made a claim that what
Carol Walther said was proof of something. What, exactly?
Bud
> On Apr 28, 1:58 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sean,
>
> > There are a few problems with Mrs. Walther's story. First and foremost,
> > her delay in reporting what she thought she saw. The logical police
> > reaction: "What can we do about it two weeks later?
>
> Claviger, what information has your research yielded as to the
> circumstances under which Carolyn Walther's account came to the
> attention of the authorities?
>
> ***
>
> > Had you told us
> > immediately we could have looked for the man in the brown suit with a dark
> > shirt, a man with a brown coat, and possibly all employees wearing a white
> > T-shirt that day. And we could have continued to search for a 2nd weapon
> > after we found the rifle. We could have lined up all employees and let you
> > take a look at them. We could have put officers in some of the windows to
> > help you identify exactly which window you saw. But you didn't let us know
> > in time to do anything about it. And why did it take you two weeks to come
> > forth when you work right around the corner?"
>
> How do you know it was two weeks? December 4th is merely the date of
> the FBI interview.
>
> No doubt Mrs. Walther did hesitate to come forward because she knew
> her information ran directly counter to the official story of a lone
> nut gunman. Can't say I blame her.
Did she say she was reluctant to come forward because her account
differed from others?
> It is instructive also to compare Ruby Henderson's response:
> "Mrs. HENDERSON said after the shooting she stood transfixed for some
> time before returning to work. She said she returned to her place of
> employment at approximately 12:43 PM.
> Mrs. HENDERSON said she became extremely upset and nervous after the
> President's assassination and it was necessary for her to take the
> following Monday off her job. She said she hesitated to mention
> anything about her observations but felt she should relate same as
> they might possibly be of some benefit." (F.B.I. interview, 12/5/63)
> I take it you consider Mrs. Henderson another fantasist?
>
> ***
>
> > Police know the best time to take witnesses testimony is immediately after
> > the event when everything is fresh and before the witness is exposed to
> > radio, TV, newspaper, etc. The longer a witness takes to come forward the
> > more their recall is subject to adulteration from a number of sources.
>
> Fair enough, but if you are to be consistent, then you must allow for
> the possibility that Howard Brennan's recollection of the assassin's
> face was 'adulterated' by the TV images he saw of Oswald on the
> afternoon of the assassination. That, as you know, was the very reason
> Brennan himself gave for refusing to make a positive ID of Oswald.
Quote Brennan saying that seeing Oswald on TV is what prevented him
from making an ID at the line-up.
> Does that worry you too?
>
> In Walther's case, of course, the problem is far less acute. She
> merely needs to be correct about the bare numbers - TWO men rather
> than ONE - in order to delete the Lone Nut Theory.
Problem with that is her account can`t be established as having
occurred.
> The FBI was
> painfully aware of this, of course, and even tried to persuade her
> that the second man was just boxes!
Some people suggest that the "dog" Jean Hill reported seeing was
merely flowers.
>But she had too much courage and
> integrity to fall for such shenanigans.
Well, boxes would make more sense, as Oswald was surrounded by brown
boxes when he was shooting.
> ***
>
> > Walther's information is almost worthless two weeks later.
>
> > Several more problems with her testimony. Why would an assassin hold his
> > weapon outside the window with both hands? That makes no sense at all.
>
> Walther said the gun was pointed downwards and the man was looking
> down Houston St. Big deal.
Of course the lack of corroboration for this amazing story isn`t
seen as significant to you.
> ***
>
> > For
> > one thing he could accidently drop it and have it come crashing down in
> > the street below.
>
> I know and you know that if Carolyn Walther had recalled seeing only
> one man up there, you would not be throwing up such flimsy arguments
> as this.
You know and I know that it is only desperation to see Oswald as
innocent that causes you to cling to flimsy witnesses such as this. Not
one part of her story makes any sense. Not one part of her story can be
corroborated.
Did she say she thought the person she saw with a machine gun was a
guard?
> Thus she had no good reason at this point in time to draw any
> necessary connection between the two TSBD "guards" and the
> assassination. Indeed, she would have presumed that the assassination
> had taken place *despite* these men, not because of them. Only later
> would a more appalling possibility be brought home to her.
>
> ***
>
> > It's hard to put a dent in someone's credibility when they have no
> > credibility.
>
> If the Lone Nut theory is correct, then Carolyn Walther's story is
> ridiculous.
> If Carolyn Walther's story is correct, then the Lone Nut theory is
> ridiculous.
> Over 40 posts in, and I've yet to see anyone lay a finger on Carolyn
> Walther's story.
She is the one with the amazing story. She is the one in need of some
amazing support. I see none, only a weak effort to rehabilitate this loser
of a witness into a viable source of information.
> Sean
Anthony Marsh
>>>>>>>> Dal-Tex Building when you count the entrance level as the first floor;
>>>>>>>> therefore, it is very likely that she would also count the entrance level
>>>>>>>> of the TSBD as the first floor. You would have us believe that Mrs.
>>>>>>>> Walther had two different floor-counting systems: one for the TSBD,
>>>>>>>> another for the neighboring Dal-Tex Building.
>>
>>>>>>>> So, those are two good reasons to believe that when Mrs. Walther said she
>>>>>>>> saw two men on the fourth or fifth floor of the TSBD, she was counting the
>>>>>>>> entrance level as the first floor.
>>
>>>>>>> No, I asked for two *good* reasons.
>>
>>>>>> Certainly not enough to stop you from clinging to this extraordinary
>>>>>> account that has no support, only contradiction, outside of this witness.
>>
>>>>>> Interesting this witness is allowed to get floors wrong, with so many
>>>>>> reasons why she should get it right, while Baker, who had good reason to
>>>>>> get the floors wrong in the information he provided, was not.
>>
>>>>> Baker was inside the building, Walther outside. Duh.
>>
>>>> Your point being that Walther could count the windows from the
>>>> ground up, whereas Baker couldn`t?
>>
>>> No, my point being that Baker was inside the building, Walther
>>> outside.
>>
>> You allow only outside people to be fallible?
>
> Only witnesses on the outside under-counted because of the windows.
>
The DPD miscounted INSIDE.
Sean Murphy
Correction: Chapter IV.
Not that it will make much difference.
Bud
> BOTTOM POST;
You seen to be throwing a tantrum.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
claviger
> Claviger, what information has your research yielded as to the
> circumstances under which Carolyn Walther's account came to
> the attention of the authorities?
I can find no other information about Mrs. Walther. She is the mystery
woman of this case. I’m amazed Jim Garrison did not call her as a
witness in the Clay Shaw trial. If she contacted the FBI directly I
would assume they would come immediately or the following day. Her
statement was taken on Wednesday, Dec 4, 1963. The Warren Commission
began its investigation on Tuesday, Dec 3, 1963. Maybe that had
something to do with it.
> How do you know it was two weeks? December 4th is merely
> the date of the FBI interview.
Yes, FBI. Why not DPD or DCSD which are right across the street from
her office in the Dal-Tex building. Why not start with local law
enforcement and then contact the FBI if necessary? Another strange
decision by Mrs. Walther.
> No doubt Mrs. Walther did hesitate to come forward because
> she knew her information ran directly counter to the official story
> of a lone nut gunman. Can't say I blame her.
What official story? LHO was the only one in custody and they had his
rifle, the only weapon discovered in the TSBD. By the time she came
forward LHO was already dead. By waiting the opportunity was lost to
question LHO about an accomplice, using pressure they have a witness
who saw him. Two weeks made this almost a cold case investigation
since the police had nothing to go on at that point.
> It is instructive also to compare Ruby Henderson's response:
> I take it you consider Mrs. Henderson another fantasist?
No, but she didn’t see a man with a gun in the TSBD either. Mrs.
Henderson had no information helpful to the police. I would hope she
would have notified the police immediately had she seen two men with a
gun in the building.
> Fair enough, but if you are to be consistent, then you must allow for
> the possibility that Howard Brennan's recollection of the assassin's
> face was 'adulterated' by the TV images he saw of Oswald on the
> afternoon of the assassination. That, as you know, was the very reason
> Brennan himself gave for refusing to make a positive ID of Oswald.
> Does that worry you too?
Brennan did what any good citizen should do. He stepped forward
immediately and told the police what he saw. That led police to the
6th floor and they soon found the SN and the weapon. Had Mrs. Walther
done the same they may have found the weapon she saw somewhere in the
TSBD. Brennan did the right thing and told the truth when he couldn’t
make a positive ID. That showed integrity on his part. Brennan easily
could have fingered LHO after seeing him on TV, but he was an honest
man and told the truth.
> In Walther's case, of course, the problem is far less acute. She
> merely needs to be correct about the bare numbers - TWO men
> rather than ONE - in order to delete the Lone Nut Theory. The FBI
> was painfully aware of this, of course, and even tried to persuade
> her that the second man was just boxes! But she had too much
> courage and integrity to fall for such shenanigans.
Two men and a machine gun was every bit as important for the police to
know about. Exactly what floor they were on was also important so she
doesn’t send the police on a wild goose chase. She might have seen two
maintenance guys with a plunger in hand for all we know. If she saw
something that looked like a machine gun with a guy holding it out the
window it sounds more like some kind of prank.
> Walther said the gun was pointed downwards and the man
> was looking down Houston St. Big deal.
Yes, it is a big deal. No professional hitman would expose himself
with a weapon in hand that far ahead of the target arrival. Pros don’t
call attention to themselves if they want to stay out of prison. If
there was a man with a strange looking gun then it must have been an
amateur like the sniper on the GK who, according to the HSCA, fired
and missed. Or it was a prank by a couple of knuckleheads.
> I know and you know that if Carolyn Walther had recalled seeing only
> one man up there, you would not be throwing up such flimsy arguments
> as this.
Flimsy? A hitman dangles his weapon out a window 10 minutes before the
motorcade comes by? Does he have a death wish or what? You’re right.
This blows the LN theory all to hell. Welcome to the Double Nut theory
thanks to Mrs. Walther. Or perhaps the Czechoslovakian Happy Hitmen
theory. Just two Wild and Crazy Guys!!
> Howard Brennan thought the sniper was standing too. An understandable
> error, which weakens neither witness's testimony one jot. Once again,
> you're just reaching for problems because you don't like what the witness
> is saying.
LHO was kneeling down when he fired the shots then stood up and
watched for a second or two, before making his escape. From where
Brennan was standing he could tell that much.
> So now you reject Arnold Rowland's testimony about a man showing his
> weapon at the west window? Besides, the behaviour of the SN gunman
> was anything but shy. According to Howard Brennan, he made no attempt
> to keep himself hidden.
The sniper went to some trouble to make a Snipers Nest out of boxes.
He did a good job concealing his position. He lifted the window not
all the way, just enought to fire his rifle. That is as much
concealment as he could accomplish. He could have taped cardboard or
paper to the window but that may have attracted attention.
> Only on the mistaken assumption that she walked to the TSBD
> because she had already identified it as the source of the shots.
> For the real reason, let us turn to her companion, Pearl Springer:
> "She and Mrs. WALTHER ran across the street for a moment
> toward the Texas School Book Depository building *to see if they
> could see anything down toward the Elm Street underpass*, but
> they could not, so they returned to the building where they work."
> Real 'amazing', huh.
That is real amazing since Mrs. Walther claims she saw a man with a
gun in an upper window of the same building just before the parade,
and she could tell the shots came from above, but she didn’t think to
look up and see if the shots came from the same window!!! I’d say that
is not only amazing, but incomprehensible. The little black kid was
smart enough to figure that out. Why not a grown woman? Shots from
above could only come from the TSBD since there was no office building
on the opposite side of the street!
> Actually it's perfectly explicable. We need only read Mrs. Walther's
> FBI interview report to understand her behaviour: she had "thought
> that apparently there were guards everywhere". Everywhere. All over
> the place. Throughout the area. Thus she had no good reason at this
> point in time to draw any necessary connection between the two TSBD
> "guards" and the assassination. Indeed, she would have presumed that
> the assassination had taken place *despite* these men, not because of
> them. Only later would a more appalling possibility be brought home to her.
Any rational person would tell the first cop they see and let them
decide what to do with this information.
> If the Lone Nut theory is correct, then Carolyn Walther's story
> is ridiculous.
Not necessarily. She could have seen something she didn’t understand
or saw a couple of guys screwing around.
> If Carolyn Walther's story is correct, then the Lone Nut theory
> is ridiculous.
Not necessarily. The two may not be connected. There were many people
with a grudge against the Kennedys. It could be Mrs. Walther saw
another assassination attempt underway, but they chickened out. LHO
could have no idea someone else was trying to shoot the President on
the same day from the same building. Or some guys were playing a prank
while he was planning the real thing.
> Over 40 posts in, and I've yet to see anyone lay a finger on
> Carolyn Walther's story.
Only if you disregard common sense.
Sean Murphy
> Quote Brennan saying that seeing Oswald on TV is what prevented him
> from making an ID at the line-up.
Nah, I'm done spoonfeeding someone who finds clicking on links too
taxing.
What I will do however is give you a clue. You go off and do the rest.
Volume IV of the Warren Report.
Go from there to the original interview documents.
Take all the time you need.
***
> > > For
> > > one thing he could accidently drop it and have it come crashing down in
> > > the street below.
>
> > I know and you know that if Carolyn Walther had recalled seeing only
> > one man up there, you would not be throwing up such flimsy arguments
> > as this.
>
> You know and I know that it is only desperation to see Oswald as
> innocent that causes you to cling to flimsy witnesses such as this.
Why does Carolyn Walther's story make Oswald innocent? Do try to keep
up, Bud, it's getting embarrassing.
***
> > >She should have been screaming her head off she saw a man
> > > with a gun and pointing to the window. And the fact she never discussed
> > > this with Pearl Stringer as they walked back to work is inexplicable.
>
> > Actually it's perfectly explicable. We need only read Mrs. Walther's
> > FBI interview report to understand her behaviour: she had "thought
> > that apparently there were guards everywhere". Everywhere. All over
> > the place. Throughout the area.
>
> Did she say she thought the person she saw with a machine gun was a
> guard?
Clue: FBI interview 12.4.63.
Sean
claviger
To extend Mrs. Walther maximum credit that she did indeed see a man
holding a strange looking gun with a short barrel and wide in the back
here are some possible candidates:
http://www.mikesmachineguns.com/files/close3_4view.jpg
http://www.mikesmachineguns.com/files/tino_jw.JPG
http://www.pbase.com/darklightimagery/image/94982681
http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=65
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/grease.htm
http://www.modelguns.co.uk/images/m3m1a1.jpg
The only problem it is highly unlikely any assassin would attempt to shoot
the President with this weapon if he only wanted to kill one man. A rifle
would be a much better choice. It is extremely unlikely as assassin would
spray the whole Limousine with a machine gun just to kill one person.
Bud
Yet it is still fallible human beings inside and out. You allow them
to be wrong when it suits your theories.
> ***
>
>
>
>
>
> > > ***
>
> > > > > ***
>
> > > > > > Compare an actual credible witness like Brennan to this witness.
> > > > > > Brennan`s account has corroboration on several issues, he put a shooter in
> > > > > > a place other people said there was a shooter, that window was open,
> > > > > > physical evidence was found at that window, he correctly placed people
> > > > > > under the window, ect. So, in a search for truth, is it justifiable to put
> > > > > > what Carolyn Walther supplied on a pedestal, while trashing the account
> > > > > > that had much more support?
>
> > > > > So Carolyn Walther lied?
>
> > > > Sometimes when a person thinks hard on a event, the mind embellishes
> > > > impressions into observations. She may have gotten a glimpse of Oswald,
> > > > with the boxes around him, and the machine gun, other person, ect became
> > > > provided by her imagination.
>
> > > So you are not suggesting that Carolyn Walther lied,
>
> > Naw, just imagination run wild. Like Jean Hill. If Hill can see a
> > dog and Secret Servicemen returning fire, Walther can see machine guns
> > and a shooter with company.
>
> Walther saw machine guns? Quotation, please. Otherwise we'll know
> whose imagination it is that's been running wild.
I thought I saw "machine gun" associated with this witness. Maybe
not.
> ***
>
>
>
> > >and you accept
> > > that this could indeed have been the sixth floor.
>
> > Well, thats where the only shooter (Oswald) was.
>
> So you concede, albeit with the help of yet more tritely circular
> reasoning, that it could indeed have been the sixth floor.
Sure. She is off by quite a bit, though.
> That leaves you
> with just one last objection to Walther's having seen a second man on that
> floor - the fact that you don't like it. Boo hoo.
I see no reason to desperately cling to it.
> Sean
tomnln
Bud wrote;
> You seen to be throwing a tantrum.
It's called "ELATION"
It happens Every time you can't prove your claims with evidence/testimony.
The WCR states that the DPD APB was based on Brennan's identification of
Oswald.
"Name the police officer that Brennan gave the shooter's description to?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Murphy
> >>>>>> Interesting this witness is allowed to get floors wrong, with so many
> >>>>>> reasons why she should get it right, while Baker, who had good reason to
> >>>>>> get the floors wrong in the information he provided, was not.
>
> >>>>> Baker was inside the building, Walther outside. Duh.
>
> >>>> Your point being that Walther could count the windows from the
> >>>> ground up, whereas Baker couldn`t?
>
> >>> No, my point being that Baker was inside the building, Walther
> >>> outside.
>
> >> You allow only outside people to be fallible?
>
> > Only witnesses on the outside under-counted because of the windows.
>
> The DPD miscounted INSIDE.
Sure, some of them miscounted upper floors (esp.5th for 6th). But
because of the windows?
Sean Murphy
> Sean,
>
> > Claviger, what information has your research yielded as to the
> > circumstances under which Carolyn Walther's account came to
> > the attention of the authorities?
>
> I can find no other information about Mrs. Walther. She is the mystery
> woman of this case.
Hardly. Carolyn Walther is a bona fide Dealey Plaza witness. She came
forward to the authorities. She gave interviews. She stuck by her
story to the letter over the years.
The lack of supplementary background information to which you point
simply means that Lone Nut Theorists have absolutely no grounds for
casting aspersions on her character.
***
> I’m amazed Jim Garrison did not call her as a
> witness in the Clay Shaw trial.
And if he had, you would be seeing that as an index of her
credibility? Please.
***
> If she contacted the FBI directly I
> would assume they would come immediately or the following day. Her
> statement was taken on Wednesday, Dec 4, 1963. The Warren Commission
> began its investigation on Tuesday, Dec 3, 1963. Maybe that had
> something to do with it.
>
> > How do you know it was two weeks? December 4th is merely
> > the date of the FBI interview.
>
> Yes, FBI. Why not DPD or DCSD which are right across the street from
> her office in the Dal-Tex building. Why not start with local law
> enforcement and then contact the FBI if necessary? Another strange
> decision by Mrs. Walther.
Oh come, come. After Oswald's death, the FBI would have been seen as
lead investigators.
But again let's be careful here: do you know the exact circumstances
under which her story came to the attention of the FBI?
***
> > No doubt Mrs. Walther did hesitate to come forward because
> > she knew her information ran directly counter to the official story
> > of a lone nut gunman. Can't say I blame her.
>
> What official story? LHO was the only one in custody and they had his
> rifle, the only weapon discovered in the TSBD. By the time she came
> forward LHO was already dead. By waiting the opportunity was lost to
> question LHO about an accomplice, using pressure they have a witness
> who saw him. Two weeks made this almost a cold case investigation
> since the police had nothing to go on at that point.
Yes, and we know how the FBI reacted when Arnold Rowland mentioned to
them on 11/23/63 that there was a second man - a middle-aged dark-
complected man wearing a bright plaid shirt - on the sixth floor at
the same time as the man holding the gun at parade rest: "they told me
it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact,
they just the same as told me to forget it now." Oswald was their man,
and that was that.
Only months later did the authorities bother to ask the obvious
question: where were Eddie Piper and Troy West at 12:15 on 11/22/63,
and what were they wearing that day?
***
> > It is instructive also to compare Ruby Henderson's response:
> > I take it you consider Mrs. Henderson another fantasist?
>
> No, but she didn’t see a man with a gun in the TSBD either. Mrs.
> Henderson had no information helpful to the police. I would hope she
> would have notified the police immediately had she seen two men with a
> gun in the building.
So because Mrs. Henderson's testimony doesn't (appear to) challenge
the Lone Nut Theory, you give her a pass for not coming forward
immediately.
***
> > Fair enough, but if you are to be consistent, then you must allow for
> > the possibility that Howard Brennan's recollection of the assassin's
> > face was 'adulterated' by the TV images he saw of Oswald on the
> > afternoon of the assassination. That, as you know, was the very reason
> > Brennan himself gave for refusing to make a positive ID of Oswald.
> > Does that worry you too?
>
> Brennan did what any good citizen should do. He stepped forward
> immediately and told the police what he saw. That led police to the
> 6th floor and they soon found the SN and the weapon. Had Mrs. Walther
> done the same they may have found the weapon she saw somewhere in the
> TSBD. Brennan did the right thing and told the truth when he couldn’t
> make a positive ID. That showed integrity on his part. Brennan easily
> could have fingered LHO after seeing him on TV, but he was an honest
> man and told the truth.
I agree with you about Brennan's basic integrity, and find some of the
attacks on him by Conspiracy Theorists quite reprehensible - no less
reprehensible than some of the attacks being made on Carolyn Walther
by Lone Nut Theorists.
***
> > In Walther's case, of course, the problem is far less acute. She
> > merely needs to be correct about the bare numbers - TWO men
> > rather than ONE - in order to delete the Lone Nut Theory. The FBI
> > was painfully aware of this, of course, and even tried to persuade
> > her that the second man was just boxes! But she had too much
> > courage and integrity to fall for such shenanigans.
>
> Two men and a machine gun was every bit as important for the police to
> know about. Exactly what floor they were on was also important so she
> doesn’t send the police on a wild goose chase. She might have seen two
> maintenance guys with a plunger in hand for all we know.
Absurd.
***
> If she saw
> something that looked like a machine gun with a guy holding it out the
> window it sounds more like some kind of prank.
Yes, and the moon is made of blue stilton.
***
> > Walther said the gun was pointed downwards and the man
> > was looking down Houston St. Big deal.
>
> Yes, it is a big deal. No professional hitman would expose himself
> with a weapon in hand that far ahead of the target arrival.
How far ahead? The motorcade was about to arrive. Perhaps the gunman
wanted to fix JFK in his sights as soon as he emerged onto Houston St.
Perhaps it was a signal. Who knows?
***
> Pros don’t
> call attention to themselves if they want to stay out of prison.
So what was Arnold Rowland's man doing showing his gun in the
southwest window at 12:15-16?
Evidently the calculation - correct, as it turned out - was that
members of the public would assume that this was Presidential
protection.
***
> If
> there was a man with a strange looking gun then it must have been an
> amateur like the sniper on the GK who, according to the HSCA, fired
> and missed. Or it was a prank by a couple of knuckleheads.
>
> > I know and you know that if Carolyn Walther had recalled seeing only
> > one man up there, you would not be throwing up such flimsy arguments
> > as this.
>
> Flimsy? A hitman dangles his weapon out a window 10 minutes before the
> motorcade comes by?
10 minutes before the motorcade comes by? Where on earth are you
getting that from? Don't tell me you have completely misunderstood the
timeframe of Carolyn Walther's account.
***
> > Howard Brennan thought the sniper was standing too. An understandable
> > error, which weakens neither witness's testimony one jot. Once again,
> > you're just reaching for problems because you don't like what the witness
> > is saying.
>
> LHO was kneeling down when he fired the shots then stood up and
> watched for a second or two, before making his escape. From where
> Brennan was standing he could tell that much.
Not so. From Brennan's WC testimony: "Well, as it appeared to me he
was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun
shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand
and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."
If we are going to give Brennan a pass here, as I believe we should,
then we simply cannot criticise Carolyn Walther for making the very
same error. Not if we wish to avoid the charge of double standards.
***
> > So now you reject Arnold Rowland's testimony about a man showing his
> > weapon at the west window?
> > Besides, the behaviour of the SN gunman
> > was anything but shy. According to Howard Brennan, he made no attempt
> > to keep himself hidden.
>
> The sniper went to some trouble to make a Snipers Nest out of boxes.
> He did a good job concealing his position.
Yes, from anyone who might wander onto the sixth floor. You think the
boxes made him invisible to people down on the street?
***
> He lifted the window not
> all the way, just enought to fire his rifle.
Actually the window was up quite high.
The gunman made his face visible to people on the street outside. You
know, all those people who subsequently refused to identify him as Lee
Oswald.
***
> That is as much
> concealment as he could accomplish. He could have taped cardboard or
> paper to the window but that may have attracted attention.
>
> > Only on the mistaken assumption that she walked to the TSBD
> > because she had already identified it as the source of the shots.
> > For the real reason, let us turn to her companion, Pearl Springer:
> > "She and Mrs. WALTHER ran across the street for a moment
> > toward the Texas School Book Depository building *to see if they
> > could see anything down toward the Elm Street underpass*, but
> > they could not, so they returned to the building where they work."
> > Real 'amazing', huh.
>
> That is real amazing since Mrs. Walther claims she saw a man with a
> gun in an upper window of the same building just before the parade,
> and she could tell the shots came from above, but she didn’t think to
> look up and see if the shots came from the same window!!! I’d say that
> is not only amazing, but incomprehensible.
Hardly. Walther's assumption was that the TSBD men were Presidential
protection, and that there were "guards everywhere". Thus she did not
immediately make a connection. Quite comprehensible, regardless of
whether or not you choose to comprehend it. Besides, out of the
multitude of people standing in the street in the vicinity of the
TSBD, how many were able to localise the sixth floor southeast window
as the shot source? A tiny, tiny fraction.
***
> The little black kid was
> smart enough to figure that out.
From Euins's WC testimony: "I started looking around, thinking it was
a backfire. Everybody else started looking around. Then I looked up at
the window, and he shot again." He, like "everybody else", started
"looking around". He did not immediately localise the shot source, nor
even the fact that it was a shot. He did not immediately look up at
the window. This despite the fact that he had noticed the "pipe"
protruding out the window just as JFK was turning onto Elm.
***
> Why not a grown woman? Shots from
> above could only come from the TSBD since there was no office building
> on the opposite side of the street!
Nonsense. All she (and lots of other bystanders in the vicinity) could
tell was that the noise came from up high. Lots of buildings. Lots of
possible shot sources.
Note also that she and her companion were in motion when they heard
the first shot: "As soon as President KENNEDY's car passed where she
was standing, she and Mrs. SPRINGER turned away and stared walking
north towards Elm Street. At about the time they reached the curb at
Elm Street, she heard a loud report and thought it was fireworks."
***
> > Actually it's perfectly explicable. We need only read Mrs. Walther's
> > FBI interview report to understand her behaviour: she had "thought
> > that apparently there were guards everywhere". Everywhere. All over
> > the place. Throughout the area. Thus she had no good reason at this
> > point in time to draw any necessary connection between the two TSBD
> > "guards" and the assassination. Indeed, she would have presumed that
> > the assassination had taken place *despite* these men, not because of
> > them. Only later would a more appalling possibility be brought home to her.
>
> Any rational person would tell the first cop they see and let them
> decide what to do with this information.
No rational person would do this if their governing assumption
remained that there had been "guards everywhere" at the time of the
assassination. Why draw particular attention to the two guards in the
TSBD?
***
> > If the Lone Nut theory is correct, then Carolyn Walther's story
> > is ridiculous.
>
> Not necessarily. She could have seen something she didn’t understand
> or saw a couple of guys screwing around.
But she did see something she didn't understand: two men involved in
the imminent assassination of President Kennedy.
***
> > If Carolyn Walther's story is correct, then the Lone Nut theory
> > is ridiculous.
>
> Not necessarily. The two may not be connected. There were many people
> with a grudge against the Kennedys. It could be Mrs. Walther saw
> another assassination attempt underway, but they chickened out. LHO
> could have no idea someone else was trying to shoot the President on
> the same day from the same building.
Not in a million years.
***
> Or some guys were playing a prank
> while he was planning the real thing.
Out of the question.
***
>
> > Over 40 posts in, and I've yet to see anyone lay a finger on
> > Carolyn Walther's story.
>
> Only if you disregard common sense.
Well, let's see if you feel any differently now that you know the
correct timeframe of the incident.
Sean
Bud
Whatever floats your boat, Tom.
> It happens Every time you can't prove your claims with evidence/testimony.
>
> The WCR states that the DPD APB was based on Brennan's identification of
> Oswald.
>
> "Name the police officer that Brennan gave the shooter's description to?"
Is this the crime you think was being investigated?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
Bud
Her 12-5-63 FBI statement has "Her impression was that the gun was
a machine gun."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2086.htm
Sean Murphy
> > > > > > > Interesting this witness is allowed to get floors wrong, with so many
> > > > > > > reasons why she should get it right, while Baker, who had good reason to
> > > > > > > get the floors wrong in the information he provided, was not.
>
> > > > > > Baker was inside the building, Walther outside. Duh.
>
> > > > > Your point being that Walther could count the windows from the
> > > > > ground up, whereas Baker couldn`t?
>
> > > > No, my point being that Baker was inside the building, Walther
> > > > outside.
>
> > > You allow only outside people to be fallible?
>
> > Only witnesses on the outside under-counted because of the windows.
>
> Yet it is still fallible human beings inside and out. You allow them
> to be wrong when it suits your theories.
Carolyn Walther made an error shared by plenty of outside witnesses:
under-counting as a result of not counting the bottom storey.
Crucially, she under-counted in a way which was consistent and
explicable.
If Patrolman Baker had made the same error of under-counting, he would
have put the second-floor lunchroom incident on the 'first' floor.
He didn't. He put the incident on the "third or fourth floor".
Not "second or third", mind, Not even "third". Not even "about the
third or fourth".
No: "third or fourth".
As errors go, this is off the scale - and, to my knowledge, quite
without precedent in this case.
If Baker had misplaced, say, a fifth-floor incident to the 'sixth' floor,
or a fourth to the 'fifth', this would be a non-issue. Lots of people made
that kind of mistake, and it never ever detains me. An incident just one
floor up becoming an incident several floors up, however, is different.
Add to this the fact that all possible topographical markers of a
second-floor incident are absent, and the problem becomes even more
glaring.
***
> > > Naw, just imagination run wild. Like Jean Hill. If Hill can see a
> > > dog and Secret Servicemen returning fire, Walther can see machine guns
> > > and a shooter with company.
>
> > Walther saw machine guns? Quotation, please. Otherwise we'll know
> > whose imagination it is that's been running wild.
>
> I thought I saw "machine gun" associated with this witness. Maybe
> not.
So you made up "machine guns". As I thought.
***
> > That leaves you
> > with just one last objection to Walther's having seen a second man on that
> > floor - the fact that you don't like it. Boo hoo.
>
> I see no reason to desperately cling to it.
That's because there is none. So don't.
Sean
Bud
> On Apr 29, 4:17 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > Quote Brennan saying that seeing Oswald on TV is what prevented him
> > from making an ID at the line-up.
>
> Nah, I'm done spoonfeeding someone who finds clicking on links too
> taxing.
> What I will do however is give you a clue. You go off and do the rest.
> Volume IV of the Warren Report.
> Go from there to the original interview documents.
> Take all the time you need.
Sure, you can dodge if you like. It works better for me.
> ***
>
> > > > For
> > > > one thing he could accidently drop it and have it come crashing down in
> > > > the street below.
>
> > > I know and you know that if Carolyn Walther had recalled seeing only
> > > one man up there, you would not be throwing up such flimsy arguments
> > > as this.
>
> > You know and I know that it is only desperation to see Oswald as
> > innocent that causes you to cling to flimsy witnesses such as this.
>
> Why does Carolyn Walther's story make Oswald innocent?
Did I say it did? How does it destroy the Lone Nut theory?
>Do try to keep
> up, Bud, it's getting embarrassing.
>
> ***
>
> > > >She should have been screaming her head off she saw a man
> > > > with a gun and pointing to the window. And the fact she never discussed
> > > > this with Pearl Stringer as they walked back to work is inexplicable.
>
> > > Actually it's perfectly explicable. We need only read Mrs. Walther's
> > > FBI interview report to understand her behaviour: she had "thought
> > > that apparently there were guards everywhere". Everywhere. All over
> > > the place. Throughout the area.
>
> > Did she say she thought the person she saw with a machine gun was a
> > guard?
>
> Clue: FBI interview 12.4.63.
Clueless. She said they idea that there were guards everywhere
occurred to her before she saw the man with the rifle.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2086.htm
> Sean
tomnln
>>
>> > You seen to be throwing a tantrum.
>>
>> It's called "ELATION"
>
> Whatever floats your boat, Tom.
>
>> It happens Every time you can't prove your claims with
>> evidence/testimony.
>>
>> The WCR states that the DPD APB was based on Brennan's identification of
>> Oswald.
>>
>> "Name the police officer that Brennan gave the shooter's description to?"
Bud wrote;
> Is this the crime you think was being investigated?
I write;
"Name the police officer that Brennan gave the shooter's description to?"
Are you gonna RUN Again???
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Marsh
Oh, you mean like the attempts on De Gaulle?
Something that LOOKS like a machinegun to someone who knows nothing
about guns does not make it a machinegun. There are a lot of other
similar specialized semi-automatic carbines.
But I see absolutely no evidence for anything other than Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano being fired from the sniper's nest.
Sean Murphy
> > > Naw, just imagination run wild. Like Jean Hill. If Hill can see a
> > > dog and Secret Servicemen returning fire, Walther can see machine guns
> > > and a shooter with company.
>
> > Walther saw machine guns? Quotation, please. Otherwise we'll know
> > whose imagination it is that's been running wild.
>
> Her 12-5-63 FBI statement has "Her impression was that the gun was
> a machine gun."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2086.htm
Right, so you made "machine guns" up.
Tut, tut.
Sean Murphy
> On Apr 29, 10:42 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 4:17 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Quote Brennan saying that seeing Oswald on TV is what prevented him
> > > from making an ID at the line-up.
>
> > Nah, I'm done spoonfeeding someone who finds clicking on links too
> > taxing.
> > What I will do however is give you a clue. You go off and do the rest.
> > Volume IV of the Warren Report.
> > Go from there to the original interview documents.
> > Take all the time you need.
>
> Sure, you can dodge if you like. It works better for me.
Not my problem that you haven't even read the Warren Report - you
know, that thing you've spent the past five years defending.
***
> > > You know and I know that it is only desperation to see Oswald as
> > > innocent that causes you to cling to flimsy witnesses such as this.
>
> > Why does Carolyn Walther's story make Oswald innocent?
>
> Did I say it did?
Yep.
***
> How does it destroy the Lone Nut theory?
Puts a man in the company of an assassin. Duh.
***
> > > Did she say she thought the person she saw with a machine gun was a
> > > guard?
>
> > Clue: FBI interview 12.4.63.
>
> Clueless. She said they idea that there were guards everywhere
> occurred to her before she saw the man with the rifle.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2086.htm
You need to read that line again, my friend. As in, carefully.
Sean
claviger
Mrs. ERIC (CAROLYN) WALTHER
The rifle had a hort barrel and seemed large around the stock or end of
the rifle. Her impression was that the gun was a machine gun. She noticed
nothing like a telescope sight on the rifle or a leather strap or sling on
the rifle. She said she knows nothing about rifles or guns of any type,
but thought that the rifle was different from any she had ever seen.
Sean Murphy
Your point?
claviger
> > I can find no other information about Mrs. Walther. She is the mystery
> > woman of this case.
> Hardly. Carolyn Walther is a bona fide Dealey Plaza witness. She came
> forward to the authorities. She gave interviews. She stuck by her
> story to the letter over the years.
We know nothing other than her statement two weeks after the
assassination. We have no elaboration of her story that would give us
insight into why she waited so long and what caused her to finally step
forward with this information. I’m wondering if Anthony Summers
interviewed Mrs Walther for his book? I was curious the first time I ever
read her testimony why there was not more interest in her observations by
law enforcement. The main reason, there is little that can be done about
it when that much time has passed. Questions may have been asked, but no
other witness saw anything to verify her story.
> The lack of supplementary background information to which you point
> simply means that Lone Nut Theorists have absolutely no grounds for
> casting aspersions on her character.
Yes and no. The timing of her statement is questionable and the statement
itself is confusing. We have no idea what she saw since Mrs Walther, in
spite of her last name, was not an expert on firearms. Her description
does sound like the shape of a machine gun, but no confirmation on that
either. There is no evidence of any machine gun bullets fired at the
motorcade. A machine gun would be an unlikely choice to use at that
distance. This weapon was designed for close contact with the enemy in
trench warfare. Even if someone had a machine gun in the TSBD but didn’t
use it there has been no crime committed. However, the DPD would still
want to know what the heck it was doing there and why. So Mrs Walther
prevented any investigation of this sighting by waiting so long to let the
authorities know about it.
> > I’m amazed Jim Garrison did not call her as a
> > witness in the Clay Shaw trial.
> And if he had, you would be seeing that as an index of her
> credibility? Please.
Not necessarily, but she would have been a star witness to boost
Garrison’s theory that a conspiracy was involved. What might have
happened is Garrison had one of his staff make contact with her and based
on that interview they decided she was not a credible witness. Her name
and story was mentioned during the trial. It sounds like they did not want
her available in person where her story may disintegrate under cross
examination, like happened to William Newman.
Or maybe she did testify after all. Could Mrs. Elizabeth Carolyn Walton be
the same person as Mrs. Carolyn Walther? Their testimony sounds the same.
If so, why the different last name? Another mystery to be solved!
> Oh come, come. After Oswald's death, the FBI would have been seen as
> lead investigators.
Maybe so, but for a local resident who works that close to the Dallas
Police Department it would have been easier and perhaps less intimidating
to speak with local law enforcement, if she was a shy witness. They could
then suggest the FBI interview her later.
> But again let's be careful here: do you know the exact circumstances
> under which her story came to the attention of the FBI?
No I don’t, do you?
> Yes, and we know how the FBI reacted when Arnold Rowland mentioned to
> them on 11/23/63 that there was a second man - a middle-aged dark-
> complected man wearing a bright plaid shirt - on the sixth floor at
> the same time as the man holding the gun at parade rest: "they told me
> it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact,
> they just the same as told me to forget it now." Oswald was their man,
> and that was that.
The second man had nothing to do with the first man Rowland saw. The
second guy was on a different floor on the opposite side of the building.
Rowland saw only one man with a rifle.
> Only months later did the authorities bother to ask the obvious
> question: where were Eddie Piper and Troy West at 12:15 on 11/22/63,
> and what were they wearing that day?
Both were on the first floor according to their testimony.
> So because Mrs. Henderson's testimony doesn't (appear to) challenge
> the Lone Nut Theory, you give her a pass for not coming forward
> immediately.
No, because she did'nt see anyone with a gun in a building overlooking
the motorcade route.
> I agree with you about Brennan's basic integrity, and find some of the
> attacks on him by Conspiracy Theorists quite reprehensible - no less
> reprehensible than some of the attacks being made on Carolyn Walther
> by Lone Nut Theorists.
If only Mrs Walther would have been a good citizen and shared her
information immediately while there is time to do something about it. Her
reluctance to get involved prevented the police from doing any further
investigation. The man with the machine gun was able to just walk away
scot free.
> > Two men and a machine gun was every bit as important for the police to
> > know about. Exactly what floor they were on was also important so she
> > doesn’t send the police on a wild goose chase. She might have seen two
> > maintenance guys with a plunger in hand for all we know.
> Absurd.
Maybe not if she didn’t really didn’t know what object was in the
hands at the time, and this is the reason she never reported it to the
police. Later she decided it must have been a strange looking rifle! Maybe
it was some kind of tool she was unfamiliar with.
> > If she saw
> > something that looked like a machine gun with a guy holding it out the
> > window it sounds more like some kind of prank.
> Yes, and the moon is made of blue stilton.
Or it wasn’t a rifle.
> > > Walther said the gun was pointed downwards and the man
> > > was looking down Houston St. Big deal.
> > Yes, it is a big deal. No professional hitman would expose himself
> > with a weapon in hand that far ahead of the target arrival.
> How far ahead? The motorcade was about to arrive. Perhaps the gunman
> wanted to fix JFK in his sights as soon as he emerged onto Houston St.
> Perhaps it was a signal. Who knows?
Mrs Walther saw the two men with a funny looking gun prior to the person
with the epilectic seizure, about 10 min before the motorcade passed by,
counting from when the ambulance left.
DPD J M SMITH
Mr. SMITH. I proceeded to the intersection of Elm and Houston, and it
was about 9:50 or 10 o'clock when I was on the corner there. At
approximately 11:50 or 12 o'clock, there was a white male that had an
epileptic seizure on the esplanade on Houston Street between Main and
Elm. Well, I went down to see if any assistance was needed, and I
stayed there until the white male was loaded into an ambulance and
sent to a hospital. Then I proceeded back to my assignment.
> > Pros don’t
> > call attention to themselves if they want to stay out of prison.
> So what was Arnold Rowland's man doing showing his gun in the
> southwest window at 12:15-16?
> Evidently the calculation - correct, as it turned out - was that
> members of the public would assume that this was Presidential
> protection.
The man Arnold Rowland saw was not showing off his gun to the crowd
gathered below like the man Mrs. Walther saw. Rowland’s man was at
least 3-5’ behind the window.
> > Flimsy? A hitman dangles his weapon out a window 10 minutes before the
> > motorcade comes by?
> 10 minutes before the motorcade comes by? Where on earth are you
> getting that from? Don't tell me you have completely misunderstood the
> timeframe of Carolyn Walther's account.
She states that shortly after the ambulance left she saw the man in
the window with a gun.
> Not so. From Brennan's WC testimony: "Well, as it appeared to me he
> was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun
> shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand
> and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."
> If we are going to give Brennan a pass here, as I believe we should,
> then we simply cannot criticise Carolyn Walther for making the very
> same error. Not if we wish to avoid the charge of double standards.
Not being familiar with the windows from inside the building, both may
have assumed the men were standing The bottom of the window was only
about 2 feet above the floor.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0263a.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0118a.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0116a.htm
> Yes, from anyone who might wander onto the sixth floor. You think the
> boxes made him invisible to people down on the street?
Not much he could do about the windows and no one got a good look at his
face. LHO may not have cared, or took a chance he was high up enough that
people could not see his face clearly. He was right about that.
> > He lifted the window not
> > all the way, just enought to fire his rifle.
> Actually the window was up quite high.
Incorrect.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce887.jpg
> The gunman made his face visible to people on the street outside. You
> know, all those people who subsequently refused to identify him as Lee
> Oswald.
So LHO took that chance and no one was able to make a positive ID of
his face although his general description was close. Euins even
mentioned his bald spot.
> Hardly. Walther's assumption was that the TSBD men were Presidential
> protection, and that there were "guards everywhere". Thus she did not
> immediately make a connection. Quite comprehensible, regardless of
> whether or not you choose to comprehend it.
Why not tell the police one of the guards shot the President and let
the police investigate?!! Don’t just walk away and do nothing.
> Besides, out of the
> multitude of people standing in the street in the vicinity of the
> TSBD, how many were able to localise the sixth floor southeast window
> as the shot source? A tiny, tiny fraction.
About 6 - 8 people saw a man shooting from the 6th floor SN. Not one other
person in the multitude saw anything to corroborate Mrs. Walther’s
story. That is no one who came forward to tell the DPD, DCDS, FBI, or the
Warren Commission. Someone did show up at the Clay Shaw trial with the
same story. Oddly enough her name was Carolyn too.
> From Euins's WC testimony: "I started looking around, thinking it was
> a backfire. Everybody else started looking around. Then I looked up at
> the window, and he shot again." He, like "everybody else", started
> "looking around". He did not immediately localise the shot source, nor
> even the fact that it was a shot. He did not immediately look up at
> the window. This despite the fact that he had noticed the "pipe"
> protruding out the window just as JFK was turning onto Elm.
Mrs. Walther did realize the shots were coming from above. Having already
seen two men with a strange kind of gun in the TSBD you would think she
would take a second look at the same window to see if those guys are still
hanging around. The fact it didn’t occur to her makes us wonder if the
strange object didn’t morph into a gun until later.
> Nonsense. All she (and lots of other bystanders in the vicinity) could
> tell was that the noise came from up high. Lots of buildings. Lots of
> possible shot sources.
> Note also that she and her companion were in motion when they heard
> the first shot: "As soon as President KENNEDY's car passed where she
> was standing, she and Mrs. SPRINGER turned away and stared walking
> north towards Elm Street. At about the time they reached the curb at
> Elm Street, she heard a loud report and thought it was fireworks."
Mrs. Walther is one of only two witnesses who claim to have seen a man
with a gun standing in a window of the TSBD before the motorcade arrived.
She is the only witness to claim this man was extending his gun outside
the window with both hands. Even if confused by the sounds why not look to
the window where she saw the man in the first place? Rowland certainly
did. She didn't do that which doesn’t make sense at all.
Representative FORD - You never again, after the motorcade once came
into your view, looked back at the School Depository Building?
Mr. ROWLAND - I did after the shots were fired.
> No rational person would do this if their governing assumption
> remained that there had been "guards everywhere" at the time of the
> assassination. Why draw particular attention to the two guards in the
> TSBD?
Because they had a "machine gun" and they could be assassins.
> But she did see something she didn't understand: two men involved in
> the imminent assassination of President Kennedy.
Yes, so why not report that immediately to the DPD?
> > Not necessarily. The two may not be connected. There were many people
> > with a grudge against the Kennedys. It could be Mrs. Walther saw
> > another assassination attempt underway, but they chickened out. LHO
> > could have no idea someone else was trying to shoot the President on
> > the same day from the same building.
> Not in a million years.
CTs who believe in multiple snipers would disagree with you, Fetzer
being the leading advocate who claims there
12-16 snipers that day. Also CTs who believe LHO was set up to be a
patsy and someone else did the shooting.
> > Or some guys were playing a prank
> > while he was planning the real thing.
> Out of the question.
More likely than a "pro" giving his position away several minutes
before taking a shot at the President.
> > > Over 40 posts in, and I've yet to see anyone lay a finger on
> > > Carolyn Walther's story.
> > Only if you disregard common sense.
> Well, let's see if you feel any differently now that you know the
> correct timeframe of the incident.
You're right because 10 minutes was a rough guess. To be more precise, it
was in the 7-5 minutes range.
Bud
> On May 1, 1:51 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 29, 10:42 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > Quote Brennan saying that seeing Oswald on TV is what prevented him
> > > > from making an ID at the line-up.
>
> > > Nah, I'm done spoonfeeding someone who finds clicking on links too
> > > taxing.
> > > What I will do however is give you a clue. You go off and do the rest.
> > > Volume IV of the Warren Report.
> > > Go from there to the original interview documents.
> > > Take all the time you need.
>
> > Sure, you can dodge if you like. It works better for me.
>
> Not my problem that you haven't even read the Warren Report - you
> know, that thing you've spent the past five years defending.
i don`t do much of that at all, it stands on it`s own merits. What I
do is attack the ideas presented by Conspiracy Theorists. If I use the
WCR at all, it usually to show the contrast between reasoned analysis
and conspiracy mongering.
> ***
>
> > > > You know and I know that it is only desperation to see Oswald as
> > > > innocent that causes you to cling to flimsy witnesses such as this.
>
> > > Why does Carolyn Walther's story make Oswald innocent?
>
> > Did I say it did?
>
> Yep.
No, I said "witnesses such as this". As part of a campaign to
exonerate Oswald, you use the weakest material imaginable. Dougherty,
3rd hand newspaper accounts and Walther.
> ***
>
> > How does it destroy the Lone Nut theory?
>
> Puts a man in the company of an assassin. Duh.
How would such a thing establish that the person (assuming one was
there) was a collaborator?
> ***
>
> > > > Did she say she thought the person she saw with a machine gun was a
> > > > guard?
>
> > > Clue: FBI interview 12.4.63.
>
> > Clueless. She said they idea that there were guards everywhere
> > occurred to her before she saw the man with the rifle.
>
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2086.htm
>
> You need to read that line again, my friend. As in, carefully.
Yah, you`re right.
> Sean
yeuhd
> Sean,
>
> > > I can find no other information about Mrs. Walther. She is the mystery
> > > woman of this case.
> > Hardly. Carolyn Walther is a bona fide Dealey Plaza witness. She came
> > forward to the authorities. She gave interviews. She stuck by her
> > story to the letter over the years.
>
> We know nothing other than her statement two weeks after the
> assassination.
Carolyn Walther was born Elizabeth Carolyn McCoy circa 1928. Carolyn and
Eric C. Walther (born circa 1922) had two children born in Dallas, a
daughter in 1955, and a son in 1958. Carolyn and Eric Walther were
divorced in Dallas in 1988.
Anthony Marsh
> On Apr 30, 11:39 pm, Sean Murphy<seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 1, 1:51 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 29, 10:42 pm, Sean Murphy<seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Apr 29, 4:17 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Quote Brennan saying that seeing Oswald on TV is what prevented him
>>>>> from making an ID at the line-up.
>>
>>>> Nah, I'm done spoonfeeding someone who finds clicking on links too
>>>> taxing.
>>>> What I will do however is give you a clue. You go off and do the rest.
>>>> Volume IV of the Warren Report.
>>>> Go from there to the original interview documents.
>>>> Take all the time you need.
>>
>>> Sure, you can dodge if you like. It works better for me.
>>
>> Not my problem that you haven't even read the Warren Report - you
>> know, that thing you've spent the past five years defending.
>
> i don`t do much of that at all, it stands on it`s own merits. What I
> do is attack the ideas presented by Conspiracy Theorists. If I use the
> WCR at all, it usually to show the contrast between reasoned analysis
> and conspiracy mongering.
>
No, what you specialize in is making up false arguments and saying the
conspiracy mongers said them. King of the straw man argument.
Sean Murphy
Sorry, but Mrs. Walther stated to the FBI that:
a) the gun's resemblance to a machine gun was merely her "impression"
b) she knew "nothing about rifles or guns of any type".
It is ludicrous to work this up into a definitive declaration on
Walther's part that she had seen a machine gun.
All she was certain of was that it was a gun of some sort.
And that simple fact is devastating to the Lone Nut Theory.
***
> So Mrs Walther
> prevented any investigation of this sighting by waiting so long to let the
> authorities know about it.
>
> > > I’m amazed Jim Garrison did not call her as a
> > > witness in the Clay Shaw trial.
> > And if he had, you would be seeing that as an index of her
> > credibility? Please.
>
> Not necessarily, but she would have been a star witness to boost
> Garrison’s theory that a conspiracy was involved. What might have
> happened is Garrison had one of his staff make contact with her and based
> on that interview they decided she was not a credible witness. Her name
> and story was mentioned during the trial. It sounds like they did not want
> her available in person where her story may disintegrate under cross
> examination, like happened to William Newman.
>
> Or maybe she did testify after all. Could Mrs. Elizabeth Carolyn Walton be
> the same person as Mrs. Carolyn Walther? Their testimony sounds the same.
> If so, why the different last name? Another mystery to be solved!
Claviger, I am sincerely grateful to you for bringing this to my
attention. It is indeed Carolyn Walther ('Walton' being the
stenographer's error).
So she *did* testify at the Clay Shaw trial, and gave the exact same
story she had told everyone else.
And did her story disintegrate under cross-examination? Not in the
least. Poor Dymond hasn't the first idea what to do with her.
***
>
> > Oh come, come. After Oswald's death, the FBI would have been seen as
> > lead investigators.
>
> Maybe so, but for a local resident who works that close to the Dallas
> Police Department it would have been easier and perhaps less intimidating
> to speak with local law enforcement, if she was a shy witness. They could
> then suggest the FBI interview her later.
>
> > But again let's be careful here: do you know the exact circumstances
> > under which her story came to the attention of the FBI?
>
> No I don’t, do you?
No. So let's both be careful about making pronouncements as to those
circumstances.
***
>
> > Yes, and we know how the FBI reacted when Arnold Rowland mentioned to
> > them on 11/23/63 that there was a second man - a middle-aged dark-
> > complected man wearing a bright plaid shirt - on the sixth floor at
> > the same time as the man holding the gun at parade rest: "they told me
> > it didn't have any bearing or such on the case right then. In fact,
> > they just the same as told me to forget it now." Oswald was their man,
> > and that was that.
>
> The second man had nothing to do with the first man Rowland saw. The
> second guy was on a different floor on the opposite side of the building.
Incorrect.
The man with the gun was behind the southwesternmost window of the
sixth floor.
The middle-aged dark-complected man was leaning out the
southeasternmost window of the sixth floor.
At exactly the same time.
All of this is clearly marked on CE 356:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1133&relPageId=976
***
> Rowland saw only one man with a rifle.
Just like Carolyn Walther.
And it is almost unthinkable that someone standing just a few feet
back from the southwest window would be unnoticed by someone hanging
around by the southeast window. Take a look at the relevant frames
from the SS reconstruction film.
***
>
> > Only months later did the authorities bother to ask the obvious
> > question: where were Eddie Piper and Troy West at 12:15 on 11/22/63,
> > and what were they wearing that day?
>
> Both were on the first floor according to their testimony.
In which case, who on earth was the middle-aged dark-complected man
wearing a bright plaid shirt seen by Arnold Rowland?
***
>
> > So because Mrs. Henderson's testimony doesn't (appear to) challenge
> > the Lone Nut Theory, you give her a pass for not coming forward
> > immediately.
>
> No, because she did'nt see anyone with a gun in a building overlooking
> the motorcade route.
Neither did Ron Fischer or Bob Edwards.
Some witnesses took a little longer than others to come forward, is
all.
***
>
> > I agree with you about Brennan's basic integrity, and find some of the
> > attacks on him by Conspiracy Theorists quite reprehensible - no less
> > reprehensible than some of the attacks being made on Carolyn Walther
> > by Lone Nut Theorists.
>
> If only Mrs Walther would have been a good citizen and shared her
> information immediately while there is time to do something about it. Her
> reluctance to get involved prevented the police from doing any further
> investigation. The man with the machine gun was able to just walk away
> scot free.
Not: 'the man with the machine gun'.
Merely: 'the man with the gun which looked like a machine gun to the
eyes of a complete novice.'
Not necessarily the same thing.
By the way, but your trust in the investigative zeal of the DPD and/or
FBI strikes me as awfully naive. Oswald was their lone nutter, and
that was that.
***
"11:50 or 12 o'clock" for the epileptic fit? Way, way off.
***
>
> > > Pros don’t
> > > call attention to themselves if they want to stay out of prison.
> > So what was Arnold Rowland's man doing showing his gun in the
> > southwest window at 12:15-16?
> > Evidently the calculation - correct, as it turned out - was that
> > members of the public would assume that this was Presidential
> > protection.
>
> The man Arnold Rowland saw was not showing off his gun to the crowd
> gathered below like the man Mrs. Walther saw. Rowland’s man was at
> least 3-5’ behind the window.
In which case he was not particularly worried about being noticed.
***
>
> > > Flimsy? A hitman dangles his weapon out a window 10 minutes before the
> > > motorcade comes by?
> > 10 minutes before the motorcade comes by? Where on earth are you
> > getting that from? Don't tell me you have completely misunderstood the
> > timeframe of Carolyn Walther's account.
>
> She states that shortly after the ambulance left she saw the man in
> the window with a gun.
Let's see what else she states:
1. "Almost immediately after noticing this man with the rifle and the
other man standing beside him, someone in the crowd said "Here they come."
and she looked to her left, looking south on Houston Street, to see the
Presidential Party." (FBI Interview Report 12/4/63)
2. "Just as I was looking at this man the people started shouting "Here he
comes, here he comes." So I looked the other way and forgot about the
man." (CBS programme 'The Warren Report', 1967)
3.
Q: Did anything draw your attention away from this building?
A: Yes, the crowd started hollering that the motorcade was coming and
I turned and looked the other way.
Q: Did in fact the motorcade pass in front of you at this time?
A: Yes, it did.
(Shaw Trial testimony, 1969)
She saw the two men just seconds before JFK reached Dealey Plaza.
***
>
> > Not so. From Brennan's WC testimony: "Well, as it appeared to me he
> > was standing up and resting against the left window sill, with gun
> > shouldered to his right shoulder, holding the gun with his left hand
> > and taking positive aim and fired his last shot."
> > If we are going to give Brennan a pass here, as I believe we should,
> > then we simply cannot criticise Carolyn Walther for making the very
> > same error. Not if we wish to avoid the charge of double standards.
>
> Not being familiar with the windows from inside the building, both may
> have assumed the men were standing The bottom of the window was only
> about 2 feet above the floor.http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol...
Precisely my point, Brennan & Walther both made the same - perfectly
understandable - error.
***
>
> > Yes, from anyone who might wander onto the sixth floor. You think the
> > boxes made him invisible to people down on the street?
>
> Not much he could do about the windows and no one got a good look at his
> face.
Howard Brennan certainly did get a good look at his face - several
times - and stated confidently in his 11/22 affidavit that he would
recognise the man if he saw him again.
***
> LHO may not have cared, or took a chance he was high up enough that
> people could not see his face clearly. He was right about that.
>
> > > He lifted the window not
> > > all the way, just enought to fire his rifle.
> > Actually the window was up quite high.
>
> Incorrect.http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce887.jpg
You don't think a man could lean out of this window??
***
>
> > The gunman made his face visible to people on the street outside. You
> > know, all those people who subsequently refused to identify him as Lee
> > Oswald.
>
> So LHO took that chance and no one was able to make a positive ID of
> his face although his general description was close. Euins even
> mentioned his bald spot.
Euins also initially said it was a 'colored' man that did the
shooting.
***
>
> > Hardly. Walther's assumption was that the TSBD men were Presidential
> > protection, and that there were "guards everywhere". Thus she did not
> > immediately make a connection. Quite comprehensible, regardless of
> > whether or not you choose to comprehend it.
>
> Why not tell the police one of the guards shot the President and let
> the police investigate?!! Don’t just walk away and do nothing.
Already explained: she assumed that the men had been guards, and that
there were guards "everywhere".
***
>
> > Besides, out of the
> > multitude of people standing in the street in the vicinity of the
> > TSBD, how many were able to localise the sixth floor southeast window
> > as the shot source? A tiny, tiny fraction.
>
> About 6 - 8 people saw a man shooting from the 6th floor SN. Not one other
> person in the multitude saw anything to corroborate Mrs. Walther’s
> story. That is no one who came forward to tell the DPD, DCDS, FBI, or the
> Warren Commission. Someone did show up at the Clay Shaw trial with the
> same story. Oddly enough her name was Carolyn too.
>
> > From Euins's WC testimony: "I started looking around, thinking it was
> > a backfire. Everybody else started looking around. Then I looked up at
> > the window, and he shot again." He, like "everybody else", started
> > "looking around". He did not immediately localise the shot source, nor
> > even the fact that it was a shot. He did not immediately look up at
> > the window. This despite the fact that he had noticed the "pipe"
> > protruding out the window just as JFK was turning onto Elm.
>
> Mrs. Walther did realize the shots were coming from above. Having already
> seen two men with a strange kind of gun in the TSBD you would think she
> would take a second look at the same window to see if those guys are still
> hanging around.
Again, not if she believed the men were guards.
Now you can declare that belief silly or misjudged all you like. It
doesn't make it unhistorical.
***
> The fact it didn’t occur to her makes us wonder if the
> strange object didn’t morph into a gun until later.
>
> > Nonsense. All she (and lots of other bystanders in the vicinity) could
> > tell was that the noise came from up high. Lots of buildings. Lots of
> > possible shot sources.
> > Note also that she and her companion were in motion when they heard
> > the first shot: "As soon as President KENNEDY's car passed where she
> > was standing, she and Mrs. SPRINGER turned away and stared walking
> > north towards Elm Street. At about the time they reached the curb at
> > Elm Street, she heard a loud report and thought it was fireworks."
>
> Mrs. Walther is one of only two witnesses who claim to have seen a man
> with a gun standing in a window of the TSBD before the motorcade arrived.
> She is the only witness to claim this man was extending his gun outside
> the window with both hands. Even if confused by the sounds why not look to
> the window where she saw the man in the first place? Rowland certainly
> did. She didn't do that which doesn’t make sense at all.
You're just being wise after the event.
She thought there had been "guards everywhere". Why draw attention to
these two in particular?
***
>
> Representative FORD - You never again, after the motorcade once came
> into your view, looked back at the School Depository Building?
> Mr. ROWLAND - I did after the shots were fired.
>
> > No rational person would do this if their governing assumption
> > remained that there had been "guards everywhere" at the time of the
> > assassination. Why draw particular attention to the two guards in the
> > TSBD?
>
> Because they had a "machine gun" and they could be assassins.
So could any cop or SS or "guard" in Dealey Plaza. You want witnesses
swamping the authorities with 'Hey, I saw a cop with a gun in his hand
just after the President got shot"?
***
>
> > But she did see something she didn't understand: two men involved in
> > the imminent assassination of President Kennedy.
>
> Yes, so why not report that immediately to the DPD?
Because she didn't yet understand what it had meant.
***
>
> > > Not necessarily. The two may not be connected. There were many people
> > > with a grudge against the Kennedys. It could be Mrs. Walther saw
> > > another assassination attempt underway, but they chickened out. LHO
> > > could have no idea someone else was trying to shoot the President on
> > > the same day from the same building.
> > Not in a million years.
>
> CTs who believe in multiple snipers would disagree with you, Fetzer
> being the leading advocate who claims there
> 12-16 snipers that day.
Fetzer is a buffoon.
***
> Also CTs who believe LHO was set up to be a
> patsy and someone else did the shooting.
>
> > > Or some guys were playing a prank
> > > while he was planning the real thing.
> > Out of the question.
>
> More likely than a "pro" giving his position away several minutes
> before taking a shot at the President.
Several seconds!
***
>
> > > > Over 40 posts in, and I've yet to see anyone lay a finger on
> > > > Carolyn Walther's story.
> > > Only if you disregard common sense.
> > Well, let's see if you feel any differently now that you know the
> > correct timeframe of the incident.
>
> You're right because 10 minutes was a rough guess. To be more precise, it
> was in the 7-5 minutes range.
Not even close - it was seconds before JFK arrived in Dealey Plaza.
Thank you again for pointing me to the "Walton" testimony BTW.
Sean
Sean Murphy
Thanks for this information. Where did you find it?
yeuhd
> Carolyn Walther was born Elizabeth Carolyn McCoy circa 1928. Carolyn and
> Eric C. Walther (born circa 1922) had two children born in Dallas, a
> daughter in 1955, and a son in 1958. Carolyn and Eric Walther were
> divorced in Dallas in 1988.
More:
Elizabeth Carolyn (McCoy) Walther was born in North Carolina on May 5,
1928. She currently lives in the Dallas suburb of Lancaster.
yeuhd
> Thanks for this information. Where did you find it?
Ancestry.com
Bud
Doesn`t make a dent. A single witness relating amazing information
need corroboration.
What purpose do you see for the shooter to have company? I see
downside, what is the upside? Oswald needed someone whispering "Shoot
straight, sweet Lee" in his ear while he shot? Brown-suited
individuals roaming the halls of the TSBD makes this conspiracy have a
better chance at success, how, exactly?
> ***
>
> > So Mrs Walther
> > prevented any investigation of this sighting by waiting so long to let the
> > authorities know about it.
>
> > > > I’m amazed Jim Garrison did not call her as a
> > > > witness in the Clay Shaw trial.
> > > And if he had, you would be seeing that as an index of her
> > > credibility? Please.
>
> > Not necessarily, but she would have been a star witness to boost
> > Garrison’s theory that a conspiracy was involved. What might have
> > happened is Garrison had one of his staff make contact with her and based
> > on that interview they decided she was not a credible witness. Her name
> > and story was mentioned during the trial. It sounds like they did not want
> > her available in person where her story may disintegrate under cross
> > examination, like happened to William Newman.
>
> > Or maybe she did testify after all. Could Mrs. Elizabeth Carolyn Walton be
> > the same person as Mrs. Carolyn Walther? Their testimony sounds the same.
> > If so, why the different last name? Another mystery to be solved!
>
> Claviger, I am sincerely grateful to you for bringing this to my
> attention. It is indeed Carolyn Walther ('Walton' being the
> stenographer's error).
> So she *did* testify at the Clay Shaw trial, and gave the exact same
> story she had told everyone else.
No, she didn`t tell the "exact same story". The man on the third
floor in a brown suit became a man in the middle of the building in a
maroon shirt. And she placed the man with a rifle in "a different
building" than the TSBD.
http://www.jfk-online.com/waltonshaw.html
Even between the little bit of information in her FBI statement, and
her little bit of testimony given at the Shaw trial, discrepancies are
apparent.
> And did her story disintegrate under cross-examination? Not in the
> least. Poor Dymond hasn't the first idea what to do with her.
Sure he did, he ignored her. She wasn`t harmful to his client.
> All of this is clearly marked on CE 356:http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=113...
> > about 2 feet above the floor.http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol......
Bud
> On 5/1/2009 9:34 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 11:39 pm, Sean Murphy<seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 1, 1:51 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 29, 10:42 pm, Sean Murphy<seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Apr 29, 4:17 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Quote Brennan saying that seeing Oswald on TV is what prevented him
> >>>>> from making an ID at the line-up.
>
> >>>> Nah, I'm done spoonfeeding someone who finds clicking on links too
> >>>> taxing.
> >>>> What I will do however is give you a clue. You go off and do the rest.
> >>>> Volume IV of the Warren Report.
> >>>> Go from there to the original interview documents.
> >>>> Take all the time you need.
>
> >>> Sure, you can dodge if you like. It works better for me.
>
> >> Not my problem that you haven't even read the Warren Report - you
> >> know, that thing you've spent the past five years defending.
>
> > i don`t do much of that at all, it stands on it`s own merits. What I
> > do is attack the ideas presented by Conspiracy Theorists. If I use the
> > WCR at all, it usually to show the contrast between reasoned analysis
> > and conspiracy mongering.
>
> No, what you specialize in is making up false arguments and saying the
> conspiracy mongers said them.
<snicker> They do.
> King of the straw man argument.
King of ALL arguments.
Sean Murphy
> > So she *did* testify at the Clay Shaw trial, and gave the exact same
> > story she had told everyone else.
>
> No, she didn`t tell the "exact same story". The man on the third
> floor in a brown suit became a man in the middle of the building in a
> maroon shirt.
And the discrepancy is?
***
> And she placed the man with a rifle in "a different
> building" than the TSBD.
I can assure you that this is a stenographer's error, just like the
name "Walton".
If this is all you've got, you ain't got nothing.
***
> > And did her story disintegrate under cross-examination? Not in the
> > least. Poor Dymond hasn't the first idea what to do with her.
>
> Sure he did, he ignored her. She wasn`t harmful to his client.
He didn't ignore her, he put her under cross-examination. And got
nowhere.
Sean
claviger
> Sorry, but Mrs. Walther stated to the FBI that:
> a) the gun's resemblance to a machine gun was merely her "impression"
> b) she knew "nothing about rifles or guns of any type".
> It is ludicrous to work this up into a definitive declaration on
> Walther's part that she had seen a machine gun.
> All she was certain of was that it was a gun of some sort.
She indicated it was a gun she was not familiar with. She noticed the
short barrel length and larger stock in comparison to what knew about
rifles. Being a lady from North Carolina and Texas there is a good chance
she had seen a hunting rifle before. The only weapon I know of that fits
her description is a machine gun. She would know about machine guns from
Gangster movies and WWII films.
One more possibility would be the Garand M1 Carbine. Perhaps from a
distance the stock looks larger compared to the short barrel.
M1 Garand, M1 Carbine
http://www.miltecharms.com/
M1 Carbine
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl08-e.htm
> And that simple fact is devastating to the Lone Nut Theory.
How so?
> Claviger, I am sincerely grateful to you for bringing this to my
> attention. It is indeed Carolyn Walther ('Walton' being the
> stenographer's error).
> So she *did* testify at the Clay Shaw trial, and gave the exact same
> story she had told everyone else.
> And did her story disintegrate under cross-examination? Not in the
> least. Poor Dymond hasn't the first idea what to do with her.
There is one glaring error in her testimony. She may have misspoke or
misunderstood the question.
> > But again let's be careful here: do you know the exact circumstances
> > under which her story came to the attention of the FBI?
> No I don’t, do you?
> No. So let's both be careful about making pronouncements as to those
> circumstances.
Not sure what you mean by pronouncements. It is certainly OK to speculate
as long as it isn’t being presented as fact. I would very much like to
know why she didn’t come forth for two weeks. She was one of only two
witnesses who claims to have seen a gun in the same building where the
shors came from that killed the President of the United States. Most
witnesses in Dealey Plaza notified the police immediately and their
statements were taken down the same day. Why did Mrs. Walther have to
think about it for two weeks before notifying the FBI? And why did she not
mention anything about it to Mrs. Springer?
> Incorrect.
> The man with the gun was behind the southwesternmost window of the
> sixth floor.
> The middle-aged dark-complected man was leaning out the
> southeasternmost window of the sixth floor.
> At exactly the same time.
> All of this is clearly marked on CE 356:
You’re right. Rowland did see the black man in the 6th floor window on
the east side, which makes this situation even more interesting.
> Rowland saw only one man with a rifle.
> Just like Carolyn Walther.
Except her man had a companion which is the central point of your whole
argument.
> And it is almost unthinkable that someone standing just a few feet
> back from the southwest window would be unnoticed by someone hanging
> around by the southeast window. Take a look at the relevant frames
> from the SS reconstruction film.
Please provide a link so we can better understand what you're trying to
say.
> In which case, who on earth was the middle-aged dark-complected man
> wearing a bright plaid shirt seen by Arnold Rowland?
Good question. If he was indeed in the 6th floor window on the east side
that explains why LHO was seen on the opposite side of the 6th floor by
Rowland. After the black man left LHO moved back into position inside the
SN. It’s possible Rowland simply confused which floor the middle aged
black man was on, but assuming he was correct the man must have been
checking out the view and decided to move to another location. Maybe he
was the guy who ate the fried chicken then went downstairs to get a Coke
and watch the parade from down below. This interruption of the plan would
no doubt cause LHO to be even more nervous which could easily affect the
first shot that missed completely.
> Some witnesses took a little longer than others to come forward, is
> all.
Like Gordon Arnold and Ed Hoffman. Late blooming witnesses are highly
suspect to police investigators. Especially when their testimony gets
better with each telling.
> Not: 'the man with the machine gun'.
> Merely: 'the man with the gun which looked like a machine gun to the
> eyes of a complete novice.'
> Not necessarily the same thing.
> By the way, but your trust in the investigative zeal of the DPD and/or
> FBI strikes me as awfully naive. Oswald was their lone nutter, and
> that was that.
Your doubt about police zeal is very naive. Any law enforcement officer
who could uncover evidence of a conspiracy would not only become famous
but it would be a huge boost to his career. To assume all policmen in
Dallas disliked Kennedy is completely naive. Kennedy carried the state of
Texas in 1960.
> "11:50 or 12 o'clock" for the epileptic fit? Way, way off.
You weren’t there and neither was I so we both have to rely on witness
testimony, correct?
> > The man Arnold Rowland saw was not showing off his gun to the crowd
> > gathered below like the man Mrs. Walther saw. Rowland’s man was at
> > least 3-5’ behind the window.
> In which case he was not particularly worried about being noticed.
Perhaps, but the fact he was seen at all with a weapon in hand is
indicative of an amateur, not a pro.
> > > Flimsy? A hitman dangles his weapon out a window 10 minutes before the
> > > motorcade comes by?
> > 10 minutes before the motorcade comes by? Where on earth are you
> > getting that from? Don't tell me you have completely misunderstood the
> > timeframe of Carolyn Walther's account.
> She states that shortly after the ambulance left she saw the man in
> the window with a gun.
> She saw the two men just seconds before JFK reached Dealey Plaza.
Other well placed witnesses corroborate each other, not Mrs. Walther.
> Precisely my point, Brennan & Walther both made the same - perfectly
> understandable - error.
Yes they did and it is understandable. In Rowland’s case the man would
have to be standing to see what he saw.
> Howard Brennan certainly did get a good look at his face - several
> times - and stated confidently in his 11/22 affidavit that he would
> recognise the man if he saw him again.
Actually Brennan did confirm to the WC he picked LHO out of the line- up,
but was fearful of retaliation from Communist sympathizers, so he didn’t
tell the complete truth at the time. He rationalized the evidence was so
overwhelming against Oswald the police didn’t need his ID from the
line-up. He made the decision they had enough evidence to convict Oswald
so he did not want to put his family in danger by fingering him as the
shooter.
> You don't think a man could lean out of this window??
He could, but it makes the story even more doubtful, because it would be
awkward for a grown man to lean out a window open by 24 inches, especially
with a gun in his hand. Definitly not a pro. Maybe another amateur who
brought curtain rods to work that day?
> Euins also initially said it was a 'colored' man that did the
> shooting.
According to his WC testimony Euins vehemently denies that.
> Already explained: she assumed that the men had been guards, and that
> there were guards "everywhere".
There were guards everywhere on the ground level. None in the TSBD. She
does not specifically make that connection. Sometimes after reading a lot
of witness testimony it can blend together. This may be what you’re
thinking of: _____________________________________________
Mr. ROWLAND - Yes.
And then she said something about wishing she could have seen him but he
was probably somewhere else in another part of the building watching
people now. Then we were discussing again, just preceding that we were
discussing the event with Mr. Stevenson, this was about 2 weeks
beforehand, this was fresh on our mind, and right after that we started
discussing that it was a security man. We were looking around, we became
very security conscious. We noted that policemen, I think there were maybe
2, maybe 3 on the viaduct itself; some 20 or 30, I would say 20 to 25
policemen being in that immediate area.
_____________________________________________
> Again, not if she believed the men were guards.
> Now you can declare that belief silly or misjudged all you like. It
> doesn't make it unhistorical.
Mrs. Walther never said she assumed they were guards. Rowland assumed the
guy he saw was a guard, but immediately looked back at the TSBD after
shots were fired to see where he was. A natural reaction that makes sense.
> You're just being wise after the event.
> She thought there had been "guards everywhere". Why draw attention to
> these two in particular?
Because they were the only men with a gun she saw that were not on the
street level and they were not wearing uniforms.
> So could any cop or SS or "guard" in Dealey Plaza. You want witnesses
> swamping the authorities with 'Hey, I saw a cop with a gun in his hand
> just after the President got shot"?
Cops are wearing uniforms. She could notify the police of some men not
wearing uniforms high up in the TSBD with a gun. The DPD can then confirm
if they were guards or not.
> > > But she did see something she didn't understand: two men involved in
> > > the imminent assassination of President Kennedy.
> > Yes, so why not report that immediately to the DPD?
> Because she didn't yet understand what it had meant.
Her thought process seems to be childlike. For that reason it’s hard to
gauge her testimony. The FBI who interviewed her might have had the same
impression. How a witness acts during an interview affects how seriously
the FBI would evaluate her story. If she came across as childlike to the
FBI they may not find her testimony convincing. In any case, her story was
not helpful at all.
> Fetzer is a buffoon.
Or a con artist trying to sell books.
> > More likely than a "pro" giving his position away several minutes
> > before taking a shot at the President.
> Several seconds!
Several minutes according to a majority of witnesses.
> > You're right because 10 minutes was a rough guess. To be more precise, it
> > was in the 7-5 minutes range.
> Not even close - it was seconds before JFK arrived in Dealey Plaza.
Only according to Mrs. Walther. Four more witnesses say otherwise.
> Thank you again for pointing me to the "Walton" testimony BTW.
You are welcome. We all want to know what really happened. Working
together maybe we can get closer to the truth. Disagreement is part of the
process. I’m convinced the government knew what happened from the
beginning and is waiting for the right point in time to disclose the
remaining facts. My hunch is there was a cover-up, but no conspiracy.
______________________________________________________
Four witnesses who corroborate minutes before the motorcade:
DPD JOE MARSHALL SMITH
Mr. SMITH. I proceeded to the intersection of Elm and Houston, and it
was about 9:50 or 10 o'clock when I was on the corner there. At
approximately 11:50 or 12 o'clock, there was a white male that had an
epileptic seizure on the esplanade on Houston Street between Main and
Elm. Well, I went down to see if any assistance was needed, and I
stayed there until the white male was loaded into an ambulance and
sent to a hospital. Then I proceeded back to my assignment.
......
Mr. SMITH. Just after we got the epileptic seizure en route to the
hospital, I hadn't gotten back to the corner but just a few minutes
until the motorcade was coming, so I stationed myself on Elm Street in
the middle from the southeast curb of Elm and Houston and held traffic
up.
MRS DONALD BAKER, (AKA Virgie Rachley)
Mrs. BAKER. I don't know, but before the parade ever got there,
someone passed out and I guess it would be to the left, coming down
Elm Street over in this plaza between Elm Street and Main, because an
ambulance pulled up and picked someone up-- we never could tell who.
This was before the motorcade ever got to Houston Street--I would say
onto Elm Street.
Mr. LIEBELER. About how long before the motorcade came did this
ambulance come and pick up this person?
Mrs. BAKER. I'll judge 5 minutes--about 5 minutes.
Mr. LIEBELER. The ambulance had already left the area about 5 minutes
before the Presidential motorcade came?
Mrs. BAKER Yes.
TESTIMONY OF HOWARD LESLIE BRENNAN
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on
November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the
assassination.
Representative FORD. In both pictures, that is a true--
Mr. BRENNAN. True location.
Representative FORD. True location of where you were sitting November
22d?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
ARNOLD LOUIS ROWLAND
[After the ambulance left]
Representative FORD - About what time, as you can best recollect, did
this conversation with your wife take place?
Mr. ROWLAND - About 5 minutes until about 22 after. I think I again
looked at my watch.
Bud
> On May 2, 6:41 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > So she *did* testify at the Clay Shaw trial, and gave the exact same
> > > story she had told everyone else.
>
> > No, she didn`t tell the "exact same story". The man on the third
> > floor in a brown suit became a man in the middle of the building in a
> > maroon shirt.
>
> And the discrepancy is?
You think "brown suit" and "maroon shirt" are exactly the same?
> ***
>
> > And she placed the man with a rifle in "a different
> > building" than the TSBD.
>
> I can assure you that this is a stenographer's error, just like the
> name "Walton".
> If this is all you've got, you ain't got nothing.
If all I have are your assurances, I have nothing.
> ***
>
> > > And did her story disintegrate under cross-examination? Not in the
> > > least. Poor Dymond hasn't the first idea what to do with her.
>
> > Sure he did, he ignored her. She wasn`t harmful to his client.
>
> He didn't ignore her, he put her under cross-examination. And got
> nowhere.
You are unaware of the outcome of this trial?
> Sean
Sean Murphy
> Sean,
>
> > Sorry, but Mrs. Walther stated to the FBI that:
> > a) the gun's resemblance to a machine gun was merely her "impression"
> > b) she knew "nothing about rifles or guns of any type".
> > It is ludicrous to work this up into a definitive declaration on
> > Walther's part that she had seen a machine gun.
> > All she was certain of was that it was a gun of some sort.
>
> She indicated it was a gun she was not familiar with. She noticed the
> short barrel length and larger stock in comparison to what knew about
> rifles. Being a lady from North Carolina and Texas there is a good chance
> she had seen a hunting rifle before. The only weapon I know of that fits
> her description is a machine gun. She would know about machine guns from
> Gangster movies and WWII films.
>
> One more possibility would be the Garand M1 Carbine. Perhaps from a
> distance the stock looks larger compared to the short barrel.
>
> M1 Garand, M1 Carbinehttp://www.miltecharms.com/
>
> M1 Carbinehttp://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl08-e.htm
All I can do is repeat the point: Carolyn Walther, by her own confession a
complete novice when it came to guns, got the "impression" that the gun
looked like a machine gun. This doesn't necessarily make what she saw a
machine gun. But it does make it a gun. And it does put the gunman in the
company of another individual.
***
>
> > And that simple fact is devastating to the Lone Nut Theory.
>
> How so?
Because the man holding the gun was beside another individual. Hardly
a lone nut scenario.
***
> > Claviger, I am sincerely grateful to you for bringing this to my
> > attention. It is indeed Carolyn Walther ('Walton' being the
> > stenographer's error).
> > So she *did* testify at the Clay Shaw trial, and gave the exact same
> > story she had told everyone else.
> > And did her story disintegrate under cross-examination? Not in the
> > least. Poor Dymond hasn't the first idea what to do with her.
>
> There is one glaring error in her testimony. She may have misspoke or
> misunderstood the question.
Which bit do you mean?
***
> > > But again let's be careful here: do you know the exact circumstances
> > > under which her story came to the attention of the FBI?
> > No I don’t, do you?
> > No. So let's both be careful about making pronouncements as to those
> > circumstances.
>
> Not sure what you mean by pronouncements. It is certainly OK to speculate
> as long as it isn’t being presented as fact. I would very much like to
> know why she didn’t come forth for two weeks. She was one of only two
> witnesses who claims to have seen a gun in the same building where the
> shors came from that killed the President of the United States. Most
> witnesses in Dealey Plaza notified the police immediately and their
> statements were taken down the same day. Why did Mrs. Walther have to
> think about it for two weeks before notifying the FBI? And why did she not
> mention anything about it to Mrs. Springer?
Again we cannot speak as if we know the circumstances and timing of
Mrs. Walther's story coming to the attention of the FBI. We don't.
***
> > Incorrect.
> > The man with the gun was behind the southwesternmost window of the
> > sixth floor.
> > The middle-aged dark-complected man was leaning out the
> > southeasternmost window of the sixth floor.
> > At exactly the same time.
> > All of this is clearly marked on CE 356:
>
> You’re right. Rowland did see the black man in the 6th floor window on
> the east side, which makes this situation even more interesting.
>
> > Rowland saw only one man with a rifle.
> > Just like Carolyn Walther.
>
> Except her man had a companion which is the central point of your whole
> argument.
>
> > And it is almost unthinkable that someone standing just a few feet
> > back from the southwest window would be unnoticed by someone hanging
> > around by the southeast window. Take a look at the relevant frames
> > from the SS reconstruction film.
>
> Please provide a link so we can better understand what you're trying to
> say.
6:39 to 6:44 of the SS reconstruction film -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNAUzNKtsWc&feature=PlayList&p=90A24C2BCA9645A0&index=0&playnext=1
- gives a sense of just how exposed the man holding a gun at parade rest a
few feet back from the west window would have been to Rowland's
middle-aged dark-complected man over on the east side of the sixth floor.
Makes no sense on the hypothesis that it was lone nut assassin Lee Oswald
trying to keep himself hidden from a co-worker.
***
> > In which case, who on earth was the middle-aged dark-complected man
> > wearing a bright plaid shirt seen by Arnold Rowland?
>
> Good question. If he was indeed in the 6th floor window on the east side
> that explains why LHO was seen on the opposite side of the 6th floor by
> Rowland.
It might explain why Oswald would be over on the opposite side, but
not why Oswald would stand with gun at parade rest in an extremely
exposed spot.
***
> After the black man left LHO moved back into position inside the
> SN. It’s possible Rowland simply confused which floor the middle aged
> black man was on, but assuming he was correct the man must have been
> checking out the view and decided to move to another location. Maybe he
> was the guy who ate the fried chicken then went downstairs to get a Coke
> and watch the parade from down below.
Some have tried to argue that this was Bonnie Ray Williams. But the
description isn't remotely a match:
Mr. ROWLAND - He was very thin, an elderly gentleman, bald or
practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn't bald. Had on a plaid
shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color, that is why I
remember it.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us an estimate as to age?
Mr. ROWLAND - Fifty; possibly 55 or 60.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us an estimate as to height?
Mr. ROWLAND - 5'8", 5'10", in that neighborhood. He was very slender,
very thin.
Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us a more definite description as to
complexion?
Mr. ROWLAND - Very dark or fairly dark, not real dark compared to some
Negroes, but fairly dark. Seemed like his face was either--I can't
recall detail but it was either very wrinkled or marked in some way.
This presented a serious problem, and the WC knew it. It explains why,
for instance, Ball kept pressing Eddie Piper as to whether he had at
any time gone up to the sixth floor that day.
***
> This interruption of the plan would
> no doubt cause LHO to be even more nervous which could easily affect the
> first shot that missed completely.
>
> > Some witnesses took a little longer than others to come forward, is
> > all.
>
> Like Gordon Arnold and Ed Hoffman. Late blooming witnesses are highly
> suspect to police investigators. Especially when their testimony gets
> better with each telling.
In the case of Carolyn Walther, we're talking a few days. Plus it is
incontestable that she was where she said she was at the time of the
assassination.
***
> > Not: 'the man with the machine gun'.
> > Merely: 'the man with the gun which looked like a machine gun to the
> > eyes of a complete novice.'
> > Not necessarily the same thing.
> > By the way, but your trust in the investigative zeal of the DPD and/or
> > FBI strikes me as awfully naive. Oswald was their lone nutter, and
> > that was that.
>
> Your doubt about police zeal is very naive. Any law enforcement officer
> who could uncover evidence of a conspiracy would not only become famous
> but it would be a huge boost to his career. To assume all policmen in
> Dallas disliked Kennedy is completely naive. Kennedy carried the state of
> Texas in 1960.
I'm making no such assumption. I'm merely stating as fact that:
a) Henry Wade's Dallas was not known for worrying overmuch about
letting inconvenient facts get in the way of a good conviction;
b) Orders from Washington were to press the case that Oswald was the
lone nut gunman.
As you yourself acknowledge further down, there was a cover-up. A
cover-up involves the suppression of inconvenient data.
And that's why Carolyn Walther was not called to testify before the
Warren Commission. She was a disaster to the Lone Nut Theory.
***
> > "11:50 or 12 o'clock" for the epileptic fit? Way, way off.
>
> You weren’t there and neither was I so we both have to rely on witness
> testimony, correct?
Yes. And it establishes beyond doubt that the epileptic fit took place
after 12:15pm.
***
> > > The man Arnold Rowland saw was not showing off his gun to the crowd
> > > gathered below like the man Mrs. Walther saw. Rowland’s man was at
> > > least 3-5’ behind the window.
> > In which case he was not particularly worried about being noticed.
>
> Perhaps, but the fact he was seen at all with a weapon in hand is
> indicative of an amateur, not a pro.
It's indicative of someone not particularly worried about being
noticed. If, for example, someone is up there impersonating Oswald,
then they will make a point of getting themselves noticed by
eyewitnesses.
***
> > > > Flimsy? A hitman dangles his weapon out a window 10 minutes before the
> > > > motorcade comes by?
> > > 10 minutes before the motorcade comes by? Where on earth are you
> > > getting that from? Don't tell me you have completely misunderstood the
> > > timeframe of Carolyn Walther's account.
> > She states that shortly after the ambulance left she saw the man in
> > the window with a gun.
> > She saw the two men just seconds before JFK reached Dealey Plaza.
>
> Other well placed witnesses corroborate each other, not Mrs. Walther.
>
> > Precisely my point, Brennan & Walther both made the same - perfectly
> > understandable - error.
>
> Yes they did and it is understandable. In Rowland’s case the man would
> have to be standing to see what he saw.
Agreed.
***
> > Howard Brennan certainly did get a good look at his face - several
> > times - and stated confidently in his 11/22 affidavit that he would
> > recognise the man if he saw him again.
>
> Actually Brennan did confirm to the WC he picked LHO out of the line- up,
> but was fearful of retaliation from Communist sympathizers, so he didn’t
> tell the complete truth at the time. He rationalized the evidence was so
> overwhelming against Oswald the police didn’t need his ID from the
> line-up. He made the decision they had enough evidence to convict Oswald
> so he did not want to put his family in danger by fingering him as the
> shooter.
That was Brennan's post hoc rationalization. The reason he originally
gave was that his memory had been adulterated by seeing Oswald's face
on TV. And he was probably correct.
***
> > You don't think a man could lean out of this window??
>
> He could, but it makes the story even more doubtful, because it would be
> awkward for a grown man to lean out a window open by 24 inches, especially
> with a gun in his hand. Definitly not a pro. Maybe another amateur who
> brought curtain rods to work that day?
We both agree that a man could lean out of this window -
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce887.jpg.
Judging from the size of the man relative to the open portion of the
window, I honestly cannot see how it would have been at all difficult
for Walther's gunman to do what she said he did. Ample space.
***
> > Euins also initially said it was a 'colored' man that did the
> > shooting.
>
> According to his WC testimony Euins vehemently denies that.
He also vehemently denies the statement in his 11/22 affidavit that
the shooter was white.
I bring these points up because Bonnie Ray Williams, in the floor
below, was black and had just had white dust/plaster fall on his head.
Did Euins perhaps confuse him in his memory with the white shooter a
floor up?
***
> > Already explained: she assumed that the men had been guards, and that
> > there were guards "everywhere".
>
> There were guards everywhere on the ground level. None in the TSBD. She
> does not specifically make that connection.
From Walther's 12/4/63 FBI interview report:
"She recalled at the time that she had not noticed the man there a few
moments previously when she looked toward the building and thought
that apparently there were guards everywhere."
She *had* not noticed anyone there a few minutes previously.
Now she did notice someone.
This made her think that apparently there were guards everywhere.
***
OK, Walther assumed some of the President's protective detail were
plainclothes. So what?
***
> > So could any cop or SS or "guard" in Dealey Plaza. You want witnesses
> > swamping the authorities with 'Hey, I saw a cop with a gun in his hand
> > just after the President got shot"?
>
> Cops are wearing uniforms. She could notify the police of some men not
> wearing uniforms high up in the TSBD with a gun. The DPD can then confirm
> if they were guards or not.
>
> > > > But she did see something she didn't understand: two men involved in
> > > > the imminent assassination of President Kennedy.
> > > Yes, so why not report that immediately to the DPD?
> > Because she didn't yet understand what it had meant.
>
> Her thought process seems to be childlike. For that reason it’s hard to
> gauge her testimony. The FBI who interviewed her might have had the same
> impression. How a witness acts during an interview affects how seriously
> the FBI would evaluate her story. If she came across as childlike to the
> FBI they may not find her testimony convincing. In any case, her story was
> not helpful at all.
Her story was not helpful at all to the Lone Nut Theory.
You think the authorities considered conspiracy-leaning witnesses
'helpful'?
***
> > Fetzer is a buffoon.
>
> Or a con artist trying to sell books.
Or both...
***
> > > More likely than a "pro" giving his position away several minutes
> > > before taking a shot at the President.
> > Several seconds!
>
> Several minutes according to a majority of witnesses.
>
> > > You're right because 10 minutes was a rough guess. To be more precise, it
> > > was in the 7-5 minutes range.
> > Not even close - it was seconds before JFK arrived in Dealey Plaza.
>
> Only according to Mrs. Walther. Four more witnesses say otherwise.
No, we're talking about two different events.
Mrs Walther said her view of the men was interrupted by someone
shouting 'Here they come' (meaning the Presidential party). She turned
around and saw the President turn onto Houston St. That timestamps her
sighting of the men to several seconds before JFK's arrival in Dealey
Plaza.
The epileptic fit, on the other hand, took place over ten minutes
before JFK's arrival. An ambulance was called at 12:19. By the time it
arrived in Dealey Plaza, picked up the man and left, several more
minutes had elapsed.
Walther's FBI interview makes this timeline clear:
"Shortly after the ambulance left" Walther noticed the men in the TSBD
window.
"Almost immediately" after this, someone shouted "Here they come" and
Walther turned to see JFK turn onto Houston St.
Thus: 'shortly' = minutes, 'almost immediately' = seconds.
***
> > Thank you again for pointing me to the "Walton" testimony BTW.
>
> You are welcome. We all want to know what really happened. Working
> together maybe we can get closer to the truth. Disagreement is part of the
> process.
Absolutely. No reason why we can't disagree on Lone Nut vs. Conspiracy
or Oswald vs. A.N.Other while still sharing useful ideas. All it takes
is a basic commitment on both sides to good-faith arguments.
***
> I’m convinced the government knew what happened from the
> beginning and is waiting for the right point in time to disclose the
> remaining facts.
Out of interest, what do you reckon those facts might be?
***
> My hunch is there was a cover-up, but no conspiracy.
Fair enough.
Mine is that the Lone Nut Theory informed the cover-up but not the
conspiracy.
Sean
Sean Murphy
> On May 2, 10:22 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 6:41 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > So she *did* testify at the Clay Shaw trial, and gave the exact same
> > > > story she had told everyone else.
>
> > > No, she didn`t tell the "exact same story". The man on the third
> > > floor in a brown suit became a man in the middle of the building in a
> > > maroon shirt.
>
> > And the discrepancy is?
>
> You think "brown suit" and "maroon shirt" are exactly the same?
I think "a very dark shirt" (12/4/63 FBI interview) and a "maroon
shirt" (Shaw Trial testimony) are perfectly compatible, yes.
***
> > > > And did her story disintegrate under cross-examination? Not in the
> > > > least. Poor Dymond hasn't the first idea what to do with her.
>
> > > Sure he did, he ignored her. She wasn`t harmful to his client.
>
> > He didn't ignore her, he put her under cross-examination. And got
> > nowhere.
>
> You are unaware of the outcome of this trial?
Huh? Clay Shaw was found not guilty. So what? The jury was not being asked
to deliberate on whether or not there was a conspiracy. I was responding
to the suggestion that Garrison declined to call Mrs. Walther because he
was afraid her story would collapse under cross- examination. Well, it
turns out he *did* call her and her story did *not* collapse.
Helps explain why the WC did *not* call Mrs. Walther to testify.
Sean
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:IG8Kl.56$BX...@newsfe18.iad...
>
> "Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
>>> >> > Interesting this witness is allowed to get floors wrong, with so
>>> >> > many
>>> >> > reasons why she should get it right, while Baker, who had good
>>> >> > reason
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > get the floors wrong in the information he provided, was not.
>>>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bud wrote;
>
>> You seen to be throwing a tantrum.
>
>
>
>
> It's called "ELATION"
>
> It happens Every time you can't prove your claims with evidence/testimony.
>
> The WCR states that the DPD APB was based on Brennan's identification of
> Oswald.
>
> "Name the police officer that Brennan gave the shooter's description to?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very simple Bud;
There was a Dallas Police APB for the shooter of JFK.
WHERE did that APB come from?
Name the Witness.Name the DPD Officer the witness gave that description to?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bud
> On May 3, 4:56 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 2, 10:22 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 6:41 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > So she *did* testify at the Clay Shaw trial, and gave the exact same
> > > > > story she had told everyone else.
>
> > > > No, she didn`t tell the "exact same story". The man on the third
> > > > floor in a brown suit became a man in the middle of the building in a
> > > > maroon shirt.
>
> > > And the discrepancy is?
>
> > You think "brown suit" and "maroon shirt" are exactly the same?
>
> I think "a very dark shirt" (12/4/63 FBI interview) and a "maroon
> shirt" (Shaw Trial testimony) are perfectly compatible, yes.
What happened to the brown suit? In what world would you describe a
shirt, and omit the jacket over top of the shirt?
> ***
>
> > > > > And did her story disintegrate under cross-examination? Not in the
> > > > > least. Poor Dymond hasn't the first idea what to do with her.
>
> > > > Sure he did, he ignored her. She wasn`t harmful to his client.
>
> > > He didn't ignore her, he put her under cross-examination. And got
> > > nowhere.
>
> > You are unaware of the outcome of this trial?
>
> Huh? Clay Shaw was found not guilty. So what?
So, "Poor Dymond" did his job well.
> The jury was not being asked
> to deliberate on whether or not there was a conspiracy. I was responding
> to the suggestion that Garrison declined to call Mrs. Walther because he
> was afraid her story would collapse under cross- examination.
And I was responding to your claim that Dymond "hadn`t the first
idea what to do with her".
> Well, it
> turns out he *did* call her and her story did *not* collapse.
It wasn`t vigorously prodded. Dyson knew that what she related had
nothing to do with his client. As you say, it wasn`t a case to
determine whether or not there was a conspiracy. If that was the point
being contested, you would expect a greater effort to shake her story.
> Helps explain why the WC did *not* call Mrs. Walther to testify.
Yah, it does. She would only repeat the information she gave the
FBI. If the WC wasn`t going to give weight to what she related, it
didn`t matter whether she gave the information in person or not. If
some other witnesses gave information corroborating aspects of her
story, then maybe her account could be given some credence. As it
stood, her amazing account could never be supported by merely her say
so.
> Sean
Sean Murphy
> On May 3, 11:06 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 4:56 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 2, 10:22 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 2, 6:41 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > So she *did* testify at the Clay Shaw trial, and gave the exact same
> > > > > > story she had told everyone else.
>
> > > > > No, she didn`t tell the "exact same story". The man on the third
> > > > > floor in a brown suit became a man in the middle of the building in a
> > > > > maroon shirt.
>
> > > > And the discrepancy is?
>
> > > You think "brown suit" and "maroon shirt" are exactly the same?
>
> > I think "a very dark shirt" (12/4/63 FBI interview) and a "maroon
> > shirt" (Shaw Trial testimony) are perfectly compatible, yes.
>
> What happened to the brown suit? In what world would you describe a
> shirt, and omit the jacket over top of the shirt?
The shirt is what stuck out in her memory. Wow.
>
> > ***
>
> > > > > > And did her story disintegrate under cross-examination? Not in the
> > > > > > least. Poor Dymond hasn't the first idea what to do with her.
>
> > > > > Sure he did, he ignored her. She wasn`t harmful to his client.
>
> > > > He didn't ignore her, he put her under cross-examination. And got
> > > > nowhere.
>
> > > You are unaware of the outcome of this trial?
>
> > Huh? Clay Shaw was found not guilty. So what?
>
> So, "Poor Dymond" did his job well.
>
> > The jury was not being asked
> > to deliberate on whether or not there was a conspiracy. I was responding
> > to the suggestion that Garrison declined to call Mrs. Walther because he
> > was afraid her story would collapse under cross- examination.
>
> And I was responding to your claim that Dymond "hadn`t the first
> idea what to do with her".
Yep, and you claimed he "ignored" her. Oops.
Bud
> On May 4, 9:58 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 3, 11:06 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 3, 4:56 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 2, 10:22 pm, Sean Murphy <seanmurphy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 2, 6:41 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > So she *did* testify at the Clay Shaw trial, and gave the exact same
> > > > > > > story she had told everyone else.
>
> > > > > > No, she didn`t tell the "exact same story". The man on the third
> > > > > > floor in a brown suit became a man in the middle of the building in a
> > > > > > maroon shirt.
>
> > > > > And the discrepancy is?
>
> > > > You think "brown suit" and "maroon shirt" are exactly the same?
>
> > > I think "a very dark shirt" (12/4/63 FBI interview) and a "maroon
> > > shirt" (Shaw Trial testimony) are perfectly compatible, yes.
>
> > What happened to the brown suit? In what world would you describe a
> > shirt, and omit the jacket over top of the shirt?
>
> The shirt is what stuck out in her memory. Wow.
You are right to say "wow", that is an amazing thing. So fixated on the
shirt that the brown suit disappeared from her account. Yet you claimed
these details were part of "the exact same story". I guess we have
different ideas about what the word "exact" means.
> > > ***
>
> > > > > > > And did her story disintegrate under cross-examination? Not in the
> > > > > > > least. Poor Dymond hasn't the first idea what to do with her.
>
> > > > > > Sure he did, he ignored her. She wasn`t harmful to his client.
>
> > > > > He didn't ignore her, he put her under cross-examination. And got
> > > > > nowhere.
>
> > > > You are unaware of the outcome of this trial?
>
> > > Huh? Clay Shaw was found not guilty. So what?
>
> > So, "Poor Dymond" did his job well.
>
> > > The jury was not being asked
> > > to deliberate on whether or not there was a conspiracy. I was responding
> > > to the suggestion that Garrison declined to call Mrs. Walther because he
> > > was afraid her story would collapse under cross- examination.
>
> > And I was responding to your claim that Dymond "hadn`t the first
> > idea what to do with her".
>
> Yep, and you claimed he "ignored" her. Oops.
Yes, he obviously disregarded her as a threat to his client. which
shows he did have "the first idea what to do with her".
claviger
> All I can do is repeat the point: Carolyn Walther, by her own confession a
> complete novice when it came to guns, got the "impression" that the gun
> looked like a machine gun. This doesn't necessarily make what she saw
> a machine gun. But it does make it a gun. And it does put the gunman in
> the company of another individual.
Two possibilities: She had seen a machine gun at the cinema in any
number of gangster movies that were popular in the 1930’s, 40’s, 50s.
She may have seen photos of Machine Gun Kelly or John Dillinger in
newspapers and magazines. WWII movies were popular during the 40s and
50s as well. By the late 50s these same movies were being seen on TV.
So there is a very good chance Miss Carolyn McCoy or Mrs. Carolyn
Walther had seen a machine gun in movies, magazines, or TV programs.
Even if she didn’t like gangster movies she would be exposed to them
in theater previews and on billboards outside the movie house. She may
have even seen children playing with toy machine guns. Chances are
good she had an idea of what they looked like. So if she had an
impression she knew what to compare it to.
The other option is she never went to movies, read newspapers, looked
at magazines, or watched TV. In which case she led a very dull life.
This being the case, she had never seen a machine gun before but she
knew what a hunting rifles looked like, so she guessed it was a
machine gun she saw in the TSBD. Her description of short barrel and
wide stock does match a sub machine gun. The other options: a sawed
off shotgun or a short military weapon she had never seen before. I
would think she knew what a shotgun looked like but she may have never
seen a military short rifle. The M1 Carbine is the only short rifle I
can find. However, the stock is proportionate to the length of the
rifle. The only weapon with a large stock is the “Tommy Gun” of WWII:
M1A1 Thompson Submachine Gun
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/thompson.htm
Thompson submachine gun
http://world.guns.ru/smg/smg29-e.htm
Thompson Submachine Gun M1 and MP 40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISyn0YLZ2IM
Thompson vs MP40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuhQdvkORu4&feature=related
Modern Firearms - M1 Carbine
http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl08-e.htm
M1 Carbine
Picture and specifications of M1 Carbine of Korean War.
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/m1carbin.htm
The M1 Carbine
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/cs/Satellite/IMO_GA/Story_C/The+M1+Carbine
M1 Carbine .......Collector Grade
http://scottyparker.com/
> > > And that simple fact is devastating to the Lone Nut Theory.
> > How so?
> Because the man holding the gun was beside another individual.
> Hardly a lone nut scenario.
How does that tie into LHO? Are you saying this was LHO and an
accomplice? The rifle LHO used does not fit the gun described by Mrs.
Walther, so these must be two other men. If so then by what logic do
you connect them to LHO?
> > There is one glaring error in her testimony. She may have misspoke or
> > misunderstood the question.
> Which bit do you mean?
Where she puts the two men in a different building.
> > Why did Mrs. Walther have to think about it for two weeks before
> > notifying the FBI? And why did she not mention anything about it
> > to Mrs. Springer?
> Again we cannot speak as if we know the circumstances and timing
> of Mrs. Walther's story coming to the attention of the FBI. We don't.
No we don’t. You could say its possible she notified them the very
next day but it took them two weeks to get around to seeing her,
although that sounds very doubtful under these circumstances. Chances
are the FBI would respond immediately or within 48 hrs. They only had
one other witness who claimed to see a man with a weapon in the TSBD
before the shooting.
I’m still baffled by the fact Mrs. Walther knew exactly where the
Dallas police department headquarters was located. She was standing
only a few feet from it when she watched the motorcade. Maybe she did
try to contact them but they referred her to the FBI. I’ll try and
check out if that became the DPD policy within a short time after the
assassination. Usually local authorities are jealous of their turf and
want to solve crimes that happen in their own backyard. The fact the
DPD lost an officer to this killer would make their determination even
moreso. If LHO had help the DPD would be determined to hunt them down
and put them away for good.
claviger
> 6:39 to 6:44 of the SS reconstruction film -
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNAUzNKtsWc&feature=PlayList&p=90A24C2...
>- gives a sense of just how exposed the man holding a gun at parade rest a
> few feet back from the west window would have been to Rowland's
> middle-aged dark-complected man over on the east side of the sixth floor.
> Makes no sense on the hypothesis that it was lone nut assassin Lee Oswald
> trying to keep himself hidden from a co-worker.
Technical point: He was not at parade rest according to Rowland, who
said it was more at port arms. Doesn’t matter because the rifle is in
plain sight either way. Actually it is more visible at the port arms
position. Then why be on the west side first and move back to the east
side later?
> > > In which case, who on earth was the middle-aged dark-complected man
> > > wearing a bright plaid shirt seen by Arnold Rowland?
> > Good question. If he was indeed in the 6th floor window on the east side
> > that explains why LHO was seen on the opposite side of the 6th floor by
> > Rowland.
> It might explain why Oswald would be over on the opposite side, but
> not why Oswald would stand with gun at parade rest in an extremely
> exposed spot.
He may not have realized how visible he was or he didn’t think anyone
would be looking that high. Or an amateurish careless mistake. No
experienced hitman would make such a dumb mistake.
> Some have tried to argue that this was Bonnie Ray Williams. But the
> description isn't remotely a match:
> This presented a serious problem, and the WC knew it. It explains why,
> for instance, Ball kept pressing Eddie Piper as to whether he had at
> any time gone up to the sixth floor that day.
How do you know that question was tied to Walther’s testimony?
> > Like Gordon Arnold and Ed Hoffman. Late blooming witnesses are highly
> > suspect to police investigators. Especially when their testimony gets
> > better with each telling.
> In the case of Carolyn Walther, we're talking a few days. Plus it is
> incontestable that she was where she said she was at the time of the
> assassination.
Yes, just a few steps from police headquarters.
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm merely stating as fact that:
> a) Henry Wade's Dallas was not known for worrying overmuch about
> letting inconvenient facts get in the way of a good conviction;
> b) Orders from Washington were to press the case that Oswald was the
> lone nut gunman.
> As you yourself acknowledge further down, there was a cover-up. A
> cover-up involves the suppression of inconvenient data.
> And that's why Carolyn Walther was not called to testify before the
> Warren Commission. She was a disaster to the Lone Nut Theory.
Depends on what is being covered up. Why even make her testimony
available to the public if that’s the case? It would be easy to file
it away or lose it. She doesn’t sound like the kind of person to
squawk about it if they did. By making it public Garrison got a hold
of it and gave her a chance to influence the jury. Evidently they were
not impressed when she got the wrong building. For whatever reason she
had no impact on the outcome of the jury decision. What is also
curious is the press didn’t react to it like you might expect. For
some reason Mrs. Walther didn’t come off as believable.
> > > "11:50 or 12 o'clock" for the epileptic fit? Way, way off.
> > You weren’t there and neither was I so we both have to rely on witness
> > testimony, correct?
> Yes. And it establishes beyond doubt that the epileptic fit took place
> after 12:15pm.
How is that established beyond doubt? Do you have access to the
ambulance records? From witness testimony we don’t know exactly when
the event began or how long the ambulance took to arrive and carry the
man to the hospital. Evidently the ambulance departed the scene 7-5
minutes before the motorcade turned the corner, based on four
witnesses who saw it happen.
> It's indicative of someone not particularly worried about being
> noticed. If, for example, someone is up there impersonating
> Oswald, then they will make a point of getting themselves
> noticed by eyewitnesses.
Maybe LHO was on a suicide mission and just didn’t care either way.
The Walther situation sounds more like a set up from the standpoint of
being conspicuous by leaning out a window with a gun in hand. Strange
only one witness saw this bold display of flashing a weapon.
> That was Brennan's post hoc rationalization. The reason he originally
> gave was that his memory had been adulterated by seeing Oswald's
> face on TV. And he was probably correct.
Yes, that is what a defense attorney would surely argue, so maybe it
doesn’t matter if Brennan saw him clearly or not. The police should
have kept Brennan secluded from TV exposure and had LHO in a lineup
immediately. Instead Murphy’s Law ruled the day. The DPD screwed up in
just about every way possible. It should be a textbook case in law
enforcement of what not to do when a major incident happens. The
guideline would be, ask “What would the DPD do?” and then do the
opposite. There is no doubt they were brave men doing their duty as
best they knew how. This assassination completely overwhelmed them.
They were simply not prepared for anything like this.
claviger
> We both agree that a man could lean out of this window -
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce887.jpg.
> Judging from the size of the man relative to the open portion of the
> window, I honestly cannot see how it would have been at all difficult
> for Walther's gunman to do what she said he did. Ample space.
He would have to be on his knees to do so and to keep from falling out
the window. She said they were standing next to each other. So were
they actually kneeling next to each other while exposing the gun out
the window? Why? No shots were fired from the odd looking gun.
> > > Euins also initially said it was a 'colored' man that did the
> > > shooting.
> > According to his WC testimony Euins vehemently denies that.
> He also vehemently denies the statement in his 11/22 affidavit that
> the shooter was white.
> I bring these points up because Bonnie Ray Williams, in the floor
> below, was black and had just had white dust/plaster fall on his head.
> Did Euins perhaps confuse him in his memory with the white shooter
> a floor up?
Possibly because Euins keeps talikng about the white spot on his head.
Or he could have seen the sunshine off LHO’s bald spot on the left
side of his head which would be visible to Euins. Bald is another word
for white, as in bald eagle. One thing for sure Euins was emphatic the
guy was a white man.
> From Walther's 12/4/63 FBI interview report:
> "She recalled at the time that she had not noticed the man there a few
> moments previously when she looked toward the building and thought
> that apparently there were guards everywhere."
> She *had* not noticed anyone there a few minutes previously.
> Now she did notice someone.
> This made her think that apparently there were guards everywhere.
OK, I can see that interpretation, but it’s still a confusing way to
put it. The FBI easily could have asked a simple question: Did she
assume these two men were guards? So the DPD were not the only agency
who could have done a better job of investigation. For some reason the
FBI were not impressed with her testimony. Even at two weeks they
still could escort her down to the TSBD to look over the employees and
see if any resembled the two men. However, that might be stretching it
and a defense attorney would jump all over this ID. However, it would
provide probable cause to look into the matter.
> OK, Walther assumed some of the President's protective detail
> were plainclothes. So what?
And shots came from the same building, so what? And the President was
murdered, so what? She was a 40 year old woman at the time. Are you
suggesting she was feeble-minded or something like that?
> Her story was not helpful at all to the Lone Nut Theory.
> You think the authorities considered conspiracy-leaning
> witnesses 'helpful'?
No because obviously every law enforcement officer in Dallas was in on
the giant conspiracy, right?
> > > Not even close - it was seconds before JFK arrived in Dealey Plaza.
> > Only according to Mrs. Walther. Four more witnesses say otherwise.
> No, we're talking about two different events.
> Mrs Walther said her view of the men was interrupted by someone
> shouting 'Here they come' (meaning the Presidential party). She turned
> around and saw the President turn onto Houston St. That timestamps her
> sighting of the men to several seconds before JFK's arrival in Dealey
> Plaza.
> The epileptic fit, on the other hand, took place over ten minutes
> before JFK's arrival. An ambulance was called at 12:19. By the time it
> arrived in Dealey Plaza, picked up the man and left, several more
> minutes had elapsed.
> Walther's FBI interview makes this timeline clear:
> "Shortly after the ambulance left" Walther noticed the men in the TSBD
> window.
> "Almost immediately" after this, someone shouted "Here they come" and
> Walther turned to see JFK turn onto Houston St.
> Thus: 'shortly' = minutes, 'almost immediately' = seconds.
And four more witnesses say otherwise.
> > > Thank you again for pointing me to the "Walton" testimony BTW.
> > You are welcome. We all want to know what really happened. Working
> > together maybe we can get closer to the truth. Disagreement is part of the
> > process.
> Absolutely. No reason why we can't disagree on Lone Nut vs. Conspiracy
> or Oswald vs. A.N.Other while still sharing useful ideas. All it takes
> is a basic commitment on both sides to good-faith arguments.
I couldn’t agree more. “Two heads are better than one.”
> I’m convinced the government knew what happened from the
> beginning and is waiting for the right point in time to disclose the
> remaining facts.
> Out of interest, what do you reckon those facts might be?
There is a third alternative that is not well liked by LNs or CTs. It
is the LN + BG (bodyguard) theory proposed by Howard Donahue. That
theory answers a lot of questions. No conspiracy just a freak
accident. LN was blasting away at the President and a SS agent trying
to return fire lost his balance and accidently discharged his weapon.
That weapon was the AR-15. The terminal ballistics of the .223 bullet
was notorious for complete disintegration into a “lead snowstorm”. The
6.5 FMJ Carcano bullet was known to break up into fewer larger
fragments. However, It did happen to the Carcano bullet on rare
occasion. With the .223 FMJ it happened far more frequently.
> > My hunch is there was a cover-up, but no conspiracy.
> Fair enough. Mine is that the Lone Nut Theory informed
> the cover-up but not the conspiracy.
“Informed”?
Sean Murphy
> > > > And that simple fact is devastating to the Lone Nut Theory.
> > > How so?
> > Because the man holding the gun was beside another individual.
> > Hardly a lone nut scenario.
>
> How does that tie into LHO? Are you saying this was LHO and an
> accomplice? The rifle LHO used does not fit the gun described by Mrs.
> Walther, so these must be two other men. If so then by what logic do
> you connect them to LHO?
Sorry, but your assumption that Lee Oswald shot President Kennedy is
not one I share.
***
> > > There is one glaring error in her testimony. She may have misspoke or
> > > misunderstood the question.
> > Which bit do you mean?
>
> Where she puts the two men in a different building.
I think we can safely put that down to a fault on the part of the
stenographer. The context makes it 100% clear that Walther is still
talking about the TSBD. She probably said "in another *part of the*
building" or somesuch. The idea that she suddenly transplanted her
story to another building is just outlandish.
***
> > > Why did Mrs. Walther have to think about it for two weeks before
> > > notifying the FBI? And why did she not mention anything about it
> > > to Mrs. Springer?
> > Again we cannot speak as if we know the circumstances and timing
> > of Mrs. Walther's story coming to the attention of the FBI. We don't.
>
> No we don’t. You could say its possible she notified them the very
> next day but it took them two weeks to get around to seeing her,
> although that sounds very doubtful under these circumstances. Chances
> are the FBI would respond immediately or within 48 hrs. They only had
> one other witness who claimed to see a man with a weapon in the TSBD
> before the shooting.
I think it's reasonable to assume she took several days to come
forward. But how many? And how did her story come to the attention of
the FBI? We don't know.
***
> I’m still baffled by the fact Mrs. Walther knew exactly where the
> Dallas police department headquarters was located. She was standing
> only a few feet from it when she watched the motorcade. Maybe she did
> try to contact them but they referred her to the FBI. I’ll try and
> check out if that became the DPD policy within a short time after the
> assassination. Usually local authorities are jealous of their turf and
> want to solve crimes that happen in their own backyard. The fact the
> DPD lost an officer to this killer would make their determination even
> moreso. If LHO had help the DPD would be determined to hunt them down
> and put them away for good.
Perhaps she didn't cherish any naive illusions about Dallas justice.
Perhaps she heard Fritz tell the world that the case was already
cinched. Perhaps she heard Wade's prejudicial pronouncements to
pressmen. Perhaps she was scared.
Whatever her reason, she hesitated before coming forward. And I, for
one, don't blame her one little bit.
Sean Murphy
> Sean,
>
> > 6:39 to 6:44 of the SS reconstruction film -
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNAUzNKtsWc&feature=PlayList&p=90A24C2...
> >- gives a sense of just how exposed the man holding a gun at parade rest a
> > few feet back from the west window would have been to Rowland's
> > middle-aged dark-complected man over on the east side of the sixth floor.
> > Makes no sense on the hypothesis that it was lone nut assassin Lee Oswald
> > trying to keep himself hidden from a co-worker.
>
> Technical point: He was not at parade rest according to Rowland, who
> said it was more at port arms. Doesn’t matter because the rifle is in
> plain sight either way. Actually it is more visible at the port arms
> position. Then why be on the west side first and move back to the east
> side later?
You're quite right - I misspoke. Port arms it was.
***
> > > > In which case, who on earth was the middle-aged dark-complected man
> > > > wearing a bright plaid shirt seen by Arnold Rowland?
> > > Good question. If he was indeed in the 6th floor window on the east side
> > > that explains why LHO was seen on the opposite side of the 6th floor by
> > > Rowland.
> > It might explain why Oswald would be over on the opposite side, but
> > not why Oswald would stand with gun at parade rest in an extremely
> > exposed spot.
>
> He may not have realized how visible he was or he didn’t think anyone
> would be looking that high. Or an amateurish careless mistake. No
> experienced hitman would make such a dumb mistake.
We cannot assume that it was a mistake.
***
> > Some have tried to argue that this was Bonnie Ray Williams. But the
> > description isn't remotely a match:
> > This presented a serious problem, and the WC knew it. It explains why,
> > for instance, Ball kept pressing Eddie Piper as to whether he had at
> > any time gone up to the sixth floor that day.
>
> How do you know that question was tied to Walther’s testimony?
It wasn't. It was tied to Rowland's.
Any thoughts on who his plaid-shirt-wearing, near-bald, middle-aged,
dark-complected man might have been?
***
> > I'm making no such assumption. I'm merely stating as fact that:
> > a) Henry Wade's Dallas was not known for worrying overmuch about
> > letting inconvenient facts get in the way of a good conviction;
> > b) Orders from Washington were to press the case that Oswald was the
> > lone nut gunman.
> > As you yourself acknowledge further down, there was a cover-up. A
> > cover-up involves the suppression of inconvenient data.
> > And that's why Carolyn Walther was not called to testify before the
> > Warren Commission. She was a disaster to the Lone Nut Theory.
>
> Depends on what is being covered up. Why even make her testimony
> available to the public if that’s the case? It would be easy to file
> it away or lose it. She doesn’t sound like the kind of person to
> squawk about it if they did.
Oh but she did 'squawk' - and complained about the way the FBI had
treated her.
***
> By making it public Garrison got a hold
> of it and gave her a chance to influence the jury. Evidently they were
> not impressed when she got the wrong building. For whatever reason she
> had no impact on the outcome of the jury decision.
The jury decision related only to the involvement of one Clay Shaw in
a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. Did Walther describe a
debonair white-haired gentleman standing beside the gunman?
***
> What is also
> curious is the press didn’t react to it like you might expect. For
> some reason Mrs. Walther didn’t come off as believable.
You'd need to back that statement up with a whole heap of evidence as
to contemporary press reaction.
***
> > > > "11:50 or 12 o'clock" for the epileptic fit? Way, way off.
> > > You weren’t there and neither was I so we both have to rely on witness
> > > testimony, correct?
> > Yes. And it establishes beyond doubt that the epileptic fit took place
> > after 12:15pm.
>
> How is that established beyond doubt? Do you have access to the
> ambulance records? From witness testimony we don’t know exactly when
> the event began or how long the ambulance took to arrive and carry the
> man to the hospital. Evidently the ambulance departed the scene 7-5
> minutes before the motorcade turned the corner, based on four
> witnesses who saw it happen.
I think it was in Bugliosi that I read about Aubrey Rike's ambulance
getting the 12:19pm dispatch.
As for the time of the epileptic fit itself - take it from me, it was
long after "11:50 or 12 o'clock".
***
> > It's indicative of someone not particularly worried about being
> > noticed. If, for example, someone is up there impersonating
> > Oswald, then they will make a point of getting themselves
> > noticed by eyewitnesses.
>
> Maybe LHO was on a suicide mission and just didn’t care either way.
Maybe it wasn't Oswald.
***
> The Walther situation sounds more like a set up from the standpoint of
> being conspicuous by leaning out a window with a gun in hand. Strange
> only one witness saw this bold display of flashing a weapon.
Not really. The crowd was focused on the imminent arrival of the
President from the contrary direction.
***
> > That was Brennan's post hoc rationalization. The reason he originally
> > gave was that his memory had been adulterated by seeing Oswald's
> > face on TV. And he was probably correct.
>
> Yes, that is what a defense attorney would surely argue, so maybe it
> doesn’t matter if Brennan saw him clearly or not. The police should
> have kept Brennan secluded from TV exposure and had LHO in a lineup
> immediately. Instead Murphy’s Law ruled the day. The DPD screwed up in
> just about every way possible. It should be a textbook case in law
> enforcement of what not to do when a major incident happens. The
> guideline would be, ask “What would the DPD do?” and then do the
> opposite. There is no doubt they were brave men doing their duty as
> best they knew how. This assassination completely overwhelmed them.
> They were simply not prepared for anything like this.
I cannot share your assumption that Howard Brennan's failure to positively
ID Lee Oswald as the sixth floor shooter was nothing more than a function
of DPD incompetence.
Sean
Sean Murphy
> Sean,
>
> > We both agree that a man could lean out of this window -
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce887.jpg.
> > Judging from the size of the man relative to the open portion of the
> > window, I honestly cannot see how it would have been at all difficult
> > for Walther's gunman to do what she said he did. Ample space.
>
> He would have to be on his knees to do so and to keep from falling out
> the window.
Here's Gerald Hill leaning of the next set of windows. Absolutely no
problem.
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=32&pos=1
***
> > > > Euins also initially said it was a 'colored' man that did the
> > > > shooting.
> > > According to his WC testimony Euins vehemently denies that.
> > He also vehemently denies the statement in his 11/22 affidavit that
> > the shooter was white.
> > I bring these points up because Bonnie Ray Williams, in the floor
> > below, was black and had just had white dust/plaster fall on his head.
> > Did Euins perhaps confuse him in his memory with the white shooter
> > a floor up?
>
> Possibly because Euins keeps talikng about the white spot on his head.
> Or he could have seen the sunshine off LHO’s bald spot on the left
> side of his head which would be visible to Euins.
Yes, that's possible.
***
> One thing for sure Euins was emphatic the
> guy was a white man.
On the contrary, Euins was emphatic in his WC testimony that he could
NOT say whether the man was black or white.
***
> > From Walther's 12/4/63 FBI interview report:
> > "She recalled at the time that she had not noticed the man there a few
> > moments previously when she looked toward the building and thought
> > that apparently there were guards everywhere."
> > She *had* not noticed anyone there a few minutes previously.
> > Now she did notice someone.
> > This made her think that apparently there were guards everywhere.
>
> OK, I can see that interpretation, but it’s still a confusing way to
> put it.
Perhaps, but that would be the fault of whoever wrote the report.
***
> The FBI easily could have asked a simple question: Did she
> assume these two men were guards?
Perhaps they did, and the finished report reflects her answer: Yes.
***
> So the DPD were not the only agency
> who could have done a better job of investigation. For some reason the
> FBI were not impressed with her testimony.
For some reason?! You think Hoover's FBI was open to any finding other
than that Oswald acted alone? Come on.
***
> Even at two weeks they
> still could escort her down to the TSBD to look over the employees and
> see if any resembled the two men.
But they didn't. They just didn't want to know. And neither did the
WC.
***
> > OK, Walther assumed some of the President's protective detail
> > were plainclothes. So what?
>
> And shots came from the same building, so what?
She didn't know this until later.
***
>
> > Her story was not helpful at all to the Lone Nut Theory.
> > You think the authorities considered conspiracy-leaning
> > witnesses 'helpful'?
>
> No because obviously every law enforcement officer in Dallas was in on
> the giant conspiracy, right?
No. But there was a cover-up.
***
> > > > Not even close - it was seconds before JFK arrived in Dealey Plaza.
> > > Only according to Mrs. Walther. Four more witnesses say otherwise.
> > No, we're talking about two different events.
> > Mrs Walther said her view of the men was interrupted by someone
> > shouting 'Here they come' (meaning the Presidential party). She turned
> > around and saw the President turn onto Houston St. That timestamps her
> > sighting of the men to several seconds before JFK's arrival in Dealey
> > Plaza.
> > The epileptic fit, on the other hand, took place over ten minutes
> > before JFK's arrival. An ambulance was called at 12:19. By the time it
> > arrived in Dealey Plaza, picked up the man and left, several more
> > minutes had elapsed.
> > Walther's FBI interview makes this timeline clear:
> > "Shortly after the ambulance left" Walther noticed the men in the TSBD
> > window.
> > "Almost immediately" after this, someone shouted "Here they come" and
> > Walther turned to see JFK turn onto Houston St.
> > Thus: 'shortly' = minutes, 'almost immediately' = seconds.
>
> And four more witnesses say otherwise.
You have four witnesses who say they saw Carolyn Walther looking up at
the TSBD several minutes before JFK's arrival in Dealey Plaza?
You're still confusing two different events -
a) the epileptic fit and its aftermath (ca.12:16-12:24)
b) Walther's sighting of the two men (ca.12:29).
***
> > I’m convinced the government knew what happened from the
> > beginning and is waiting for the right point in time to disclose the
> > remaining facts.
> > Out of interest, what do you reckon those facts might be?
>
> There is a third alternative that is not well liked by LNs or CTs. It
> is the LN + BG (bodyguard) theory proposed by Howard Donahue. That
> theory answers a lot of questions. No conspiracy just a freak
> accident. LN was blasting away at the President and a SS agent trying
> to return fire lost his balance and accidently discharged his weapon.
> That weapon was the AR-15. The terminal ballistics of the .223 bullet
> was notorious for complete disintegration into a “lead snowstorm”. The
> 6.5 FMJ Carcano bullet was known to break up into fewer larger
> fragments. However, It did happen to the Carcano bullet on rare
> occasion. With the .223 FMJ it happened far more frequently.
Rather freakishly bad luck that he just happened to hit the very man
Oswald was trying to kill...
Sean
Anthony Marsh
> Sean,
>
>> We both agree that a man could lean out of this window -
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce887.jpg.
>> Judging from the size of the man relative to the open portion of the
>> window, I honestly cannot see how it would have been at all difficult
>> for Walther's gunman to do what she said he did. Ample space.
> He would have to be on his knees to do so and to keep from falling out
> the window. She said they were standing next to each other. So were
Falling our the window when it was only open 13 inches wide? Try that
experiment at home.
> they actually kneeling next to each other while exposing the gun out
> the window? Why? No shots were fired from the odd looking gun.
>
>>>> Euins also initially said it was a 'colored' man that did the
>>>> shooting.
>>> According to his WC testimony Euins vehemently denies that.
>> He also vehemently denies the statement in his 11/22 affidavit that
>> the shooter was white.
>> I bring these points up because Bonnie Ray Williams, in the floor
>> below, was black and had just had white dust/plaster fall on his head.
>> Did Euins perhaps confuse him in his memory with the white shooter
>> a floor up?
> Possibly because Euins keeps talikng about the white spot on his head.
> Or he could have seen the sunshine off LHO�s bald spot on the left
> side of his head which would be visible to Euins. Bald is another word
> for white, as in bald eagle. One thing for sure Euins was emphatic the
> guy was a white man.
>
A bald eagle is not called that because the head is white.
A white head just reminds someone of a person being bald.
Not every bald person has a white head.
>> From Walther's 12/4/63 FBI interview report:
>> "She recalled at the time that she had not noticed the man there a few
>> moments previously when she looked toward the building and thought
>> that apparently there were guards everywhere."
>> She *had* not noticed anyone there a few minutes previously.
>> Now she did notice someone.
>> This made her think that apparently there were guards everywhere.
> OK, I can see that interpretation, but it�s still a confusing way to
> I couldn�t agree more. �Two heads are better than one.�
>
>> I�m convinced the government knew what happened from the
>> beginning and is waiting for the right point in time to disclose the
>> remaining facts.
>> Out of interest, what do you reckon those facts might be?
> There is a third alternative that is not well liked by LNs or CTs. It
> is the LN + BG (bodyguard) theory proposed by Howard Donahue. That
> theory answers a lot of questions. No conspiracy just a freak
> accident. LN was blasting away at the President and a SS agent trying
> to return fire lost his balance and accidently discharged his weapon.
> That weapon was the AR-15. The terminal ballistics of the .223 bullet
> was notorious for complete disintegration into a �lead snowstorm�. The
> 6.5 FMJ Carcano bullet was known to break up into fewer larger
> fragments. However, It did happen to the Carcano bullet on rare
> occasion. With the .223 FMJ it happened far more frequently.
>
Show us your 6.5 mm FMJ bullet making a complete disintegration into a
lead snowstorm.
>>> My hunch is there was a cover-up, but no conspiracy.
>> Fair enough. Mine is that the Lone Nut Theory informed
>> the cover-up but not the conspiracy.
> �Informed�?
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On May 7, 3:12 am, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Sean,
>>
>>> We both agree that a man could lean out of this window -
>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce887.jpg.
>>> Judging from the size of the man relative to the open portion of the
>>> window, I honestly cannot see how it would have been at all difficult
>>> for Walther's gunman to do what she said he did. Ample space.
>>
>> He would have to be on his knees to do so and to keep from falling out
>> the window.
>
> Here's Gerald Hill leaning of the next set of windows. Absolutely no
> problem.
>
Walther said her gunman was in THAT window where Hill was? Can you quote
where she said that?
BTW, try leaning on the window sill with all the boxes stacked in front of
the window.
> http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=32&pos=1
>
> ***
>
>>>>> Euins also initially said it was a 'colored' man that did the
>>>>> shooting.
>>>> According to his WC testimony Euins vehemently denies that.
>>> He also vehemently denies the statement in his 11/22 affidavit that
>>> the shooter was white.
>>> I bring these points up because Bonnie Ray Williams, in the floor
>>> below, was black and had just had white dust/plaster fall on his head.
>>> Did Euins perhaps confuse him in his memory with the white shooter
>>> a floor up?
>>
>> Possibly because Euins keeps talikng about the white spot on his head.
>> Or he could have seen the sunshine off LHO?s bald spot on the left
>> side of his head which would be visible to Euins.
>
> Yes, that's possible.
>
> ***
>
>> One thing for sure Euins was emphatic the
>> guy was a white man.
>
> On the contrary, Euins was emphatic in his WC testimony that he could
> NOT say whether the man was black or white.
>
> ***
>
>>> From Walther's 12/4/63 FBI interview report:
>>> "She recalled at the time that she had not noticed the man there a few
>>> moments previously when she looked toward the building and thought
>>> that apparently there were guards everywhere."
>>> She *had* not noticed anyone there a few minutes previously.
>>> Now she did notice someone.
>>> This made her think that apparently there were guards everywhere.
>>
>> OK, I can see that interpretation, but it?s still a confusing way to
>>> I?m convinced the government knew what happened from the
>>> beginning and is waiting for the right point in time to disclose the
>>> remaining facts.
>>> Out of interest, what do you reckon those facts might be?
>>
>> There is a third alternative that is not well liked by LNs or CTs. It
>> is the LN + BG (bodyguard) theory proposed by Howard Donahue. That
>> theory answers a lot of questions. No conspiracy just a freak
>> accident. LN was blasting away at the President and a SS agent trying
>> to return fire lost his balance and accidently discharged his weapon.
>> That weapon was the AR-15. The terminal ballistics of the .223 bullet
>> was notorious for complete disintegration into a ?lead snowstorm?. The
Sean Murphy
> On 5/7/2009 11:13 AM, Sean Murphy wrote:
>
> > On May 7, 3:12 am, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sean,
>
> >>> We both agree that a man could lean out of this window -
> >>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce887.jpg.
> >>> Judging from the size of the man relative to the open portion of the
> >>> window, I honestly cannot see how it would have been at all difficult
> >>> for Walther's gunman to do what she said he did. Ample space.
>
> >> He would have to be on his knees to do so and to keep from falling out
> >> the window.
>
> > Here's Gerald Hill leaning of the next set of windows. Absolutely no
> > problem.
>
> Walther said her gunman was in THAT window where Hill was? Can you quote
> where she said that?
Huh? I said it was "the next set of windows".
>
> BTW, try leaning on the window sill with all the boxes stacked in front of
> the window.
>
> >http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=3...
Anthony Marsh
> On May 8, 12:24 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 5/7/2009 11:13 AM, Sean Murphy wrote:
>>
>>> On May 7, 3:12 am, claviger<historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Sean,
>>
>>>>> We both agree that a man could lean out of this window -
>>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce887.jpg.
>>>>> Judging from the size of the man relative to the open portion of the
>>>>> window, I honestly cannot see how it would have been at all difficult
>>>>> for Walther's gunman to do what she said he did. Ample space.
>>
>>>> He would have to be on his knees to do so and to keep from falling out
>>>> the window.
>>
>>> Here's Gerald Hill leaning of the next set of windows. Absolutely no
>>> problem.
>>
>> Walther said her gunman was in THAT window where Hill was? Can you quote
>> where she said that?
>
> Huh? I said it was "the next set of windows".
>
That's the problem, a false comparison.
claviger
> A bald eagle is not called that because the head is white.
> A white head just reminds someone of a person being bald.
> Not every bald person has a white head.
Dictionary.com
Bald
Origin:
1250–1300; ME ball(e)d, equiv. to ball white spot (cf. Welsh bal, Gk
phaliós having a white spot)
Bald\, a. [OE. balled, ballid, perh. the p. p. of ball to reduce to
the roundness or smoothness of a ball, by removing hair. [root]85. But
cf. W. bali whiteness in a horse's forehead.]
6. (Zo["o]l.) (a) Destitute of the natural covering. (b) Marked with a
white spot on the head; bald-faced.
bald
1297, ballede, probably from Celt. bal "white patch, blaze" especially
on the head of a horse or other animal (from PIE base *bhel-
"gleaming, white") + M.E. -ede adjectival suffix. The PIE base is also
the source of Skt. bhalam "brightness, forehead," Gk. phalos "white,"
L. fulcia "coot" (so called for the white patch on its head), Alb.
bale "forehead," O.C.S. belu "white," Lith. balnas "pale." The proper
name Ballard probably means "bald head," cf. Wyclif "Stye up,
ballard," where Coverdale translates "Come vp here thou balde
heade" [2 Kg.2:23-24, where God kills 42 children for making fun of
Elijah's lack of hair.] Bald eagle first attested 1688.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper