The Harold Norman version of what he heard
Ed Cage
had to say about 11-22-63. Among the 30 reasons I posted as to
why I personally believe LHO killed President Kennedy, this
particular reason involves witnesses. As we have established
witnesses, even honest ones, are not always relaiable..
Nonetheless, when their overall input is evaluated, a
semi-accurate picture of what actually happened can usually be
deducted from their accounts.. Assuming they are not
intentionally lying.
Let's start w Harold Norman:
Harold Norman was in the fifth-floor window in the southeast
corner, directly under the window where witnesses said they
saw the rifle. (WCE # 485) He could see the light through the
ceiling cracks of the fifth and sixth floors. As the motocade
went by Norman thought that the President was saluting w his
right arm,
***and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know
I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems
as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and
then another shot and then I believe Jarmon or someone told me,
he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and
I think I made a statement, "It is someone shooting at the
President, and I believe it came from up above us."
"Well I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I
heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something like
the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the
rifle." - From The Warren Commission Report.
Ed Cage Eca...@aol.com <==New SN/Email address Oct60358
Barb Junkkarinen
And your point IS?
Barb :-)
---"Our intention, is not to establish the point with
complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the
hypothesis which underlies the conclusion that
Oswald was the sole assasin."
(Redlich memo to Rankin, 4/64)
Ed Cage
will continue w Norman if you wish..
BUT YOU SOUND CONVINCED. If you are convinced this
first witness heard 3 shots above him and was not
lying about it.. We are ready to move on to another
witness in the 5th Floor Gang" as you call them..
UNLESS you think Norman was mistaken.. I do not
think there is any reason to think Norman was lying
OR mistaken Barb.
Do you?
Ed Cage Eca...@aol.com Oct71946
> Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<juu5ov8l31vvm5oss...@4ax.com>...
DRoberdeau
>
>There seems to be some interest in what the "Fifth Floor Gang"
>had to say about 11-22-63. Among the 30 reasons I posted as to
>why I personally believe LHO killed President Kennedy, this
>particular reason involves witnesses. As we have established
>witnesses, even honest ones, are not always relaiable..
> Nonetheless, when their overall input is evaluated, a
>semi-accurate picture of what actually happened can usually be
>deducted from their accounts.. Assuming they are not
>intentionally lying.
>
>Let's start w Harold Norman:
>Harold Norman was in the fifth-floor window in the southeast
>corner, directly under the window where witnesses said they
>saw the rifle. (WCE # 485)
....Good Day Ed.... Correction to your premise.... The warrenatti,
supposed, "LN-SL" was only one of four places where witnesses have said
they saw a weapon, or, one of many places where witnesses have said they
heard at least one audible muzzle blast or surpressed bullet bow shockwave
originate from, and/or saw gunsmoke, and/or smelled gunsmoke....
>He could see the light through the
>ceiling cracks of the fifth and sixth floors. As the motocade
>went by Norman thought that the President was saluting w his
>right arm,
....Look at the Z-film, then tell us at which Z-frame the President first
looks like he is starting to salute with his right arm/hand?....
> ***and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know
>I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems
>as though the President, you know, slumped or something,
....which Z-frame does the President first start to slump? (which
according to NORMAN is just AFTER the first of 3 shots, but before the
second shot, that NORMAN remembered hearing)....
....Some of the additional notes on HAROLD "Hank," "Shorty" D. NORMAN:
....in the "Showtime" mock trial, NORMAN did not, and when questioned
further, would not, say that he heard the muzzle blasts directly above
him-he would only say that he heard them as being above the level of his
ears
....NORMAN initially told the F.B.I. that he stuck his head out the window
after the 1st shot and he looked upward but he saw nothing because
particals of something fell in his eyes before the 2nd & 3rd shots he
heard;
....and as researcher DON WILLIS put it on 21APR03:
<QUOTE>
The "Debris": The Most Baffling Change in the 5th-floor Witnesses' Story
Everyone knows the story within the story re the "debris" that got in
5th-floor witness Bonnie Ray Williams' hair. At least, that's whose hair
it got in if you read the right reports. There were many changes, over
the months and statements, in the Fifth Floor Story, but for me the most
puzzling change is filed under Debris....
>From November 24th through at least December 4th, 1963, the star of the
Debris sub-story was not Williams, but Harold Norman. It was not,
apparently, Williams' story at all until about March 19th, 1964.... On
11/24/63, fellow 5th-floorer James Jarman Jr. told the FBI that about
12:30pm 11/22/63, "Harold Norman stated that something had fallen from
above him & that a piece of debris, in addition, had hit him in his
face...." Two days later, Norman himself told the FBI that "he stuck his
head from the window & looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing
because small particles of dirt were falling from above him." And on
12/4/63, Norman told the Secret Service that "I also saw some dust fall
from the ceiling of the 5th floor & I felt sure that whoever had fired the
shots was directly above me." Not one mention of Williams here--nor in
Williams' own statements during that time--in connection with debris,
dirt, or dust.
Then, on 3/19/64, Williams tells the FBI that "I looked up when little
pieces of cement hit me on the head, but I saw no one."
What's going on?
What's going on is a prelude to the 5th-floorers official Warren
Commission testimony, in which Williams, yes, testifies, "[The shots]
shook the building, the side we were on. Cement fell on my head.
Cement, gravel, dirt or something, from the old building.... [Harold]
said, 'You got something on your head.' And then James Jarman said, 'Yes,
man, don't you brush it out.' But after I got downstairs I think I brushed
it out anyway." (v3p175) Williams, not Norman, now becomes the official
Debris, or Cement, Man. Why? It doesn't make sense.
Ball: Did you see any dust or dirt falling?
Norman: I didn't see any falling, but I saw some in Bonnie Ray Williams'
hair. I believe Jarman told him that it was in his hair first. (p192)
In fact, Norman has to disavow statements to both the FBI (explicitly) and
the SS (implicitly), when he tells counsel that he does not "recall
telling" an FBI agent that "small particles of dirt were falling" (p196):
"I didn't see any falling...." Fine & dandy--Norman is quite welcome to
disavow his FBI interview, but that does not explain how a different FBI
agent, two days earlier, recorded *Jarman* as having said that Norman
"stated that something had fallen from above him..."! The Norman/Debris
story was as well coordinated as the later Williams/Debris story, on
3/19/64 & before the Commission. But the former was, for some arcane
reason, rejected. When this show reached Broadway, the Debris
*understudy* took over....
At the hearings, Jarman too switches focus from Norman to Williams: I
noticed that Bonnie Ray had a few debris in his head... like some come off
a brick or plaster or something (p204).... I got to thinking about all the
debris on Bonnie Ray's head, & so I told Hank, "That shot probably did
come from up over us." (p211)
Again, if Jarman is to be at all consistent, should he not have testified
that he saw debris in *Norman*'s hair? Well, it could be argued that he
*is* consistent, with Norman & Williams, at the hearings. Nothing before
that (except Williams' 3/19 interview) counted, apparently, for any of the
three.
Finally, however, nothing which the three witnesses said before the
Commission apparently counted, either. For in a lengthy interview with
the HSCA on 10/20 & 23/77, Norman reverted to a variation on the original
Norman/Debris sub-story:
HSCA: Did there come a time when Jarman told you there was something in
your hair?
Norman: Yes.
HSCA: Did you feel this quality falling in your hair?
Norman: It wasn't nothing that I really could feel. But the time that he
mentioned it, & then I, you know, brushed my hair at night.
(p8)
So, who brushed out debris? Norman? Williams? No one? The debris was
supposedly lost evidence re a shooter in the TSBD directly above Norman &
Williams ("the side we were on"), but this arduously coordinated change in
the telling of the debris story suggests that there may have been no such
evidence to lose in the first place....
Now, the question you have to ask yourself is, Was it those fun-loving,
prankish *witnesses* who themselves coordinated the change, or some other,
less prankish entity which thought it was, for some unknown unfathomable
ungodly reason, worth all the goddam trouble to switch the spotlight to
Williams? And, either way, WHY???
PS Fellow witness Howard Brennan suggests an answer as to Who, on the
subject of brushed debris--both of them. But look closely at this passage
from his book, "Some of the cement had shattered & bits & pieces had
gotten in the hair of the two black men who were immediately beneath [the
shooter]." Hold these words up to the light, & you see the names of the
two whom he supposedly saw--Norman & *Jarman*. Supposedly, that is, he is
at this point telling SS agent Forrest Sorrels re what the two men he saw
told him at the foot of the TSBD.... Now we got *Jarman * brushing,
too....
<END QUOTE>
Don
CV-67, "Big John," USS John F. Kennedy Plank Walker
Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly
members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSEwillisANNOUNCEMENT.wps
T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore
"(D)rehm (sic) seemed to think the shots came from in FRONT OF or BESIDE
the President." (my EMPHASIS)
----CHARLES F. BREHM, a gunfire-battle experienced, WWII D-day, Ranger
veteran, "Dallas Times Herald," 11-22-63, final edition
Barb Junkkarinen
>My point is that we are off to a good start.. I
>will continue w Norman if you wish..
>
>BUT YOU SOUND CONVINCED. If you are convinced this
>first witness heard 3 shots above him and was not
>lying about it.. We are ready to move on to another
>witness in the 5th Floor Gang" as you call them..
> UNLESS you think Norman was mistaken.. I do not
>think there is any reason to think Norman was lying
>OR mistaken Barb.
> Do you?
>
>Ed Cage Eca...@aol.com Oct71946
I don't know that he was lying or mistaken. I have doubts that he knew
the shots were coming from the window directly over his head ... don't
doubt he thought they were from above him. Have real doubts about him
hearing all three shells and all three rifle/bolt cyclings.
The stories of these three fellows changed from statement to
statement, and eventually all morphed into what they testified to
before the WC.
I really don't think it's that easy to move from one to the next
without either exploring them thoroughly individually first ... or
exploring them thoroughly collectively. There are several statements,
there's the WC working with them in Dallas, there's their WC
testimonies in D.C> A very big deal was made of these guys.
I don't accuse any of them of outright lying. I do have doubts that
the ultimate testimony is an unstretched, unmassaged account of the
goings on with them together and individually that day. Part of
Norman's testimony, for example, directly contradicts an earlier
statement and the WC asks him about it.
These guys have been discussed to death. I can take it or leave it as
regards discussion about these guys. Frankly, given the fact that they
didn't SEE anything, and the fact that plenty of people down at street
level reported a rifle in the 6th floor window, I really don't think
thses guys are all that important....as I have said innumerable times
in the past.
What IS important, imo, is that when anyone brings these guys into
discussion, includes them as evidence or proof of one thing or
another, that it be done accurately.
That is what I called you on.
Your claim was factually incorrect according to the documentary
record. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not any of
them lied or was mistaken.
My comments were about *your* inaccuracy .... not any
inaccuracy/lie/mistake on their parts.
Two different things. I hope I have explained it in a way that is
clear.
Barb
Barb Junkkarinen
Good post, Don. :-)
clark wilkins
"Ed Cage" <ecag...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3bfdcc19.03100...@posting.google.com...
> There seems to be some interest in what the "Fifth Floor Gang"
> had to say about 11-22-63. Among the 30 reasons I posted as to
> why I personally believe LHO killed President Kennedy, this
> particular reason involves witnesses. As we have established
> witnesses, even honest ones, are not always relaiable..
> Nonetheless, when their overall input is evaluated, a
> semi-accurate picture of what actually happened can usually be
> deducted from their accounts.. Assuming they are not
> intentionally lying.
>
> Let's start w Harold Norman:
> Harold Norman was in the fifth-floor window in the southeast
> corner, directly under the window where witnesses said they
> saw the rifle. (WCE # 485) He could see the light through the
> ceiling cracks of the fifth and sixth floors. As the motocade
> went by Norman thought that the President was saluting w his
> right arm,
When does this occur in the Z film?
> ***and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know
> I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems
> as though the President, you know, slumped or something,
First shot hit.
>and
> then another shot and then I believe Jarmon or someone told me,
> he said, "I believe someone is shooting at the President," and
> I think I made a statement, "It is someone shooting at the
> President, and I believe it came from up above us."
> "Well I couldn't see at all during the time
Why can't he see?
What's blocking his view?
When was the first shot fired?
How many shots were fired before the tree?
Does this explain, "Bang! Bang! (pause) Bang!" ?
Does this fit LN theory?
> but I know I
> heard a third shot fired,
But can't see what happened because -?
Just curious.
::Clark::
Ed Cage
Barb -- Much less ever arrive at the other two.
YOU ARE LOOKING FOR "RUBY-LIKE" proof Barb.
You say and I quote,
"I have doubts that he knew the shots were coming from the window
directly over his head ... don't doubt he thought they were from
above him. Have real doubts about him hearing all three shells
We have Norman's sworn testimony Barb -- Harold Norman gives
testimony which does not fit into your preconceived Dal-Tex Shooter
theory, so you simply say, "I have doubts that he knew the shots
were coming from the window directly over his head" <==Barb quote.
(1) WHY do you "have doubts" he heard shots directly over his head?
(2) WHY do you also "Have real doubts about him hearing all three
shells" (hulls) hit the floor above him?
(3) DO YOU ALSO DOUBT that "Bonnie Ray (Williams) had a few debris
in his head?" "It was sort of white stuff or something."
Barb you have a preconceived agenda imo: Your "Dal-Tex Shooter"
theory. You may be the last person in America who still believes in
"The Dal-Tex Shooter" Barb. Certainly there is no one left who will
defend it.. Yet you seem to simply discard/discredit testimony which
conflicts with your "Dal-Tex Shooter." That theory is dead Barb - It
died from both lack of evidence and conflicting evidence.
BARB PLEASE ANSWER THE 3 QUESTIONS ABOVE. Please try to go a step
beyond "I have real doubts" this time.
Ed Cage Eca...@aol.com <==New email Oct80455
> Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<ev67ovoi722mee3jh...@4ax.com>...
Barb Junkkarinen
>It sounds like we will never progress from even Harold Norman
>Barb -- Much less ever arrive at the other two.
You're not getting it, Ed.
> YOU ARE LOOKING FOR "RUBY-LIKE" proof Barb.
> You say and I quote,
>"I have doubts that he knew the shots were coming from the window
>directly over his head ... don't doubt he thought they were from
>above him. Have real doubts about him hearing all three shells
>and all three rifle/bolt cyclings." <==Barb Quote
I expresed my opinion ... then went on to say I personally don't think
these guys matter all that much AND to say....
...read this carefully .....
...my point in calling you on what you claimed had nothing to do with
these three guys other than what YOU CLAIMED about them is INCORRECT
per the documentary record.
I don't like to see INACCURATE (inaccurate = WRONG) claims made when
the documentary record clearly says otherwise.
>
>We have Norman's sworn testimony Barb -- Harold Norman gives
>testimony which does not fit into your preconceived Dal-Tex Shooter
>theory, so you simply say,
I'm not the one who is "simply" anything here, Ed. You are trying to
make a discussion, reasons, etc ... taking fanciful leaps, when what I
was calling you on had NOTHING to do with these three witnesses and
EVERYTHING to do with YOU and your claim ... it was inaccurate.
Which part of that is it that you are unable to understand?
> "I have doubts that he knew the shots
>were coming from the window directly over his head" <==Barb quote.
> (1) WHY do you "have doubts" he heard shots directly over his head?
> (2) WHY do you also "Have real doubts about him hearing all three
>shells" (hulls) hit the floor above him?
> (3) DO YOU ALSO DOUBT that "Bonnie Ray (Williams) had a few debris
>in his head?" "It was sort of white stuff or something."
>
> Barb you have a preconceived agenda imo: Your "Dal-Tex Shooter"
>theory.
First of all, you have been told....several times now ... that I do
not HAVE a Dal-Tex theory.
Second, you are a one track train ... and you persist in hurtling down
the wrong track and ignoring what is being PLAINLY said to you.
> You may be the last person in America who still believes in
>"The Dal-Tex Shooter" Barb. Certainly there is no one left who will
>defend it.. Yet you seem to simply discard/discredit testimony which
>conflicts with your "Dal-Tex Shooter." That theory is dead Barb - It
>died from both lack of evidence and conflicting evidence.
> BARB PLEASE ANSWER THE 3 QUESTIONS ABOVE. Please try to go a step
>beyond "I have real doubts" this time.
Ed, if I thought there was any purpose in answering those questions
for you, I surely would. But there is no purpose because you either
don't bother to read what others write ... or you don't understand
what you read. I don't know which, and frankly, I am beyond caring.
My POINT, my ONLY point, my ONLY REASON for calling you on your claim
was because it was FACTUALLY INCORRECT AS PER THE DOCUMENTARY RECORD.
Your claim is at odds with the testimonies and statements of record.
I don't like to see the facts of record bastardized by anyone.
Let's assume for a moment that I agree with you on everything about
the three fellas on the fifth floor ..... they were the darlings of
the WC, no one has ever been more truthful in reporting their actions
and observations, they nail three shots from having been fired from
the sniper's nest.
Try to track here, Ed.
With me so far?
I STILL would have called you on your claim because YOUR CLAIM that
ALL three heard THREE shots from just above their heads is WRONG WRONG
WRONG according to the facts of record. All three DID NOT report three
shots; all three DID NOT think the shots had come from directly over
their heads.
Ed, I don't like to see things stated as fact when they are
inaccurate. We do not need anyone introducing more myths into this
case. And that's what you promote when you make claims that are
FACTUALLY CONTRARY to the WRITTEN records of the case.
Whether I agree with a person's bottomline or not, if they make claims
that are FACTUALLY INACCURATE, I will say so.
Now, Ed, I can't possibly make it any plainer than that. If you come
back with more mumbo jumbo then, in my opinion, it can only be because
that must be what you want to do. And nobody here will appreciate
that.
You also claim you always admit when you are wrong and that you never
duck questions. Is there any particular reason that when you make a
claim about three witnesses, and then are told ... and shown...that
what they actually said is contrary to the claim you made, that you
cannot simply say "whoops, I was wrong" instead of turning it into one
of these multi-thread, multi-post tangles???
Simple and honest question, Ed.
Got the bojangles to answer it ... directly?
And if you still don't get it, I can't help ya .... maybe you could
ask someone you trust to explain it to you.
K Wind
Isn't it a fact that the statements of all three of the "fifth floor gang"
changed in one way or another between their original statements and their
WC testimony? Is there anyone that is able to post all (as many as
possible) statements made by Harold Norman so we can see when and how his
recollection of events of the assassination changed?
Ken
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Yes indeed.
> Is there anyone that is able to post all (as many as
>possible) statements made by Harold Norman so we can see when and how his
>recollection of events of the assassination changed?
His 12-4-63 statement to the Secret Service can be found at
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/norman_1.htm
His first statement was on 11-26-63. That report on this interview
(FBI) did not appear in the WC exhibits as far as I know, but he was
questioned about it in his WC testimony with differences between that
statement and the 12-4 statement being pointed out and him being asked
about those differences....at least the differences they asked him
about, there may or may not have been others.
His WC testimony is at:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/norman.htm
Jarman's first statement, 11-23, is at:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/jarman1.htm
Jarman's testimony is at:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/jarman.htm
Bonnie Ray Williams' WC testimony is at:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/williams.htm
Williams statement from 11-22:
Handwritten, two pages: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0141-001.gif
and http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0141-002.gif
The other is the typed and signed version at:
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/05/0503-001.gif
Norman wasn't the only one interviewed by the SS on 12-4, as I recall,
but I don't think I have copies of those and know of no link to them
online.
Hope this helps.
Barb :-)
>
>Ken
K Wind
Thanks Barb.
Ken
Donald Willis
> "Ed Cage" <ecag...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3bfdcc19.03100...@posting.google.com...
> > It sounds like we will never progress from even Harold Norman
> > Barb -- Much less ever arrive at the other two.
> > YOU ARE LOOKING FOR "RUBY-LIKE" proof Barb.
> > You say and I quote,
> > "I have doubts that he knew the shots were coming from the window
> > directly over his head ... don't doubt he thought they were from
> > above him. Have real doubts about him hearing all three shells
> > and all three rifle/bolt cyclings." <==Barb Quote
> >
> > We have Norman's sworn testimony Barb -- Harold Norman gives
> > testimony which does not fit into your preconceived Dal-Tex Shooter
> > theory, so you simply say, "I have doubts that he knew the shots
> > were coming from the window directly over his head" <==Barb quote.
> > (1) WHY do you "have doubts" he heard shots directly over his head?
> > (2) WHY do you also "Have real doubts about him hearing all three
> > shells" (hulls) hit the floor above him?
> > (3) DO YOU ALSO DOUBT that "Bonnie Ray (Williams) had a few debris
> > in his head?" "It was sort of white stuff or something."
> >
> > Barb you have a preconceived agenda imo: Your "Dal-Tex Shooter"
> > theory. You may be the last person in America who still believes in
> > "The Dal-Tex Shooter" Barb. Certainly there is no one left who will
> > defend it..
I never gave much thot to the ol' Dal-Tex building, but take a look at the
frontispiece of "Pictures of the Pain". Now, draw a line from where James
Tague was standing when he was hit by a cement fragment from a bullet
strike, over to the Dal-Tex building. Note that it's almost a perfect
string on which to put the beads of the Z-160, Z-225, & Z-313 shots.
Hello, Dal-TEx....
dw
Ed Cage
believed/disbelieved Harold Norman. You have chosen instead
to divert attention elsewhere.
Again,
(1) WHY do you "have doubts" Harold Norman heard 3 shots
directly over his head?
(2) WHY do you also "Have real doubts about Norman hearing
all three shells" (hulls) hit the floor above him?
(3) DO YOU ALSO DOUBT that "Bonnie Ray (Williams) had a few
debris in his head?" "It was sort of white stuff or something."
Please just answer the 3 above Qs Barb.
Thanks, Ed Eca...@aol.com Oct82216
> Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<ngi8ovshhl6cdalcl...@4ax.com>...
Barb Junkkarinen
>Barb I started this thread to get YOUR version of why you
>believed/disbelieved Harold Norman. You have chosen instead
>to divert attention elsewhere.
You decided to start a thread .... so what? That doesn't mean anyone
has to bother to jump through your hoops.
I didn't "divert" anything, rather I have tried to keep it exactly on
point .... and that point was that your claim was factually inaccurate
according to the documentary record.
Why have you failed to address that?
Whay have you failed to admit you were WrONg?
>
>Again,
>(1) WHY do you "have doubts" Harold Norman heard 3 shots
>directly over his head?
>
>(2) WHY do you also "Have real doubts about Norman hearing
>all three shells" (hulls) hit the floor above him?
>
>(3) DO YOU ALSO DOUBT that "Bonnie Ray (Williams) had a few
>debris in his head?" "It was sort of white stuff or something."
>
>Please just answer the 3 above Qs Barb.
Sorry. Not interested. If you can't address the first point raised re
your claim ..... and deal with the FACT that your claim was factually
inaccurate, then why on earth would anyone want to go any further with
you?
I think my post below made it all exceedingly clear. Apparently it is
lost on you. Like I said below, you're not getting it, Ed ... and
that's not my problem.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Hi Don,
I have photos that Bill Hamley and I took out the window of the second
floor of the Dal-Tex in '98. E-mail me if you'd like me to e you
copies.
Barb :-)
GMcNally
> Barb I started this thread to get YOUR version of why you
> believed/disbelieved Harold Norman. You have chosen instead
> to divert attention elsewhere.
>
> Again,
> (1) WHY do you "have doubts" Harold Norman heard 3 shots
> directly over his head?
Because Barb has so much time invested in proving a conspiracy that an
admission that Norman heard all 3 shots, the only shots fired in DP,
would destroy her theory of the case.
Ed, consider that people like Barb et al HAVE TO ARGUE that Oswald
carried no rifle into the TSBD, that going to Irving as he did,
leaving the ring and money are not at all = not in any way = probative
of guilt; that Norman was wrong - lied or whatever.
I say 'whatever' because Barb won't provide you answers to your
questions.
NOne of them will.
They can't; they have no answers. All they know is that Oswald was
exactly what he claimed to be: a patsy.
To the CT: that's all you need to know: that Oswald said, 'Nosir I
didn't shoot anybody.'
Jerry
Ed Cage
DR I hope I can call you DR.. No disrespect intended..
I do not recall the mock trial acct as you summarized
it below,
"....in the "Showtime" mock trial, NORMAN did not, and
when questioned further, would not, say that he heard
the muzzle blasts directly above him-he would only say
that he heard them as being above the level of his
I will check on it and post a verbatim acct Friday but
I seem to recall Norman clearly stated under oath that
he heard a:
bang..... chink-chink
bang..... chink-chink
bang..... chink-chink
I recall being impressed w how well Norman held up
under the skillful cross examination of one of the
greatest Defense attys in the world, Gerry Spence..
IMO DR, Spence was clearly trying to set him up to say
he knew what shells sounded like hitting the floor and
what a rifle sounded like above him in a building, and
did he think it was a man w a gun or perhaps screws
hitting the floor?.. My sincere feeling was that Spence
was then going to "bush-whack" Harold Norman by saying,
"Aha! So you have HEARD shells and a rifle above you in
a building BEFORE Huh?" <==This is where Spence was
going imo DR..
I remember being very impressed w Norman's testimony..
He did not waiver..
Gerry Spence was UNABLE to trap or discredit him..
Norman's testimony held up quite well imo DR.. Honest.
Ed cage Eca...@aol.com Oct91158
drobe...@aol.com (DRoberdeau) wrote in message news:<20031007231359...@mb-m05.aol.com>...
Ed Cage
AND ATTEMPTING TO DIVERT ATTENTION ELSEWHERE
Why do you think I started this Harold Norman thread Barb?
You can criticize me multiple times a day but you have "no
interest" in explaining the reason you "doubt" Norman's story..
Barb's latest "answer" to the 3 Qs below:
"Sorry. Not interested." <==Actual Barb defense
when asked why she "doubted Harold Norman."
-- A world class unashamed DUCK-OUT I'd say.. (And YOU accuse
ME of "DUCKING!") It appears you are poised to default across
the board on my inquiry into why you do not believe the "Fifth
Floor Gang" ..
IMO YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE
to support your "doubts" about Norman Barb.
Are you aware that you have defended NONE of your five theories I
challenged you on? This was your chance to explain just one of
your positions Barb..
Instead you opted to:
(1) DIVERT attention elsewhere.. You can always slam me Barb..
Lord knows you have done it for almost a year while I tried
hopelessly on a weekly basis for a truce.. You have now resorted to
a diversionary tactic that will fool few very few in this elite NG,
and convince no one to join you in having "serious doubts" about
"The Fifth Floor Gang" as you call them.
(2) PREVIOUS "answers" to why you DOUBT "The Fifth Floor Gang" as
you call them:
"And your point IS?"
"These guys have been discussed to death."
"I can take it or leave it as regards discussion about these guys."
"I personally don't think these guys matter all that much"
and your latest "answer":
"Sorry. Not interested."
Not too persuasive Barb.
Ed Cage Eca...@aol.com <==New email Oct91613
> Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<cv2bovks2bi9c6h47...@4ax.com>...
charles wallace
Your last 'chink-chink' is not from Harold Norman in the mock trail.
Regards, Charles
Reasonable doubt in the murder of JFK
Address:http://community-2.webtv.net/ccwallace/Reasonabledoubtin/
Martha
"GMcNally" <jer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a163e09.03100...@posting.google.com...
> ecag...@earthlink.net (Ed Cage) wrote in message
news:<3bfdcc19.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > Barb I started this thread to get YOUR version of why you
> > believed/disbelieved Harold Norman. You have chosen instead
> > to divert attention elsewhere.
> >
> > Again,
> > (1) WHY do you "have doubts" Harold Norman heard 3 shots
> > directly over his head?
>
> Because Barb has so much time invested in proving a conspiracy that an
> admission that Norman heard all 3 shots, the only shots fired in DP,
> would destroy her theory of the case.
>
> Ed, consider that people like Barb et al HAVE TO ARGUE that Oswald
> carried no rifle into the TSBD, that going to Irving as he did,
> leaving the ring and money are not at all = not in any way = probative
> of guilt; that Norman was wrong - lied or whatever.
"leaving the ring and money" Not quite correct. Oswald's money was
already at the Paine home in a "black billfold" in the wardrobe. (1 H 69)
Only thing he left was his ring NOT money.
Barb Junkkarinen
>YOU ARE DUCKING MY HAROLD NORMAN THREAD BARB
>AND ATTEMPTING TO DIVERT ATTENTION ELSEWHERE
Like onto you and your inaccurate claim which is the only reason I
replied to your post in the first place?
>Why do you think I started this Harold Norman thread Barb?
Because you were either unable to understand that what you claimed was
not factually record, or unable to admit that you had posted something
factually WrONg ..... or maybe a little bit of both?
>You can criticize me multiple times a day but you have "no
>interest" in explaining the reason you "doubt" Norman's story..
Funny ... you replied to this post I did in reply to Don instead of
the extensive one I did in reply to you telling you exactly why I was
not interested in going anywhere with you on Norman.
Fancy that.
Let's see .... why could that be?
>
>Barb's latest "answer" to the 3 Qs below:
>"Sorry. Not interested." <==Actual Barb defense
>when asked why she "doubted Harold Norman."
That's not exactly all that I said, now is it Ed? Nothing like a
selective quote. Tsk. Tsk.
>
>
>-- A world class unashamed DUCK-OUT I'd say.. (And YOU accuse
>ME of "DUCKING!") It appears you are poised to default across
>the board on my inquiry into why you do not believe the "Fifth
>Floor Gang" ..
I am poised to repost my reply to you below ... which clearly and
quite plainly explains all you are quacking about here ..... and
should make it perfectly clear to everyone just exactly who has been
ducking.
Yup, apparently don't have the bojangles at all.
>
> IMO YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE
> to support your "doubts" about Norman Barb.
>
>Are you aware that you have defended NONE of your five theories I
>challenged you on? This was your chance to explain just one of
>your positions Barb..
Are you aware that you have now ducked admitting that your claim re
the three guys was factually inaccurate, contrary to the documentary
record, or in Ed speak ======> WrONg .... at least a half dozen times
now?
>
>Instead you opted to:
>(1) DIVERT attention elsewhere.. You can always slam me Barb..
>Lord knows you have done it for almost a year while I tried
>hopelessly on a weekly basis for a truce.. You have now resorted to
>a diversionary tactic that will fool few very few in this elite NG,
>and convince no one to join you in having "serious doubts" about
>"The Fifth Floor Gang" as you call them.
Oh please, Ed ... nit the violin thing....
>(2) PREVIOUS "answers" to why you DOUBT "The Fifth Floor Gang" as
>you call them:
>"And your point IS?"
>"These guys have been discussed to death."
>"I can take it or leave it as regards discussion about these guys."
>"I personally don't think these guys matter all that much"
> and your latest "answer":
>"Sorry. Not interested."
Ah, love selective quotes.....
>
>
> Not too persuasive Barb.
Ditto Ed. I'll just reinsert the post you DucKeD by replying to this
little response to Ken about the photos instead of my actual reply to
YOU .... YOU, you know, the guy who made a claim that is contrary to
the factual record but can't quite bring hismelf to say a simple
"Whoops, I was WrONg" before expecting people to move ahead in some
sort of .... I use the term loosely here ... discussion with him?
Post follows. If you ever care to correctly and adequately address any
of it .... I may just reply, otherwise, I'm not going to bother with
this repetitive crap when you DuCk and pass the buck.
**********QUOTE ... reply posted to Ed....IN FULL*******************
On 9 Oct 2003 07:10:09 -0400, ecag...@earthlink.net (Ed Cage) wrote:
>Barb I started this thread to get YOUR version of why you
>believed/disbelieved Harold Norman. You have chosen instead
>to divert attention elsewhere.
You decided to start a thread .... so what? That doesn't mean anyone
has to bother to jump through your hoops.
I didn't "divert" anything, rather I have tried to keep it exactly on
point .... and that point was that your claim was factually inaccurate
according to the documentary record.
Why have you failed to address that?
Whay have you failed to admit you were WrONg?
>
>Again,
>(1) WHY do you "have doubts" Harold Norman heard 3 shots
>directly over his head?
>
>(2) WHY do you also "Have real doubts about Norman hearing
>all three shells" (hulls) hit the floor above him?
>
>(3) DO YOU ALSO DOUBT that "Bonnie Ray (Williams) had a few
>debris in his head?" "It was sort of white stuff or something."
>
>Please just answer the 3 above Qs Barb.
Sorry. Not interested. If you can't address the first point raised re
your claim ..... and deal with the FACT that your claim was factually
inaccurate, then why on earth would anyone want to go any further with
you?
I think my post below made it all exceedingly clear. Apparently it is
lost on you. Like I said below, you're not getting it, Ed ... and
that's not my problem.
>
>Thanks, Ed Eca...@aol.com Oct82216
>
>
>> Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<ngi8ovshhl6cdalcl...@4ax.com>...
>> On 8 Oct 2003 11:33:53 -0400, ecag...@earthlink.net (Ed Cage) wrote:
>>
>> >It sounds like we will never progress from even Harold Norman
>> >Barb -- Much less ever arrive at the other two.
>>
>> You're not getting it, Ed.
>>
>> > YOU ARE LOOKING FOR "RUBY-LIKE" proof Barb.
>> > You say and I quote,
>> >"I have doubts that he knew the shots were coming from the window
>> >directly over his head ... don't doubt he thought they were from
>> >above him. Have real doubts about him hearing all three shells
>> >and all three rifle/bolt cyclings." <==Barb Quote
>>
>> I expresed my opinion ... then went on to say I personally don't think
>> these guys matter all that much AND to say....
>>
>> ...read this carefully .....
>>
>> ...my point in calling you on what you claimed had nothing to do with
>> these three guys other than what YOU CLAIMED about them is INCORRECT
>> per the documentary record.
>>
>> I don't like to see INACCURATE (inaccurate = WRONG) claims made when
>> the documentary record clearly says otherwise.
>> >
>> >We have Norman's sworn testimony Barb -- Harold Norman gives
>> >testimony which does not fit into your preconceived Dal-Tex Shooter
>> >theory, so you simply say,
>>
>> I'm not the one who is "simply" anything here, Ed. You are trying to
>> make a discussion, reasons, etc ... taking fanciful leaps, when what I
>> was calling you on had NOTHING to do with these three witnesses and
>> EVERYTHING to do with YOU and your claim ... it was inaccurate.
>>
>> Which part of that is it that you are unable to understand?
>>
>> > "I have doubts that he knew the shots
>> >were coming from the window directly over his head" <==Barb quote.
>> > (1) WHY do you "have doubts" he heard shots directly over his head?
>> > (2) WHY do you also "Have real doubts about him hearing all three
>> >shells" (hulls) hit the floor above him?
>> > (3) DO YOU ALSO DOUBT that "Bonnie Ray (Williams) had a few debris
>> >in his head?" "It was sort of white stuff or something."
>> >
>> > Barb you have a preconceived agenda imo: Your "Dal-Tex Shooter"
>> >theory.
>>
>> First of all, you have been told....several times now ... that I do
>> not HAVE a Dal-Tex theory.
>>
>> Second, you are a one track train ... and you persist in hurtling down
>> the wrong track and ignoring what is being PLAINLY said to you.
>>
>> > You may be the last person in America who still believes in
>> >"The Dal-Tex Shooter" Barb. Certainly there is no one left who will
>> >defend it.. Yet you seem to simply discard/discredit testimony which
>> >conflicts with your "Dal-Tex Shooter." That theory is dead Barb - It
>> >died from both lack of evidence and conflicting evidence.
>> > BARB PLEASE ANSWER THE 3 QUESTIONS ABOVE. Please try to go a step
>> >beyond "I have real doubts" this time.
>>
*********END ****************************************
Why did Ed duck/ignore this post and instead pluck selective quotes
out of it and launch his latest diatribe instead in reply to my post
(below) to Ken re the photos taken from the Dal-Tex??
Hmmmmm.....well, not much mystery there, imo.
Enough of this horse-puckey, Ed........ too many reams of cyberspace
have been taken up with this sort of garbage, imo.
Don't make claims you can't back up.
Ed Cage
Ed
> ccwa...@webtv.net (charles wallace) wrote in message news:<29713-3F8...@storefull-2354.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
DRoberdeau
>
>HAROLD NORMAN VERSION
>DR I hope I can call you DR.. No disrespect intended..
>I do not recall the mock trial acct as you summarized
>it below,
….Read and re-learn, versus recall, below. My summarization IS accurate....
>....in the "Showtime" mock trial, NORMAN did not, and
>when questioned further, would not, say that he heard
>the muzzle blasts directly above him-he would only say
>that he heard them as being above the level of his
>ears <== DR quote.
>
>I will check on it and post a verbatim acct Friday but
>I seem to recall Norman clearly stated under oath that
>he heard a:
>bang..... chink-chink
>bang..... chink-chink
>bang..... chink-chink
….In his earliest statement, NORMAN never mentions anything about ever
hearing empty cartridges pingingabove him, and never mentioned anything about a
weapon being manually recycled. In the immortal words of BILL MURRAY, "That's a
fact, jack."
>
>I recall being impressed w how well Norman held up
>under the skillful cross examination of one of the
>greatest Defense attys in the world, Gerry Spence..
>IMO DR, Spence was clearly trying to set him up to say
>he knew what shells sounded like hitting the floor and
>what a rifle sounded like above him in a building, and
>did he think it was a man w a gun or perhaps screws
>hitting the floor?.. My sincere feeling was that Spence
>was then going to "bush-whack" Harold Norman by saying,
>"Aha! So you have HEARD shells and a rifle above you in
>a building BEFORE Huh?" <==This is where Spence was
>going imo DR..
….Good Day EC…. You‘ll need to elaborate. Not sure I follow your
"logic"…. seems to me if NORMAN had said that he had previous experience
hearing empty cartridges that it would have strengthened NORMAN’s later
claims (claims made, only, month’s after 22NOV63, but not on 22NOV63, that
is). SPENCE was not setting NORMAN up or trying to trap him. In fact, SPENCE
was very direct, and used an example of large, heavier construction nails (not
screws) since NORMAN never saw what he claimed, later, he had heard.
....In fact, SPENCE did help NORMAN to admit that NORMAN had NEVER told the
authorities that he had heard shots "directly" above him, only that NORMAN said
they were from somewhere above his ears. Do you have any weapons firing
experience? Do you have any idea how hard it is to localize an extremely loud
130+ decibel noise, whether you are 10‘, or 75‘ away from it? Do you have
any ballistics experience or knowledge of ballistic bow shockwaves and the many
factors that combine to how they are sensed?
....Very interestingly, SPENCE also got NORMAN to discredit the authorities and
admit that the authorities, in fact, tried, but failed, to get NORMAN to say
something that was not 100% accurate with what NORMAN experienced. (the
authorities also tried that tactic ((and other, more threatening, tactics))
with many other critical witnesses, or, the authorities just completely ignored
--aome warrenatti apologists might say they "forgot"-- interviewing/request a
desposition/call to testify other vital witnesses THAT HAD BEEN
IDENTIFIED--sound familiar to you?)
>I remember being very impressed w Norman's testimony..
>He did not waiver..
….NORMAN testified, under oath, during the "Showtime" trial:
<QUOTE>
< 39 minutes 42 seconds into my "Showtime Oswald Trial" copy>
SPENCE: They tried to get you to say --the F.B.I. in this case-- that you heard
the shots from right above you, but you didn't say that, did you?.... You
didn't say you heard the shots right above you, did you?
NORMAN: No. I said, "I heard the shots above me." I didn't say, "directly." I
just wanted to say... I just said, "above me."
SPENCE: Yeah. They were trying to get you to say something different, weren't
they?
NORMAN: Yes sir.
SPENCE: And you resisted, didn't you? You didn't want to have words put in your
mouth? ...
NORMAN: No sir.
SPENCE: ... And you don't want me, or anyone else to put them in your mouth...
NORMAN: No sir
SPENCE: ... in this hearing. Isn't that true?
NORMAN: Yes sir.
<END QUOTE>
<40 minutes 19 seconds>
….Very interestingly, did you know that JARMAN thought the first shot he
heard came from LOWER than his ears, and, was fired from his left.
….Importantly, NORMAN, originally, only described one of the first two shots
as coming from inside the TSBD, according to his own statements, as well as
those by JARMAN.
….Also, NORMAN originally described --for two different F.B.I. Agents-- the
final 2 shots as being bunched noticeably closer together then the first two
shots, but months later, NORMAN could not recall his own transcribed
statements.
....Both WILLIAMS and JARMAN also confirmed, like a majority-multitude of the
attack witnesses (DULLES thought it was a 5-to-1 ratio), that the final audible
muzzle blasts and/or surpressed bullet bow shockwaves volleys were bunched
distinctly and noticeably closer together than the first audible muzzle blasts
and/or surpressed bullet bow shockwaves volleys.
….Do you have any thoughts on any of the many other important considerations
in my earlier post within this thread?
Don
CV-67, "Big John," USS John F. Kennedy Plank Walker
Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSEwillisANNOUNCEMENT.wps
T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore
"I looked towards the top of the terrace to my right as the sound of the shots
seemed to come from that direction."
----Secret Service Dallas Office SAIC Forest Sorrels' report dated 28NOV63:
also 21H548 (at the attack start SORRELS was just past the FRANZEN's, even with
the picket fence corner, some 140' in front of the President)
charles wallace
Harold Norman said
" I heard....boom,then click-click, boom, click-click, boom". Check
page 242 of the book 'Case Closed' by Gerald Posner and see if I copied
it correctly. Now are you saying that Posner is not a good reference?
Is he wrong? When was the last shell ejected Ed?
Ed Cage
someone disagree wo being disagreeable! You appear
to be a gentleman and I think Norman's testimony is
important (Surprisingly there is at least one opinion
in here that the input from Norman, Williams, and
Jarman just “doesn't really matter that much.”)
I disagree.
ANYWAY I JUST SAW your post so let me go run the
LHO Trial tape and see if I can construct a verbatim
acct to go by.. We may not agree on who was trying to
get somebody crossed up, but we can't argue w the
transcript..
Let's also demonstrate to this battle-weary NG that
differences can be discussed, sometimes even resolved,
wo the spicy ego-oriented dialog that has become so
common in here lately.
I shall return.. Later.
Your humble servant,mR ;~D Eca...@aol.com Oct101715
> drobe...@aol.com (DRoberdeau) wrote in message news:<20031010124100...@mb-m11.aol.com>...
Ed Cage
and Vincent Bugliosi" Is it possible you have a different "SHOWTIME"
version? I did not see your quotes 30+ min into the tape as you
identified..
1) As you know earliest accts were very brief.. (Extremely brief) I am
not surprised he did not go into more detail beyond the sound of the
shots.. My feeling after looking at the initial affidavits if that is
what you are talking about, is that they did little or no questioning
and were purposefully very brief in order to get as many accts of what
happened as soon as possible after the shooting..
I have no doubt that if Norman were asked if he had heard
the shells/hulls hitting the floor, he would have given a forthright
answer.
The brevity of the initial affidavits was woefully inadequate but
necessary imo from a practicality standpoint.
2) Logic and common sense application is a strong suit w me DR. I have
emphasized many times that common sense is the most underestimated
tool
in JFK research imo..
SPENCE W=A=S indeed, attempting to set up Norman for a, “So you KNOW
what the sound of cartridges hitting the floor above you sounds like
do
you?" "Tell me Mr. Norman WHEN have you heard that before?†<==This
was
coming DR.. Norman really was actually quite impressive in the way he
handled Spence’s Qs.. My feeling is he may have been coached in
advanced
by Bugliosi â€" Who never misses a trick.. Bugliosi is quite possibly
superior to Spence. He handled the Qs from Spence better than I think
I
could have. He also had one good advantage going for him:
He was telling the truth imo.
Spence WAS indeed trying to cross him up imo.. He failed
noticeably.
3) Is it possible I have a different version (A&E) of the "Trial of
LHO?"
Some of the things you are saying are not in my version.
* He never and used an example of a "large, heavier construction"
nails in
the A&E version. And he DID use the term "screws" when describing what
the sounds might/could have been of falling metal above. Your acct
appears to be vastly different -- I feel we must have different tape
versions.. Unless Norman was recalled/put on the stand later; I only
looked at the portion 30 min into the tape.
4) DR you are going nowhere trying to make a big deal out of "above"
him vs. "directly above" him. That hair splitting analysis will
always lead
to various words/interpretations.. It's the intended meaning that
counts.
5) YES I HAVE EXTRAORDINARY training w firing weapons of all sorts. I
fired every single conventional weapon the US Army had from 1966-69
from
the M16 to and including very large rds for guns which were banned by
the Geneva Convention but available (and used) in Vietnam. The sounds
of
guns firing (Large & small) is something I am familiar with and I
agree
it would be/is frequently difficult to tell exactly WHERE the shots
are
being fired from..
6) This sort of dialog (below)you quoted is a waste of time DR imo:
SPENCE: They tried to get you to say --the F.B.I. in this case-- that
you
heard the shots from right above you, but you didn't say that, did
you?....
I just wanted to say... I just said, "ABOVE me."
(You must have a different version DR Your above quote was not on my
A&E version of "THE TRIAL OF LHO")
The dominant thought that comes to mind from reading this post of
yours is
that imo you are "splitting hairs" DR. You are seeing human nature
controversy and inconsistencies that have little or no material
bearing
imo.. Of the 176 witnesses in DP you could/can make a case for dozens,
hundreds of different scenarios - This has already been done btw..
Additionally I feel that simply bc Norman left out peripheral sound
details
of the shooting in his initial VERY BRIEF acct, is no cause for
concern..
He said he heard the shots.. I doubt if he was even asked about the
other sounds initially, shells, bolt-action..
It is getting late and I DID spend considerable TIME and transcribe my
A&E
tape. I'll try to post it, but I'm getting sleeppy I'm afraid..
Ed Eca...@aol.com Octobr11
> drobe...@aol.com (DRoberdeau) wrote in message news:<20031010124100...@mb-m11.aol.com>...
> >ecag...@earthlink.net on 09OCT03 wrote:
> >
> >HAROLD NORMAN VERSION
> >DR I hope I can call you DR.. No disrespect intended..
> >I do not recall the mock trial acct as you summarized
> >it below,
>
> ….Read and re-learn, versus recall, below. My summarization IS accurate....
>
> >....in the "Showtime" mock trial, NORMAN did not, and
> >when questioned further, would not, say that he heard
> >the muzzle blasts directly above him-he would only say
> >that he heard them as being above the level of his
> >ears <== DR quote.
> >
> >I will check on it and post a verbatim acct Friday but
> >I seem to recall Norman clearly stated under oath that
> >he heard a:
> >bang..... chink-chink
> >bang..... chink-chink
> >bang..... chink-chink
>
> ….In his earliest statement, NORMAN never mentions anything about ever
> hearing empty cartridges pingingabove him, and never mentioned anything about a
> weapon being manually recycled. In the immortal words of BILL MURRAY, "That's a
> fact, jack."
>
> >
> >I recall being impressed w how well Norman held up
> >under the skillful cross examination of one of the
> >greatest Defense attys in the world, Gerry Spence..
> >IMO DR, Spence was clearly trying to set him up to say
> >he knew what shells sounded like hitting the floor and
> >what a rifle sounded like above him in a building, and
> >did he think it was a man w a gun or perhaps screws
> >hitting the floor?.. My sincere feeling was that Spence
> >was then going to "bush-whack" Harold Norman by saying,
> >"Aha! So you have HEARD shells and a rifle above you in
> >a building BEFORE Huh?" <==This is where Spence was
> >going imo DR..
>
> ….Good Day EC…. You‘ll need to elaborate. Not sure I follow your
> "logic"…. seems to me if NORMAN had said that he had previous experience
> hearing empty cartridges that it would have strengthened NORMAN’s later
> claims (claims made, only, month’s after 22NOV63, but not on 22NOV63, that
> is). SPENCE was not setting NORMAN up or trying to trap him. In fact, SPENCE
> was very direct, and used an example of large, heavier construction nails (not
> screws) since NORMAN never saw what he claimed, later, he had heard.
>
> ....In fact, SPENCE did help NORMAN to admit that NORMAN had NEVER told the
> authorities that he had heard shots "directly" above him, only that NORMAN said
> they were from somewhere above his ears. Do you have any weapons firing
> experience? Do you have any idea how hard it is to localize an extremely loud
> 130+ decibel noise, whether you are 10‘, or 75‘ away from it? Do you have
> any ballistics experience or knowledge of ballistic bow shockwaves and the many
> factors that combine to how they are sensed?
>
> ....Very interestingly, SPENCE also got NORMAN to discredit the authorities and
> admit that the authorities, in fact, tried, but failed, to get NORMAN to say
> something that was not 100% accurate with what NORMAN experienced. (the
> authorities also tried that tactic ((and other, more threatening, tactics))
> with many other critical witnesses, or, the authorities just completely ignored
> --aome warrenatti apologists might say they "forgot"-- interviewing/request a
> desposition/call to testify other vital witnesses THAT HAD BEEN
> IDENTIFIED--sound familiar to you?)
>
> >I remember being very impressed w Norman's testimony..
> >He did not waiver..
>
> ….NORMAN testified, under oath, during the "Showtime" trial:
>
> <QUOTE>
> < 39 minutes 42 seconds into my "Showtime Oswald Trial" copy>
>
> SPENCE: They tried to get you to say --the F.B.I. in this case-- that you heard
> the shots from right above you, but you didn't say that, did you?.... You
> didn't say you heard the shots right above you, did you?
>
> NORMAN: No. I said, "I heard the shots above me." I didn't say, "directly." I
> just wanted to say... I just said, "above me."
>
> SPENCE: Yeah. They were trying to get you to say something different, weren't
> they?
>
> NORMAN: Yes sir.
>
> SPENCE: And you resisted, didn't you? You didn't want to have words put in your
> mouth? ...
>
> NORMAN: No sir.
>
> SPENCE: ... And you don't want me, or anyone else to put them in your mouth...
>
> NORMAN: No sir
>
> SPENCE: ... in this hearing. Isn't that true?
>
> NORMAN: Yes sir.
>
> <END QUOTE>
> <40 minutes 19 seconds>
>
> ….Very interestingly, did you know that JARMAN thought the first shot he
> heard came from LOWER than his ears, and, was fired from his left.
>
> ….Importantly, NORMAN, originally, only described one of the first two shots
> as coming from inside the TSBD, according to his own statements, as well as
> those by JARMAN.
>
> ….Also, NORMAN originally described --for two different F.B.I. Agents-- the
> final 2 shots as being bunched noticeably closer together then the first two
> shots, but months later, NORMAN could not recall his own transcribed
> statements.
>
> ....Both WILLIAMS and JARMAN also confirmed, like a majority-multitude of the
> attack witnesses (DULLES thought it was a 5-to-1 ratio), that the final audible
> muzzle blasts and/or surpressed bullet bow shockwaves volleys were bunched
> distinctly and noticeably closer together than the first audible muzzle blasts
> and/or surpressed bullet bow shockwaves volleys.
>
> ….Do you have any thoughts on any of the many other important considerations
Ed Cage
"I seem to recall Norman clearly stated under oath
that he heard a:
bang..... chink-chink
bang..... chink-chink
bang..... chink-chink" <==Quote from Ed
I am in complete agreement w Posner on this as far
as I know.. Did he leave off the last "chink-chink?"
I think the resentment for Posner grew from
frustrated CTs who realized he finally pulled the
plug on their life-support system they were on for
3 decades.. THAT'S why Posner is looked upon w
disdain by CTers Charles.. But Not by me..
John Fiorentino and Vicent Bugliosi will both
be widely resented and harshly criticized by CTErs..
The CTers realize it's over.. They have been reduced
to wisecracks and "What if?" and "Can you prove that?"
type questions..
Flaws in Posner's CC? The WC Report? Of course..
Who knows? There may even be flaws in Lifton's BE and
even your pic of the Yellow-greenish Incredible Hulk
at the TSBD window.. We've all made errors.. Posner
made far less than most imo..
Ed Cage Eca...@aol.com <==New email Oct110357
> ccwa...@webtv.net (charles wallace) wrote in message news:<16317-3F8...@storefull-2358.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
Donald Willis
> Barb -- Much less ever arrive at the other two.
> YOU ARE LOOKING FOR "RUBY-LIKE" proof Barb.
> You say and I quote,
> "I have doubts that he knew the shots were coming from the window
> directly over his head ... don't doubt he thought they were from
> above him. Have real doubts about him hearing all three shells
> and all three rifle/bolt cyclings." <==Barb Quote
>
> We have Norman's sworn testimony Barb -- Harold Norman gives
> testimony which does not fit into your preconceived Dal-Tex Shooter
> theory, so you simply say, "I have doubts that he knew the shots
> were coming from the window directly over his head" <==Barb quote.
> (1) WHY do you "have doubts" he heard shots directly over his head?
> (2) WHY do you also "Have real doubts about him hearing all three
> shells" (hulls) hit the floor above him?
> (3) DO YOU ALSO DOUBT that "Bonnie Ray (Williams) had a few debris
> in his head?" "It was sort of white stuff or something."
>
after the fact. Earlier, the week of November 24, 1963, the story was
a little different. Do *you*, Ed, doubt that Norman "could see
nothing because small particles of dirt were falling from above him"?
(11/26/63 Norman FBI interview) Sounds here like the dirt was falling
on *Norman*. And Jarman's earlier (11/24) FBI interview confirms this
early version, before those curious revisions: Jarman "said that
Harold Norman stated that something had fallen from above him & that a
Posner--I believe in his book he put more faith in
testimony/statements made closer to 11/22/63. So you'd have to go
with Jarman & Norman here, right? Me, I'm not sure I believe anything
about any "debris" or dirt or oobleck.... After all, Norman & Jarman
supposedly linked up with Brennan & a cop right after the , on
the doorstep of the TSBD, & Norman didn't show the cop the debris....
dw
> Barb you have a preconceived agenda imo: Your "Dal-Tex Shooter"
> theory. You may be the last person in America who still believes in
> "The Dal-Tex Shooter" Barb. Certainly there is no one left who will
> defend it.. Yet you seem to simply discard/discredit testimony which
> conflicts with your "Dal-Tex Shooter." That theory is Barb - It
> > These guys have been discussed to . I can take it or leave it as
> > >> >ceiling of the fifth and sixth floors. As the motocade
> > >> >went by Norman thought that the President was saluting w his
> > >> >right arm,
> > >> > ***and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know
> > >> >I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems
> > >> >as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and
> > >> >then another shot and then I believe Jarmon or someone told me,
> > >> >he said, "I believe someone is at the President," and
> > >> >I think I made a statement, "It is someone at the
John Hill
news:<3bfdcc19.03100...@posting.google.com>...
> > Barb I started this thread to get YOUR version of why you
> > believed/disbelieved Harold Norman. You have chosen instead
> > to divert attention elsewhere.
> >
> > Again,
> > (1) WHY do you "have doubts" Harold Norman heard 3 shots
> > directly over his head?
>
> Because Barb has so much time invested in proving a conspiracy that an
> admission that Norman heard all 3 shots, the only shots fired in DP,
> would destroy her theory of the case.
Jerry, I think you and Ed miss a very simple and obvious point - at least
one of the 5th floor witnesses said that at least one of the shots sounded
as if it came from BELOW and to the LEFT of his position. The 5th floor
witnesses are NOT unanimous in reporting all 3 shots as having come from
directly above their heads. It matters not if it was Norman or not who
said this, the point remains - not all of them reported all shots as
comimg from above them. The early statement of one of these men clearly
says that at least one shot came from a significantly different location.
You and Ed can ignore it all you care to, but it's the truth. It's what he
said. The 5th floor witnesses aren't quite as good of LN witnesses as
you'd like.
--
John Hill (joisa)
John Hill
Thanks,
--
John Hill (joisa)
"Barb Junkkarinen" <bar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:itn8ov4ivu8gfmak8...@4ax.com...
John Hill
"DRoberdeau" <drobe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031010124100...@mb-m11.aol.com...
<SNIP>
ED,
Please pay attention to these two things. They're very important.
> ..Very interestingly, did you know that JARMAN thought the first shot he
> heard came from LOWER than his ears, and, was fired from his left.
>
> ..Importantly, NORMAN, originally, only described one of the first two shots
> as coming from inside the TSBD, according to his own statements, as well as
> those by JARMAN.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Donald Willis
says...
Notice Ed dropped hiw own thread like a hot potato when he hit the
Norman/Williams contradiction....
Barb Junkkarinen
<Donald...@newsguy.com> wrote:
On that. among other things, he is at least consistent.<g>
Barb :-)
[.....]
Ecagetx
I believe Norman, you have "serious doubts" about Norman. Where do we go
from here?
HERE'S MY POST:
It sounds like we will never progress from even Harold Norman Barb -- Much
less ever arrive at the other two.
YOU ARE LOOKING FOR "RUBY-LIKE" proof Barb.
You say and I quote, "I have doubts that he knew the shots were
coming from the window directly over his head ... don't doubt he thought
they were from above him. Have real doubts about him hearing all three
shells and all three rifle/bolt cyclings." <==Barb Quote
We have Norman's sworn testimony Barb -- Harold Norman gives testimony
which does not fit into your preconceived Dal-Tex Shooter theory, so you
simply say, "I have doubts that he knew the shots were coming from the
window directly over his head" <==Barb quote.
(1) WHY do you "have doubts" he heard shots directly over his head?
(2) WHY do you also "Have real doubts about him hearing all three shells"
(hulls) hit the floor above him?
(3) DO YOU ALSO DOUBT that "Bonnie Ray (Williams) had a few debris in his
head?" "It was sort of white stuff or something."
I understand you have finally abandoned your Dal Tex Shooter theory, and
you now admit Oswald was a/the shooter. IF that's the case why would you
attack Norman's input? Sounds like he was right to me..
Ed :-? Cage Dec61130
* My posts get zapped sometimes to protect you Barb.
Barb Junkkarinen
WHY did you put this EXACT SAME post up TWICE??? Here NAD in a brand
new th5read. Will you ever learn, Ed....
Barb :-)
Donald Willis
>
>Barb, I did not drop this thread, my post is below and your post follows.
>I believe Norman, you have "serious doubts" about Norman. Where do we go
>from here?
>
point #3 below re Williams. Ed believes Norman re hearing shots from above. I
originally asked if he also believed Norman re his getting hit by *debris* from
above, because originally the Tale of the Fifth Floor had *Norman* getting
smacked: "Norman... looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because
small particles of dirt were falling from above him." (Norman's FBI interview
11/26/63) I believe Norman told the WC that he did not really tell this to the
FBI. Unfortunately for him, Jarman backed up the original story in his own
11/24 FBI interview: "Jarman said that Norman stated that something had fallen
from above him & that a piece of debris had hit him in his face."
Upshot: big change in 5th-floor story between 11/24/63 & the '64 hearings, &
oddly enuf everyone believes the *later* version.... a big hole in the From
Above evidence (debris, click-click sounds)....
dw
>HERE'S MY POST:
>
>It sounds like we will never progress from even Harold Norman Barb -- Much
>less ever arrive at the other two.
Oh let's do the other two, too...! Go for it!
Robert Lewis Md
Lets take logic, this guy hears all this and then never bothers to run out
in the street and tell someone or lean out of the window and do the same
Quite frankly this guy is talking b*****cks
Robert
"Donald Willis" <Donald...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:bqrt5...@drn.newsguy.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.548 / Virus Database: 341 - Release Date: 05/12/2003
Ecagetx
doubts" and I asked you to amplify) bc I wished to demonstrate by my last post
made some weeks ago that I had taken a firm stand.
I then asked, "Where do we go from here?" You responded with No rebuttal
on Norman's input, followed by a "no mas" answer on your Dal-Tex Shooter
theory.
Still think I was the one who "dropped this like a hot potato.." (?)
mR ;~D Dec60747
Still think I was the one who dropped this like a hot potato.. (?)
mR ;~D Dec60747
Barb Junkkarinen
Why do you keep posting the same crap in more than one place/thread?
Stop it.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
<Rob...@cheaperh.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi Guys and Galls
>Lets take logic, this guy hears all this and then never bothers to run out
>in the street and tell someone or lean out of the window and do the same
>
>Quite frankly this guy is talking b*****cks
>
>Robert
Robert,
Yes, part of the problem with the tales of the fifth floor guys is
their immediate reaction in the first few minutes following the
shooting. That is part of why I have a hard time believing that Norman
knew at the time the shots were being fired that they were from
directly overhead ... or that he heard three shells ping to the floor
or the rifle cycled for each shot .... couple that with the fact that
he gave no statement at all until 11-26 and then didn't mention
anything about the source of the shots, the shells pinging or the
rifle cycling .... he certainly had an opportunity when Brennan was
talking to a cop outside the TSBD and pointed the two guys there as
two of the three he had seen below the window where he saw the rifle.
Not a word.
The value of these guys was only because...eventually ... they
could/would say three shots from the sniper's nest ... otherwise they
had NO value as they could SEE nada as regards a shooter, rifle in
window, etc.
What I don't get is why LNs fall all over themselves making such a big
deal about these guys and defending them to the death despite the
changing/emerging story.
1. They don't need them ... witnesses on Elm saw the rifle in the
window.
2. If this was three witnesses who eventually went from mentioning
nada to testimony that gave exculpatory evidence re Oswlad or against
it having been a lone gunman, the LNs would SCREAM from the rooftops,
tar and feather not only the threre witnesses but any poster who
attempted to use them for ANYthing as well. I find their clinging to
these guys and the evolution of their story duplicitous to say the
least.
Barb :-)
Ed Cage
Harold Norman himself. (You brought this back up
for some reason) I cannot change Norman's words..
You pointed out 2 mos ago that you had "serious doubts
about Harold Norman." You had the last words and now
you're back expecting me to change my position.. I
believe he told the truth:
Harold Norman was in the fifth-floor window in the southeast
corner, directly under the window where witnesses said they
saw the rifle. (WCE # 485) He could see the light through the
right arm,
***and I can't remember what the exact time was but I know
I heard a shot, and then after I heard the shot, well, it seems
as though the President, you know, slumped or something, and
then another shot and then I believe Jarmon or someone told me,
I think I made a statement, "It is someone shooting at the
"Well I couldn't see at all during the time but I know I
heard a third shot fired, and I could also hear something like
the shell hulls hitting the floor and the ejecting of the
rifle." - From The Warren Commission Report.
Barb you said you had "serious doubts" about Norman's input.
I will not change my position nor can I change Norman's words.
You RE-saddled this bronc, now you gotta ride it gal.
Ed Cage Eca...@aol.com Dec71556
> Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<kkv6tvga9rdep83s1...@4ax.com>...
Ecagetx
witnesses. The 3 on 5th floor are powerful evidence of 6th floor shooter.*
Barb your Dal-Tex Shooter theory is D=E=A=D. Let it go.
Ed
* Your problem is you are applying different standards to evidence you
like, don't like.
Ecagetx
Donald Willis
says...
Barb -- Or did they need them? Witnesses (eg, Brennan, Fischer, Couch,
Edwards) uniformly reported seeing the suspect in a wide-open window.
The 3 5th-floor witnesses help *adjust* that to the half-open "nest"
window....
dw
Donald Willis
>
>In article <20031206143618...@mb-m29.aol.com>, Ecagetx says...
>>
>>Barb, I did not drop this thread, my post is below and your post follows.
>>I believe Norman, you have "serious doubts" about Norman. Where do we go
>>from here?
>>
>I think this is a case of honest confusion. Barb was responding to my post re
>point #3 below re Williams. Ed believes Norman re hearing shots from above. I
>originally asked if he also believed Norman re his getting hit by *debris* from
>above, because originally the Tale of the Fifth Floor had *Norman* getting
>smacked: "Norman... looked upward toward the roof but could see nothing because
>small particles of dirt were falling from above him." (Norman's FBI interview
>11/26/63) I believe Norman told the WC that he did not really tell this to the
>FBI. Unfortunately for him, Jarman backed up the original story in his own
>11/24 FBI interview: "Jarman said that Norman stated that something had fallen
>from above him & that a piece of debris had hit him in his face."
>
>Upshot: big change in 5th-floor story between 11/24/63 & the '64 hearings, &
>oddly enuf everyone believes the *later* version.... a big hole in the From
>Above evidence (debris, click-click sounds)....
>dw
>
Gee, did my post re Williams scare Ed off tackling 5th-floor witnesses #2
& #3?
dw
Donald Willis
>
>I knew Harold Norman for several years before he died in 1995. He story was the
>exact same in 1995 as it was in 1994 and you would be asking for an
>ass-whooping if you dared question it. There is no question that the man was
>telling the truth. If you knew him you would agree.
Actually, his story changed from 1963 to 1964, as he originally claimed to
have been the one whom debris hit (FBI statement), then agreed for the WC
that it was *Williams* who was hit. And circa 1978, he reverted to his
original story re the debris (for the HSCA)!
dw
Barb Junkkarinen
>Barb as usual selective interpretation and application of evidence &
>witnesses. The 3 on 5th floor are powerful evidence of 6th floor shooter.*
Not as powerful as all the people down on Elm St who saw the rifle
sticking out of the window.<BG>
>
>Barb your Dal-Tex Shooter theory is D=E=A=D. Let it go.
What Dal-Tex theory? You've been told I don't have a Dal-Tex "theory"
how many times now? You're like spaghetti that never gets cooked.
>
>Ed
>
>* Your problem is you are applying different standards to evidence you
>like, don't like.
Your problem is you don't seem to comprehend half of what people write
.. or maybe you don't bother to read it all. When one has to keep
posting the same information over and over and over to untangle the
knots you make with your bogus claims, there comes a time to realize
it just t'aint worth the effort ... and it doesn't matter because the
people posters want to know the claims are bogus ... already know. And
then to top it off .... you post the exact same crap in multiple
threads around the board ..... so there goes more time and energy in
repeating info that you either don't read or ignore and come back with
more bogus claims in more multiple and/or new threads. You're a merry
go round, imo, Ed ... and there's no brass ring, and it bever
stops...just round and round and round and round .........
Barb Junkkarinen
<Donald...@newsguy.com> wrote:
How? They couldn't see the 6th floor window.
I'm also not so sure about all the witnesses describing the window as
fully open. Not that it matters as regards the fifth floor guys ....
the point is plenty of witnesses on the street, and even a couple
motorcade folks, saw the rifle sticking out of the window and/or saw a
person with a rifle in/at/through that window while waiting for the
motorcade.
Barb :-)
>
>dw
Ecagetx
1) I will not change my answers for you when you present the same
arguments/questions
2) Your Redlich Memo is used whenever you are mad or wishing to provoke, which
is frequent, as in often.
3) Did you finally admit your Dal-Tex Shooter (RIP) theory was not correct?
4) Don't blame that on Harold Norman Barb, your Dal-Tex theory was killed by
many elements - The input from the "Fifth Floor Gang" as you put it held up,
Your Dal-Tex Shooter yarn promptly died.
Ed Dec80324
Ed Cage
as virtually all witnesses are, held up.
Your response of ===========Barb ON================
"I'm not sure I would use the word "patsy" ... to me at
least, that denotes pure innocence about anything going
on/down. I do not think Oswald fired a rifle at JFK that
day and I do believe circumstantial evidence was meant to
make him culpable ... but I think the possibility exists
that Oswald, unwittingly because he thought he was in on
something in some sort of informant/intel role, may have
actually had a hand
in setting himself up."<==Actual Barb rebuttal.
====================Barb OFF=======================
will not hold up. Same reason and forgive me if I repeat
myself, no evidence.
Ed Dec80435
(You posted that Itek said "impact at 312.." or somesuch,
and left only an incomplete phrase. AGAIN, would you mind
posting the rest of the sentence you omitted?)
> Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<1t78tv4q3gmnono26...@4ax.com>...
Ed Cage
as virtually all witnesses are, held up.
Your response of ===========Barb ON================
"I'm not sure I would use the word "patsy" ... to me at
least, that denotes pure innocence about anything going
on/down. I do not think Oswald fired a rifle at JFK that
day and I do believe circumstantial evidence was meant to
make him culpable ... but I think the possibility exists
that Oswald, unwittingly because he thought he was in on
something in some sort of informant/intel role, may have
actually had a hand
in setting himself up."<==Actual Barb rebuttal.
====================Barb OFF=======================
will not hold up. Same reason and forgive me if I repeat
myself, no evidence.
Ed Dec80435
(You posted that Itek said "impact at 312.." or somesuch,
and left only an incomplete phrase. AGAIN, would you mind
posting the rest of the sentence you omitted?)
> Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:<1t78tv4q3gmnono26...@4ax.com>...
Ecagetx
"I have a hard time believing that Norman
knew at the time the shots were being fired that they were from directly
overhead ... or that he heard three shells ping to the floor
Indeed all 3 said shots in immediate vicinity, they were believed Barb bc their
story made sense. Your anger at them (Norman) stems from the fact they are one
of many reasons your Dal-Tex Shooter (RIP) never made it off the ground.
Ed Dec80313
Donald Willis
>
>>Actually, his story changed from 1963 to 1964, as he originally claimed to
>>have
>>been the one whom debris hit (FBI statement), then agreed for the WC that it
>>was
>>*Williams* who was hit. And circa 1978, he reverted to his original story re
>>the debris (for the HSCA)!
>>dw
>>
>>
>>
>
>Here is his 1963 Statement:
>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0117b.htm
>
>Here is 1964.
>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0097b.htm
>
>
>HERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
Notice I said *FBI* statement, not SS. From 11/26/63 FBI interview with Norman:
"[Norman] stuck his head from the window & looked upward toward the roof but
could see nothing BECAUSE SMALL PARTICLES OF DIRT were falling from above him."
Backing that up is fellow 5th-floor witness James Jarman, in his own 11/24 FBI
interview: "[Jarman] said that Harold Norman stated at that time that something
had fallen from above him & that a piece of debris, in addition, had hit him in
his face."
Not one mention of Williams in connection with dirt/debris, just Norman....
dw
Rob Spencer
> Barb the 5th floor witnesses accounts, while imperfect
> as virtually all witnesses are, held up.
> Your response of ===========Barb ON================
> "I'm not sure I would use the word "patsy" ... to me at
> least, that denotes pure innocence about anything going
> on/down. I do not think Oswald fired a rifle at JFK that
> day and I do believe circumstantial evidence was meant to
> make him culpable ... but I think the possibility exists
> that Oswald, unwittingly because he thought he was in on
> something in some sort of informant/intel role, may have
> actually had a hand
> in setting himself up."<==Actual Barb rebuttal.
> ====================Barb OFF=======================
> will not hold up. Same reason and forgive me if I repeat
> myself, no evidence.
> Ed Dec80435
> (You posted that Itek said "impact at 312.." or somesuch,
> and left only an incomplete phrase. AGAIN, would you mind
> posting the rest of the sentence you omitted?)
>
>
Ed, this has signs of Judyth written all over it.
Spence
John Hill
> In article <20031208011434...@mb-m27.aol.com>, IMakeFights
says...
> >
> >>Actually, his story changed from 1963 to 1964, as he originally claimed
to
> >>have
> >>been the one whom debris hit (FBI statement), then agreed for the WC
that it
> >>was
> >>*Williams* who was hit. And circa 1978, he reverted to his original
story re
> >>the debris (for the HSCA)!
> >>dw
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Actually, NO HE FUCKING DIDNT.
> >Here is his 1963 Statement:
>
>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0117b.htm
> >
> >Here is 1964.
>
>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0097b.htm
> >
> >
> >HERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
>
> Notice I said *FBI* statement, not SS. From 11/26/63 FBI interview with Norman:
> "[Norman] stuck his head from the window & looked upward toward the roof but
> could see nothing BECAUSE SMALL PARTICLES OF DIRT were falling from above him."
The debris was falling OUTSIDE of the building?
--
John Hill (joisa)
Barb Junkkarinen
>>Notice I said *FBI* statement, not SS. From 11/26/63 FBI interview with
>>Norman:
>>"[Norman] stuck his head from the window & looked upward toward the roof but
>>could see nothing BECAUSE SMALL PARTICLES OF DIRT were falling from above
>>him."
>>Backing that up is fellow 5th-floor witness James Jarman, in his own 11/24
>>FBI
>>interview: "[Jarman] said that Harold Norman stated at that time that
>>something
>>had fallen from above him & that a piece of debris, in addition, had hit him
>>in
>>his face."
>>Not one mention of Williams in connection with dirt/debris, just Norman....
>>dw
>>
>>
>>
>
>Your right, thats a breakthrough. There WAS a conspiracy! That is the smoking
>gun we have been looking for.
In his original statement, he didn't know the shots were from the
flkoor above him, there was no mention of pinging shells or a cycling
rifle, and he said he stuck his head out the window and looked up ...
and debris was falling, dirt, OUTSIDE the building and it fell on him.
In his testimony, he denied having said that as he had just testified
that he knew the shots were directly overhead, that he heard shells
pinging and rifle cycling, and that the dust was falling from INSIDE
... from the ceiling and got in Williams' hair. Read his testimony ...
it's all in there.
I'm not saying your friend was a bad guy. I'm not even saying he was
lying .... but the story did change; he may have believed every word,
but it was different. A pretty big deal was made over him and the two
others ... they were the darlings of the WC ... pretty heady stuff.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>>Actually, his story changed from 1963 to 1964, as he originally claimed to
>>have
>>been the one whom debris hit (FBI statement), then agreed for the WC that it
>>was
>>*Williams* who was hit. And circa 1978, he reverted to his original story re
>>the debris (for the HSCA)!
>>dw
>>
>>
>>
>
>Actually, NO HE FUCKING DIDNT.
>Here is his 1963 Statement:
>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0117b.htm
This would be CE493 ... his affadavit from 12-4-63. That is not his
first statement. His first statement, as far as we know, was on
11-26-63, to an FBI agent. That statement does not appear in the 26
volumes but is referred to in his WC testimony ... which is the link
you've provided below. In that testimony, he is asked about some
things he stated in that original interview which are inconsistent
with what he had to say by 12-4 and with what he said in his testimony
as well.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
That's what he originally told the FBI on 11-26. Read his testimony
... they question him about it.
Barb :-)
Donald Willis
Donald Willis
>
>>Notice I said *FBI* statement, not SS. From 11/26/63 FBI interview with
>>Norman:
>>"[Norman] stuck his head from the window & looked upward toward the roof but
>>could see nothing BECAUSE SMALL PARTICLES OF DIRT were falling from above
>>him."
>>FBI
>>interview: "[Jarman] said that Harold Norman stated at that time that
>>something
>>had fallen from above him & that a piece of debris, in addition, had hit him
>>in
>>his face."
>>Not one mention of Williams in connection with dirt/debris, just Norman....
>>dw
>>
>>
>>
>
>Your right, thats a breakthrough. There WAS a conspiracy! That is the smoking
>gun we have been looking for.
The issue was Norman's consistency, or not. Thank you for acknowledging
his inconsistency....
dw
John Hill
OK. Shouldn't we then place more emphasis on his earliest statement? Isn't
it more likely to be the most accurate one?
So, how damning to Oswald were the three 5th floor witnesses earliest
statements? Especially compared to their later statements?
I've just never found those 3 to be terribly consistent. As I learn more, I
believe them less.
--
John Hill (joisa)
> dw
>
>