Four Daze in November -- Airbrushing History V: Bugliosi Omits a
dcwi...@netscape.net
Airbrushing History V
Page 86 Again, as in “Reclaiming History”, Bugliosi quotes the first
five patrolmen to radio re the TSBD in full, except one, in fact the
only one to cite a specific window:
“Get some men up here to cover this building, this TSBD,” Officer CA
Haygood radios in. “It is believed these shots came from [there].”
His source: the “DPD tapes, 12:39pm”
Just about anything that could be wrong, or omitted, here, is wrong or
omitted. The dispatcher’s time for the transmission is 12:37. The
transmission ends, very specifically, “them shots came from… the upper
right hand corner, at the second window from the end.” And the caller
is “22”, or one Patrolman Leonard L. Hill, not 142, Haygood--the
caller’s second ID of himself is quite clear: “22”.
Why does Bugliosi seem nervous about the “second window” and Patrolman
Hill? Perhaps because the only open window fitting Hill’s description
of the TSBD was on the *fifth* floor, not the 6th, & because Hill
seems to have been his own witness. It was not a disappearing witness
who was Hill’s source, but himself. And, finally, because Hill
apparently followed up on his own eyewitnessing, & made a beeline for
the TSBD, the fifth floor, the second window, where he found three
hulls. Hence, the necessity for replacing Hill with Haygood at the
hearings. Hill was a walking expose.
See a more complete accounting of the above in my posts “Reclaiming
History”, II (2) [alt.conspiracy.jfk 6/21/07] and “12:37: Patrolman
Hill Radios re Shots…” [alt.conspiracy.jfk 4/18/08].
dw
Gerry Simone
<dcwi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2da09e56-d428-40fb...@s20g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Footnote to my last post above......
I realize that Donald Willis is apparently "reviewing" Vince Bugliosi's
shorter 2008 paperback volume in Don's "Four Daze" series of distortions
and CT-leaning nonsense; and that 2008 paperback book includes ONLY the
"Four Days" chapter from "Reclaiming History".
But Donald also surely knows that that entire softcover book is merely a
word-for-word re-print edition of the first chapter of "RH". Therefore,
given this fact, all of Bugliosi's arguments against conspiracy are
obviously not going to be included in such a shorter volume.
In order to get the "whole 9 VB yards", you've got to buy "RH", which is
just exactly what readers of the "Four Days In November" paperback volume
are told in the "Editor's Note" at the beginning of the book:
"Readers who enjoy FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER, or who have unanswered
questions about conspiracy theories and the various investigations of the
assassination, will want to consult Bugliosi's masterwork, RECLAIMING
HISTORY, which has raised scholarship on the assassination to a new and
final level, one that far surpasses all other books on the subject." --
Starling Lawrence; W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> Bugliosi cherry picking again with the evidence?
>
with "DPD tapes", which read otherwise....
dw
> <dcwill...@netscape.net> wrote in message
David Von Pein
chapter of Vincent Bugliosi's book ("Reclaiming History") is designed
as a chapter where Bugliosi would want to lay out every single last
discrepancy with respect to every tiny thing associated with JFK's
murder that CTers like to think is "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" in
some fashion.
But, quite obviously, Vince saved the "LN vs. CT" type of arguing and
debate for later in his massive book. But Donald apparently thinks
that every last version of each and every event detailed by Bugliosi
within Chapter 1 of his book should have been included in that
chapter.
But the "Four Days" section of VB's book is a chapter written in a
NARRATIVE fashion, which obviously also means that the text we find in
that chapter consists only of the WHEAT (i.e., the best and most-
logical evidence in the case), instead of the CHAFF (i.e., the stupid
stuff that people like Donald Willis seem to believe with respect to
things like conspirators deliberately planting three spent bullet
shells on a floor of the Depository, the 5th Floor, where [evidently,
per Mr. Willis] the plotters didn't plan on ultimately "framing" their
"patsy" named Lee Oswald from).
====================================
Endnote relating to text on Page #55 of the main volume of "Reclaiming
History"----
" “Get some men up here”: FBI transcripts list Unit 22,
Patrolman L. L. Hill, as the source of this transmission (CE 1974, 23
H 914). However, the channel 2 police recordings show the caller to be
Unit 142, Clyde A. Haygood." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 33 of "RH"
Endnotes (c.2007)
====================================
dcwi...@netscape.net
> Footnote to my last post above......
>
> I realize that Donald Willis is apparently "reviewing" Vince Bugliosi's
> shorter 2008 paperback volume in Don's "Four Daze" series of distortions
The distortions & omissions are Bugliosi's, not mine. It was 12:37, &
the call number on the recordings was "22", not "142". And VB leaves
out the apparently explosive phrase "second window from the end".
dw
Anthony Marsh
Do not rely on eyewitness statements for any facts.
Show me on a map of Dealey Plaza EXACTLY where patrolman Hill was at the
time of the shooting and if possible point him out in a photo taken just
after the shooting.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> Gerry Simone wrote:
> > Bugliosi cherry picking again with the evidence?
>
shortly after the shooting, near the triple underpass. Where Hill was
at the time of the shooting is not known. That may be a shot of his
motorcycle on page 43 of "Killing of a President", back on the other
side from Dealey near the middle underpass.... But everything about
Hill was covered up, altho he spoke of or to 2 important witnesses,
Tague & Brehm. And altho he figures prominently in Tague's WC
testimony, he drops out of Tague's narrative entirely a few years
later, in Mark Lane's documentary, & Tague said he did not recall him
at all when I talked to him circa 1998....
dw
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
> Don Willis seems to think that the lengthy "Four Days In November"
> chapter of Vincent Bugliosi's book ("Reclaiming History") is designed
> as a chapter where Bugliosi would want to lay out every single last
> discrepancy with respect to every tiny thing associated with JFK's
> murder that CTers like to think is "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" in
> some fashion.
>
> But, quite obviously, Vince saved the "LN vs. CT" type of arguing and
> debate for later in his massive book. But Donald apparently thinks
> that every last version of each and every event detailed by Bugliosi
> within Chapter 1 of his book should have been included in that
> chapter.
>
> But the "Four Days" section of VB's book is a chapter written in a
> NARRATIVE fashion, which obviously also means that the text we find in
> that chapter consists only of the WHEAT (i.e., the best and most-
> logical evidence in the case), instead of the CHAFF
Like, uh, the only words missing from the respective calls of the
first 5 policemen to radio from Dealey, the conclusion of the 12:37
call, "second window from the end"?? Oh, that chaff.... Bugliosi
seems to think they're ULTRA-WHEAT, & doesn't want to touch them!
dw
(i.e., the stupid
> stuff that people like Donald Willis seem to believe with respect to
> things like conspirators deliberately planting three spent bullet
> shells on a floor of the Depository, the 5th Floor
Quite the contrary, Davey--that's where Capn Fritz apparently picked
'em up, after the shooter left them behind....
David Von Pein
>>> "Quite the contrary, Davey--that's where Capn Fritz apparently picked
'em up [the 5th Floor], after the shooter left them behind." <<<
And then he went up to the sixth floor and decided it was a good idea to
plant the shells there. Is that it?
Lovely crackpot theory there.
LOL.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Ah what the heck. Could be....
dw
Anthony Marsh
That's my point. If you don't know where he was at the time of the shots
then you can't say what he could have SEEN. You have yet to show that
Leonard Hill was even in Dealey Plaza at the time of the shooting.
> motorcycle on page 43 of "Killing of a President", back on the other
> side from Dealey near the middle underpass.... But everything about
Why in the world would you even bother to GUESS that was Hill's cycle?
Is that a three-wheeler? Was Hill riding a three-wheeler? Was he
assigned to halt the traffic there? I doubt he could see anything from
there.
> Hill was covered up, altho he spoke of or to 2 important witnesses,
> Tague & Brehm. And altho he figures prominently in Tague's WC
Ok, so Hill is an unsung hero. Doesn't mean he actually SAW anything.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Yes, Tague's testimony is confusing & meandering, but he testified that
the patrolman came up to him just after the shooting, & later (Tague) said
that he, the patrolman, saw something hit the curb there. And Tague said
that he & the patrolman listened as Brehm was telling people about the
President being hit. Hill then calls at 12:37 re Tague, Brehm, & an
unknown witness who thot shots came from the second window from the end.
Hill offers no name for him, but does not say it was another witness. In
the context of Tague's testimony, Hill is the only one who could have been
the witness. This is not to say that there are possibilities outside the
realm of Tague's testimony, but that's all we have to go on....
dw
Anthony Marsh
Full of supposition and hearsay. Illogical. He said WITNESS. He did not
say, "I SAW."
> dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
radioed "It is believed".
dw
> > dw
>
>
Anthony Marsh
I didn't put witness in quotes.
> dw
>>> dw
>>
>
>
dcwi...@netscape.net
WITNESS." He didn't.
dw
> > dw
> >>> dw
>
>
Anthony Marsh
CAPS are EMPHASIS.
> dw
>>> dw
>>>>> dw
>>
>
>
Bud
Good of you to put emphasis on your mistake so dw wouldn`t miss
it.
> > dw
> >>> dw
> >>>>> dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
Thanks, Bud. The country is certainly in a topsy turvy state when I'm
thanking fellow posters like Bud & David! But when thanx are due thanx
are due....
dw