> > > On Jun 11, 8:57 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:

> > > > On Jun 10, 8:36 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > On Jun 10, 8:33 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:

> > > > > > On Jun 9, 7:05 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > On Jun 9, 1:01 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:

> > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 7:55 am, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 9:01 am, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 7, 2:38 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 7, 3:12 pm, dkloung...@comcast.net wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > It's Jarman who constructed an alternate universe!
> > > > > > > > > > > > dcw

> > > > > > > > > > > So was Jarman the mastermind behind the plot?

> > > > > > > > > > Closer reading would help here.  In Jarman's (initial) world there was
> > > > > > > > > > no plot, no assassination, just a parade....
> > > > > > > > > > dcw

> > > > > > > > > I still don't see what the point it is you are trying to make by pointing
> > > > > > > > > out the inaccuracies in Jarman's statements.

> > > > > > > > This is beyond "inaccuracies".  Jarman's 11/23 statement (not
> > > > > > > > statements) has no connection with the afternoon of 11/22/63, except
> > > > > > > > that a "parade" was scheduled....
> > > > > > > > dcw

> > > > > > > The statement makes several references to LHO so your statement is
> > > > > > > inaccurate.

> > > > > > I said "afternoon", which usually means "after noon", not morning, or
> > > > > > "before noon".

> > > > > If you want to get nitpicky, let's go all the way. Jarman said to the
> > > > > best of his knowledge, Oswald was not with them when they were
> > > > > watching the parade. They were watching the parade "after noon".

> > > > > >  Do you know the context under which Jarman made this

> > > > > > > statement? Do you know the questions he was asked and what facts he was
> > > > > > > asked to establish? I don't think anyone needed Jarman to tell them there
> > > > > > > had been assassination. I'm guessing everyone knew that by then.

> > > > > > Except, it seems, Jarman!

> > > > > You don't think Jarman knew on 11/23/63 when he made his statement
> > > > > that JFK had been assassinated? Really???

> > > > There is no indication in his 11/23 statement that he knew.

> > > Some things should be pretty obvious. A little common sense is in
> > > order here.

> > > > > >  The

> > > > > > > statement sounds like Jarman was asked to establish, if he could, the
> > > > > > > whereabouts of LHO at the time of the shooting. Jarman's statement
> > > > > > > indicated he last saw LHO between 11:30 and 12:00, that he did not see
> > > > > > > Oswald with the group that went out front and

> > > > > > Okay so far, but now you're about to speculate.  His statement
> > > > > > certainly indicated nothing about the fifth floor, which he did not
> > > > > > mention!

> > > > > So he left that part out. BFD.

> > > > THe only part which he included was that there was a parade.  And he
> > > > was guessing (a) that Williams was out there, & (b) Oswald wasn't.
> > > > One for two on guesses....
> > > > dcw

> > > And you think this qualified as a reason to suspect a conspiracy?

> > > > > >  that he was not with them on

> > > > > > > the fifth floor when he watched the "parade" from the fifth floor with
> > > > > > > Williams and Norman.

> > > > > > Again, he has Williams out front, only.  And he omits Norman from the
> > > > > > cast.  Very strange, when you consider his subsequent statements/
> > > > > > testimony.

> > > > > Again this gets back to the context of the statement. The focus is on the
> > > > > whereabouts of Oswald, before and during the shooting. There was no need
> > > > > for him to establish the whereabouts of Williams or Norman. They were in
> > > > > the Dillard photo. You are trying to desperately to attach meaning to the
> > > > > things Jarman didn't say.

> > > > He said Williams was out front.

> > > Oh, that changes everything.  He was with a group that initially went out
> > > front before he and Norman went back up to the fifth floor. So what if he
> > > thought that Williams was with them out front.

> > > >  You want to take the illogical leap that Jarman

> > > > > wasn't with Norman and Williams on the fifth floor simply because he
> > > > > didn't mention that in his affidavit. All these blanks were filled in
> > > > > during Jarman's WC testimony in response to specific questions.

> > > > Funny--Commission counsel had to correct Jarman when he reiterated
> > > > that he was out front with Williams!  And funny--according to Norman,
> > > > he & Jarman went out front together--Jarman did not go out with the
> > > > 6th-floor workers.  Again, Jarman's 11/23 statement matches no one....

> > > So because one witness was fuzzy on a few minor details, you think
> > > that is reason to suspect a conspiracy. Amazing.

> > "Minor detail": no assassination on 11/22/63.  Chortle!
> > dcw

> Jarman did not say there was no assassination on 11/22/63. His statement
> made no mention of it because it wasn't necessary. Everybody knew that.
> His affidavit was primarily about when he did and did not see Oswald. It
> is bad enough when you guys twist things witnesses say to give them a
> whole new meaning. It becomes ridiculous when you try to give meaning to
> things they didn't say. I can't think of anything more absurd than taking
> the position that because Jarman didn't mention the assassination in his
> affidavit, that is an indication he was unaware of it.