Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Amos Euins Sworn Statement and Testimony
349 views
Skip to first unread message
claviger
Aug 8, 2012, 6:49:38 PM8/8/12
to
Amos Lee Euins - Statement on JFK Assassination - Awesome Stories
http://www.awesomestories.com / assets / amos-lee-euins-statement... -
23k - similar pagesAmos Lee Euins - Statement on JFK Assassination.
The following affidavit is from the Warren Commission, Exhibit 1978.
It is a sworn statement from a teenager ...
The following affidavit is from the Warren Commission, Exhibit 1978.
It is a sworn statement from a teenager who had information on the
shooting.
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November
A.D. 1963 personally appeared Amos Lee Euins Address 411 Avenue F,
Dallas, Texas Age 15 , Phone No. WH 3-9701
Deposes and says:
I am presently going to school at Franklin D. Roosevelt high School and am
in the 9th grade. I got out of school this morning to see the President of
the United States when he came to Dallas. I was standing on the corner of
Elm and Houston street. From where I was standing I could look across the
street and see a large red brick building. I saw the President turn the
corner in front of me and I waived at him and he waived back. I watched
the car on down the street and about the time the car got back near the
black and white sign I heard a shot. I started looking around and then I
looked up in the red brick building. I saw a man in a window with a gun
and I saw him shoot twice. He then stepped back behind some boxes. I could
tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he
was shooting. I just saw a little bit of the barrel, and some of the
trigger housing. This was a white man, he did not have on a hat. I just
saw this man for a few seconds. As far as I know, I had never seen this
man before.
/s/ Amos Lee Euins
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D.
1963
/s/ C. M. Jones
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
Credits
Text, from Warren Commission Exhibit 1978
Original documents at U.S. National Archives
____________________________________________
City of Dallas Archives: JFK Collection - Box 5
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box5.htm - 97k - similar pagesVoluntary
Statement, by Amos Lee Euins. Statement as a witness in Dealey Plaza,
includes seeing a man fire a rifle, (Photocopy), 11/22/63. 00001284 1
page ...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box5.htm
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/12/1284-001.gif
City of Dallas Archives: JFK Collection - Box 15
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box15.htm - 157k - similar pagesVoluntary
Statement, by Amos Lee Euins. Statement as a witness in Dealey Plaza
includes seeing a man fire a rifle, (Photocopy Poor Quality),
11/22/63.
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box15.htm
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/28/2836-001.gif
____________________________________________
TESTIMONY OF AMOS LEE EUINS
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what kind of a look, if any, did you have at the man
who was there?
Mr. EUINS. All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head,
because he had his head something like this.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating his face down, looking down the rifle?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir: and I could see the spot on his head.
Mr. SPECTER. How would you describe that man for us?
Mr. EUINS. I wouldn't know how to describe him, because all I could
see was the spot and his hand.
Mr. SPECTER. Was he slender or was he fat?
Mr. EUINS. I didn't get to see him.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell from where you looked whether he was tall
or short?
Mr. EUINS. No.
Mr. SPECTER. Of what race was he, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. I couldn't tell, because these boxes were throwing a
reflection, shaded.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether he was a Negro gentleman or a
white man?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Couldn't even tell that? But you have described that he
had a bald--
Mr. EUINS. Spot in his head. Yes, sir; I could see the bald spot in
his head.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, could you tell what color hair he had?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Could you tell whether his hair was dark or light?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. How far back did the bald spot on his head go?
Mr. EUINS. I would say about right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above where you hairline
is. Is that about what you are saying?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; right along in here.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, did you get a very good look at that man, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to tell anything about the clothes he was
wearing?
Mr. EUINS: No, sir.
207
Mr. SPECTER. Now, when you were at the sheriff's department in the
police station that you have described, did they ask you to sign an
affidavit or statement for them, Amos?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. I now show you a paper, Amos, which I have marked as
Commission Exhibit No. 367.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 367 for
identification.)
Mr. SPECTER. This is supposed to be a statement which is signed. Let
me first point out to you that it is a copy of it. I ask you if this
is a copy of your signature?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Now, will you take your time, Amos, and read that over, and then I
want to ask you a couple of questions about it.
Did you have a chance to read it over?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Let me ask you about a couple of specific things here, Amos.
In the statement you say here that he was a white man. By reading the
statement, does that refresh your memory as to whether he was a white
man or not?
Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on
his head, but I didn't actually say it was a white man. I said I
couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot in his head.
Mr. SPECTER. Your best recollection at this moment is you still don't
know whether he was a white man or a Negro? All you can say is that
you saw a white spot on his head?
Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Then, did you tell the people at the police station that
he was a white man, or did they make a mistake when they wrote that
down here?
Mr. EUINS. They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could
see a white spot on his head.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/euins.htm
Anthony Marsh
Aug 8, 2012, 9:02:01 PM8/8/12
to
what to say.
claviger
Aug 8, 2012, 9:39:27 PM8/8/12
to
As we can see from reading both a sworn statement by Amos Euins on
11/22/63 and later testimony to the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II:
[The testimony in this volume was conducted between February 27 and March
19, 1964], that Euins never said he saw a black man shoot at the
President. For some reason Euins is frequently misquoted by CTs that he
saw a black man firing a rifle from a TSBD window above.
Euins did not make that claim in his sworn statement the day of the crime,
nor did he testify to that effect in his Q&A before the Warren Commission
Panel. He even denied he saw a white man fire at the President, that the
sniper was in the shadows so he couldn't tell what color the assassin was.
What he could see was a white spot on the head of this sniper. There was
no black employee of the TSBD with a white spot on his head leaning out a
window. None of the three black employees looking out the 5th floor
windows had a white spot on their head nor did they have a rifle. LHO did
have a rifle and a bald spot on his left forehead, so it is likely Euins
did see a sunshine reflection off of his head while firing at the
President. Euins would have been looking at the sniper's left profile
from his position down on the street in Dealey Plaza.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO1.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO15.htm
11/22/63 and later testimony to the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II:
[The testimony in this volume was conducted between February 27 and March
19, 1964], that Euins never said he saw a black man shoot at the
President. For some reason Euins is frequently misquoted by CTs that he
saw a black man firing a rifle from a TSBD window above.
Euins did not make that claim in his sworn statement the day of the crime,
nor did he testify to that effect in his Q&A before the Warren Commission
Panel. He even denied he saw a white man fire at the President, that the
sniper was in the shadows so he couldn't tell what color the assassin was.
What he could see was a white spot on the head of this sniper. There was
no black employee of the TSBD with a white spot on his head leaning out a
window. None of the three black employees looking out the 5th floor
windows had a white spot on their head nor did they have a rifle. LHO did
have a rifle and a bald spot on his left forehead, so it is likely Euins
did see a sunshine reflection off of his head while firing at the
President. Euins would have been looking at the sniper's left profile
from his position down on the street in Dealey Plaza.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO1.htm
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO15.htm
Anthony Marsh
Aug 9, 2012, 11:33:41 AM8/9/12
to
On 8/8/2012 9:39 PM, claviger wrote:
> As we can see from reading both a sworn statement by Amos Euins on
> 11/22/63 and later testimony to the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II:
> [The testimony in this volume was conducted between February 27 and March
> 19, 1964], that Euins never said he saw a black man shoot at the
> President. For some reason Euins is frequently misquoted by CTs that he
> saw a black man firing a rifle from a TSBD window above.
>
Not misquoted. It is what he told a cop and two reporters IMMEDIATELY
> As we can see from reading both a sworn statement by Amos Euins on
> 11/22/63 and later testimony to the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II:
> [The testimony in this volume was conducted between February 27 and March
> 19, 1964], that Euins never said he saw a black man shoot at the
> President. For some reason Euins is frequently misquoted by CTs that he
> saw a black man firing a rifle from a TSBD window above.
>
after the shooting.
> Euins did not make that claim in his sworn statement the day of the crime,
> nor did he testify to that effect in his Q&A before the Warren Commission
> Panel. He even denied he saw a white man fire at the President, that the
> sniper was in the shadows so he couldn't tell what color the assassin was.
>
> What he could see was a white spot on the head of this sniper. There was
> no black employee of the TSBD with a white spot on his head leaning out a
> window. None of the three black employees looking out the 5th floor
> windows had a white spot on their head nor did they have a rifle. LHO did
> have a rifle and a bald spot on his left forehead, so it is likely Euins
> did see a sunshine reflection off of his head while firing at the
> President. Euins would have been looking at the sniper's left profile
> from his position down on the street in Dealey Plaza.
>
firing. You are adding your own theories.
> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO1.htm
> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO15.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
claviger
Aug 9, 2012, 3:56:17 PM8/9/12
to
On Aug 9, 10:33 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 8/8/2012 9:39 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> > As we can see from reading both a sworn statement by Amos Euins on
> > 11/22/63 and later testimony to the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II:
> > [The testimony in this volume was conducted between February 27 and March
> > 19, 1964], that Euins never said he saw a black man shoot at the
> > President. For some reason Euins is frequently misquoted by CTs that he
> > saw a black man firing a rifle from a TSBD window above.
>
> Not misquoted. It is what he told a cop and two reporters IMMEDIATELY
> after the shooting.
Cite please. Hearsay evidence is not as reliable because the earwitness
> On 8/8/2012 9:39 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> > As we can see from reading both a sworn statement by Amos Euins on
> > 11/22/63 and later testimony to the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II:
> > [The testimony in this volume was conducted between February 27 and March
> > 19, 1964], that Euins never said he saw a black man shoot at the
> > President. For some reason Euins is frequently misquoted by CTs that he
> > saw a black man firing a rifle from a TSBD window above.
>
> Not misquoted. It is what he told a cop and two reporters IMMEDIATELY
> after the shooting.
may hear it wrong or misunderstand what they heard. Especially in the
noise and chaos of an event like this. That is why a sworn statement in
an office with a calming atmosphere is better to hear and record important
information.
Direct statements under oath are legal documents. Euins may have confused
one of the black porters on the 5th floor and realized his mistake later.
None of the black porters had a white spot on their head or a gun in their
hands. The person Euins saw had both.
> > Euins did not make that claim in his sworn statement the day of the crime,
> > nor did he testify to that effect in his Q&A before the Warren Commission
> > Panel. He even denied he saw a white man fire at the President, that the
> > sniper was in the shadows so he couldn't tell what color the assassin was.
>
> Because he was warned by the DPD that it might start a race riot.
> > What he could see was a white spot on the head of this sniper. There was
> > no black employee of the TSBD with a white spot on his head leaning out a
> > window. None of the three black employees looking out the 5th floor
>
> Sure there was. Look at the Dillard photo.
> > windows had a white spot on their head nor did they have a rifle. LHO did
> > have a rifle and a bald spot on his left forehead, so it is likely Euins
> > did see a sunshine reflection off of his head while firing at the
> > President. Euins would have been looking at the sniper's left profile
> > from his position down on the street in Dealey Plaza.
>
> He could not see the shooter's head and he never said he saw the shooter
> firing. You are adding your own theories.
incorrect statement. Read the first post above again. Then read the
testimony below one more time. Perhaps you need to take a remedial
Reading Comprehension class. If one is not available try an ESL course.
It is painfully obvious there is important information in these two legal
documents you have overlooked or misread.
TESTIMONY OF AMOS LEE EUINS
seansmil...@gmail.com
Aug 10, 2012, 2:49:22 AM8/10/12
to
On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 6:39:27 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
> As we can see from reading both a sworn statement by Amos Euins on
>
> 11/22/63 and later testimony to the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II:
>
> [The testimony in this volume was conducted between February 27 and March
>
> 19, 1964], that Euins never said he saw a black man shoot at the
>
> President. For some reason Euins is frequently misquoted by CTs that he
>
> saw a black man firing a rifle from a TSBD window above.
>
Even before Euins' 11/22 statement, two reporters reported that Euins said
> As we can see from reading both a sworn statement by Amos Euins on
>
> 11/22/63 and later testimony to the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II:
>
> [The testimony in this volume was conducted between February 27 and March
>
> 19, 1964], that Euins never said he saw a black man shoot at the
>
> President. For some reason Euins is frequently misquoted by CTs that he
>
> saw a black man firing a rifle from a TSBD window above.
>
he saw a "colored man" upstairs in the depository, with a rifle.
Underwood testified to this before the WC; Kent Biffle wrote about this,
but was not called to testify. Wouldn't want corroboration!
dcw
claviger
Aug 10, 2012, 12:23:12 PM8/10/12
to
his head and you will solve the crime. Did he have a Carcano too?
What window did he fire from? We have another witness who saw a white
guy in the 6th floor window with a rifle. Did the white guy and black
guy take turns firing at the motorcade?
bigdog
Aug 10, 2012, 1:19:10 PM8/10/12
to
because it sounds good to him. If such a statement had been made, how the
hell would he know about it?
bigdog
Aug 10, 2012, 1:19:53 PM8/10/12
to
shooter was white or black. His signed statement was that it was a white
man although he did not write that statement. It was prepared for him by
those who had questioned him and apparently they misinterpreted what he
had told them. Similarly, the reporter(s) may have misunderstood what they
heard Euins say. He may have said he also saw the black men on the floor
below and they took that to mean he was refering to the shooter. We just
don't know what he told the cop or what the reporters actually heard.
seansmil...@gmail.com
Aug 10, 2012, 2:17:35 PM8/10/12
to
5th. Brennan saw a man firing from a wide-open window. Euins changed his
description of the shooter from one statement to the next. Edwards &
Fischer saw a suspicious man at a wide-open window, too. And a patrolman
radioed re a shot from the "second window from the end". So floor #,
window, & the shooter's description varied from witness to witness....
dcw
seansmil...@gmail.com
Aug 10, 2012, 2:19:09 PM8/10/12
to
On Thursday, August 9, 2012 12:56:17 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
> On Aug 9, 10:33 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 8/8/2012 9:39 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > As we can see from reading both a sworn statement by Amos Euins on
>
> > > 11/22/63 and later testimony to the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II:
>
> > > [The testimony in this volume was conducted between February 27 and March
>
> > > 19, 1964], that Euins never said he saw a black man shoot at the
>
> > > President. For some reason Euins is frequently misquoted by CTs that he
>
> > > saw a black man firing a rifle from a TSBD window above.
>
> >
>
> > Not misquoted. It is what he told a cop and two reporters IMMEDIATELY
>
> > after the shooting.
>
>
>
> Cite please. Hearsay evidence is not as reliable because the earwitness
>
> may hear it wrong or misunderstand what they heard. Especially in the
>
> noise and chaos of an event like this. That is why a sworn statement in
>
> an office with a calming atmosphere is better to hear and record important
>
> information.
Unfortunately, Euins had to contradict his "sworn statement", later, at
> On Aug 9, 10:33 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 8/8/2012 9:39 PM, claviger wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > As we can see from reading both a sworn statement by Amos Euins on
>
> > > 11/22/63 and later testimony to the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II:
>
> > > [The testimony in this volume was conducted between February 27 and March
>
> > > 19, 1964], that Euins never said he saw a black man shoot at the
>
> > > President. For some reason Euins is frequently misquoted by CTs that he
>
> > > saw a black man firing a rifle from a TSBD window above.
>
> >
>
> > Not misquoted. It is what he told a cop and two reporters IMMEDIATELY
>
> > after the shooting.
>
>
>
> Cite please. Hearsay evidence is not as reliable because the earwitness
>
> may hear it wrong or misunderstand what they heard. Especially in the
>
> noise and chaos of an event like this. That is why a sworn statement in
>
> an office with a calming atmosphere is better to hear and record important
>
> information.
the hearings. The "white man" has become a "white spot" (v2p208). So
much for calm, correct statements....
dcw
Ace Kefford
Aug 10, 2012, 2:19:44 PM8/10/12
to
You failed to use basic CT logic. If anything supports in some way the
idea that Oswald didn't do it alone, then that must be the truth. Even if
it doesn't make any sense or fit with other evidence to form a coherent
picture.
And how dare you suggest a reporter might have misheard or misinterpreted
what someone said! All of us who have ever been quoted in print know that
that could never happen.
Don't know why you bother. I suppose every so often there might be
someone with a genuine interest who will listen to the refutation of the
CT scatter-shot arguments. But most of the time just a waste of time and
energy.
claviger
Aug 10, 2012, 7:31:45 PM8/10/12
to
Sean,
> A Mrs Walthers saw a white man with a rifle on a floor no higher than the
> 5th.
No corroboration and she had a co-worker named Mrs. Pearl Springer
standing right next to her who did not see anything like that, nor did
Mrs. Walther say anything at the time about a man with a gun in a window.
Mrs. Eric Carolyn Walther made a voluntary statement to the FBI almost two
weeks later (12/5/63). She was called as a witness in the Clay Shaw trial
and testified under another name, Mrs. Elizabeth Carolyn Walton.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2087.htm
> Brennan saw a man firing from a wide-open window.
Multiple corroboration of a rifle in the 6th floor window and shots fired
from that window.
> Euins changed his description of the shooter from one statement to the next.
Not according to him. He claims the person taking his statement
misunderstood what he was trying to say. Keep in mind he was a nervous 15
year old kid. The person taking his statement may have assumed the white
spot was probably a bald spot, a description more likely on a white man
than a black man. There is no evidence whatsoever a black employee or
any other black person fired a rifle at the motorcade.
> Edwards & Fischer saw a suspicious man at a wide-open window, too.
Cite please.
> And a patrolman radioed re a shot from the "second window from the end".
Cite please.
> So floor #, window, & the shooter's description varied from witness to witness....
To some degree, but enough witnesses got it right to provide
corroboration. Empty shells were found under the 6th floor window inside
the sniper's nest and the rifle was found on the same floor. So most of
the witnesses got it right, and we can understand why there might be some
confusion given the circumstances.
> A Mrs Walthers saw a white man with a rifle on a floor no higher than the
> 5th.
standing right next to her who did not see anything like that, nor did
Mrs. Walther say anything at the time about a man with a gun in a window.
Mrs. Eric Carolyn Walther made a voluntary statement to the FBI almost two
weeks later (12/5/63). She was called as a witness in the Clay Shaw trial
and testified under another name, Mrs. Elizabeth Carolyn Walton.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2087.htm
> Brennan saw a man firing from a wide-open window.
from that window.
> Euins changed his description of the shooter from one statement to the next.
misunderstood what he was trying to say. Keep in mind he was a nervous 15
year old kid. The person taking his statement may have assumed the white
spot was probably a bald spot, a description more likely on a white man
than a black man. There is no evidence whatsoever a black employee or
any other black person fired a rifle at the motorcade.
> Edwards & Fischer saw a suspicious man at a wide-open window, too.
> And a patrolman radioed re a shot from the "second window from the end".
> So floor #, window, & the shooter's description varied from witness to witness....
corroboration. Empty shells were found under the 6th floor window inside
the sniper's nest and the rifle was found on the same floor. So most of
the witnesses got it right, and we can understand why there might be some
confusion given the circumstances.
claviger
Aug 10, 2012, 7:33:37 PM8/10/12
to
Sean,
> Unfortunately, Euins had to contradict his "sworn statement", later, at
> the hearings. The "white man" has become a "white spot" (v2p208). So
> much for calm, correct statements....
Not according to Euins. He said there was confusion about a white spot on
a man in the shadows, not a white man in the shadows. A prominent white
spot on a black man would certainly be noticeable to anyone, especially if
he had a rifle in his hand. No one who fit that description was seen by
any witness, including Amos Euins.
> Unfortunately, Euins had to contradict his "sworn statement", later, at
> the hearings. The "white man" has become a "white spot" (v2p208). So
> much for calm, correct statements....
a man in the shadows, not a white man in the shadows. A prominent white
spot on a black man would certainly be noticeable to anyone, especially if
he had a rifle in his hand. No one who fit that description was seen by
any witness, including Amos Euins.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 10, 2012, 7:35:06 PM8/10/12
to
was a black man. Again you fail to read your own beloved WC.
Mr. Ball.
Euins?
Mr. UNDERWOOD.
It may have been Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his
name. He was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean
out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle. He was telling this to the
officer and the officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that
time, motorcycle officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving
and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with a rifle and
he said "Yes, sir." I said, "Were they white or black?" He said, "It was a
colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He said, "Yes,
sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I could understand was
what I thought his name was Eunice.
And Kent Biffle was with him and head the boy say it was a black man.
> below and they took that to mean he was refering to the shooter. We just
> don't know what he told the cop or what the reporters actually heard.
>
>
Read the WC testimony.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 10, 2012, 8:35:06 PM8/10/12
to
On 8/10/2012 7:31 PM, claviger wrote:
> Sean,
>
>> A Mrs Walthers saw a white man with a rifle on a floor no higher than the
>> 5th.
>
> No corroboration and she had a co-worker named Mrs. Pearl Springer
> standing right next to her who did not see anything like that, nor did
> Mrs. Walther say anything at the time about a man with a gun in a window.
> Mrs. Eric Carolyn Walther made a voluntary statement to the FBI almost two
> weeks later (12/5/63). She was called as a witness in the Clay Shaw trial
> and testified under another name, Mrs. Elizabeth Carolyn Walton.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2087.htm
>
>> Brennan saw a man firing from a wide-open window.
>
> Multiple corroboration of a rifle in the 6th floor window and shots fired
> from that window.
>
So what? This is about errors in witness perception.
> Sean,
>
>> A Mrs Walthers saw a white man with a rifle on a floor no higher than the
>> 5th.
>
> No corroboration and she had a co-worker named Mrs. Pearl Springer
> standing right next to her who did not see anything like that, nor did
> Mrs. Walther say anything at the time about a man with a gun in a window.
> Mrs. Eric Carolyn Walther made a voluntary statement to the FBI almost two
> weeks later (12/5/63). She was called as a witness in the Clay Shaw trial
> and testified under another name, Mrs. Elizabeth Carolyn Walton.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2087.htm
>
>> Brennan saw a man firing from a wide-open window.
>
> Multiple corroboration of a rifle in the 6th floor window and shots fired
> from that window.
>
>> Euins changed his description of the shooter from one statement to the next.
>
> Not according to him. He claims the person taking his statement
> misunderstood what he was trying to say. Keep in mind he was a nervous 15
> year old kid. The person taking his statement may have assumed the white
> spot was probably a bald spot, a description more likely on a white man
> than a black man. There is no evidence whatsoever a black employee or
> any other black person fired a rifle at the motorcade.
>
>> Edwards & Fischer saw a suspicious man at a wide-open window, too.
>
> Cite please.
>
>> And a patrolman radioed re a shot from the "second window from the end".
>
> Cite please.
>
>> So floor #, window, & the shooter's description varied from witness to witness....
>
> To some degree, but enough witnesses got it right to provide
> corroboration. Empty shells were found under the 6th floor window inside
> the sniper's nest and the rifle was found on the same floor. So most of
> the witnesses got it right, and we can understand why there might be some
> confusion given the circumstances.
>
>
from the TSBD.
claviger
Aug 10, 2012, 8:35:45 PM8/10/12
to
So you believe a black man shot the President. Were two men in the 6th
floor window taking turns shooting at the Limousine, one black, one white?
That would be a brilliant way to confuse any witnesses down on the street.
Is this your new theory? Did this black assassin have a white spot on his
head? If so, why? Which black employee of the TSBD did the shooting?
Or did a frightened 15 year old kid confuse one of the black porters under
the 6th floor window with the real assassin, LHO? Maybe when Amos calmed
down he realized he couldn't tell what color the assassin was. We know
LHO had a hair loss pattern somewhere between a Class 3 - Class 4 on a
Norwood Scale balding pattern and parted his hair on the left, revealing a
large bald spot. This would have been obvious on his left profile.
Since he was a white man Euins might refer to it as a white spot.
Photo Archive: Lee Harvey Oswald Photos
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHOM.htm - 7k - similar pagesThe
Assassination of John F. Kennedy Photographic Archive. Lee Harvey
Oswald Photographs · Open Debate on the Kennedy Assassination · Lee
Harvey ...
Column 2, Line 12
Row 1: Picture 5
Row 3: Pictures 1, 2
Row 5: Picture 3
Baldness - Hair Loss Types in Men and Thinning Hair Patterns in ...
http://www.bosley.com/about_hair_loss/hair_loss_types.php - 24k -
similar pagesRecognize your hair loss classification using the Norwood
Scale for men or Ludwig Scale for women, at Bosley.com.
About Hair Loss - Bosley Medical
http://www.bosley.com/about_hair_loss/causes_of_hair_loss.php - 23k -
similar pagesCauses of Hair Loss, Bosley offers insights into the
causes of male & female pattern baldness and how Bosley Hair
Transplants are a permanent solution.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 11, 2012, 8:04:55 AM8/11/12
to
before you ever got to this newsgroup. But you refuse to pay attention.
> floor window taking turns shooting at the Limousine, one black, one white?
> That would be a brilliant way to confuse any witnesses down on the street.
> Is this your new theory? Did this black assassin have a white spot on his
> head? If so, why? Which black employee of the TSBD did the shooting?
>
floor. Only one has to take the primary shots. The other could be a backup.
> Or did a frightened 15 year old kid confuse one of the black porters under
> the 6th floor window with the real assassin, LHO? Maybe when Amos calmed
> down he realized he couldn't tell what color the assassin was. We know
realized that it must not be a black man that he saw.
> LHO had a hair loss pattern somewhere between a Class 3 - Class 4 on a
> Norwood Scale balding pattern and parted his hair on the left, revealing a
> large bald spot. This would have been obvious on his left profile.
> Since he was a white man Euins might refer to it as a white spot.
>
What about the bald spot on the back of Lovelady's head?
> Photo Archive: Lee Harvey Oswald Photos
> http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHOM.htm - 7k - similar pagesThe
> Assassination of John F. Kennedy Photographic Archive. Lee Harvey
> Oswald Photographs · Open Debate on the Kennedy Assassination · Lee
> Harvey ...
> Column 2, Line 12
> Row 1: Picture 5
> Row 3: Pictures 1, 2
> Row 5: Picture 3
>
> Baldness - Hair Loss Types in Men and Thinning Hair Patterns in ...
> http://www.bosley.com/about_hair_loss/hair_loss_types.php - 24k -
> similar pagesRecognize your hair loss classification using the Norwood
> Scale for men or Ludwig Scale for women, at Bosley.com.
>
> About Hair Loss - Bosley Medical
> http://www.bosley.com/about_hair_loss/causes_of_hair_loss.php - 23k -
> similar pagesCauses of Hair Loss, Bosley offers insights into the
> causes of male & female pattern baldness and how Bosley Hair
> Transplants are a permanent solution.
>
>
seansmil...@gmail.com
Aug 11, 2012, 8:06:29 AM8/11/12
to
On Friday, August 10, 2012 4:31:45 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
> Sean,
>
>
>
> > A Mrs Walthers saw a white man with a rifle on a floor no higher than the
>
> > 5th.
>
>
>
> No corroboration and she had a co-worker named Mrs. Pearl Springer
>
> standing right next to her who did not see anything like that, nor did
>
> Mrs. Walther say anything at the time about a man with a gun in a window.
>
> Mrs. Eric Carolyn Walther made a voluntary statement to the FBI almost two
>
> weeks later (12/5/63). She was called as a witness in the Clay Shaw trial
>
> and testified under another name, Mrs. Elizabeth Carolyn Walton.
>
Stop right there. No need to make things more confusing than they already are. I have an HSCA document. "Originator: New Orleans D.A." Subject: "Mrs. Carolyn E. Walther." "Walton" is apparently a mistake, a typo perhaps....
> Sean,
>
>
>
> > A Mrs Walthers saw a white man with a rifle on a floor no higher than the
>
> > 5th.
>
>
>
> No corroboration and she had a co-worker named Mrs. Pearl Springer
>
> standing right next to her who did not see anything like that, nor did
>
> Mrs. Walther say anything at the time about a man with a gun in a window.
>
> Mrs. Eric Carolyn Walther made a voluntary statement to the FBI almost two
>
> weeks later (12/5/63). She was called as a witness in the Clay Shaw trial
>
> and testified under another name, Mrs. Elizabeth Carolyn Walton.
>
dcw
>
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2087.htm
>
>
>
> > Brennan saw a man firing from a wide-open window.
>
>
>
> Multiple corroboration of a rifle in the 6th floor window and shots fired
>
> from that window.
>
Edwards & Fischer said "wide open window" & "5th floor". Brennan, Couch & Jackson said wide open window, or indicated (Jackson) wide open window. Can't be the 6th floor.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2087.htm
>
>
>
> > Brennan saw a man firing from a wide-open window.
>
>
>
> Multiple corroboration of a rifle in the 6th floor window and shots fired
>
> from that window.
>
>
> > Euins changed his description of the shooter from one statement to the next.
>
>
>
> Not according to him. He claims the person taking his statement
>
> misunderstood what he was trying to say. Keep in mind he was a nervous 15
>
> year old kid. The person taking his statement may have assumed the white
>
> spot was probably a bald spot, a description more likely on a white man
>
> than a black man. There is no evidence whatsoever a black employee or
>
> any other black person fired a rifle at the motorcade.
>
Euins' 11/29/63 FBI interview: Euins "never saw anything other than what appeared to be his hand on the stock".
> > Euins changed his description of the shooter from one statement to the next.
>
>
>
> Not according to him. He claims the person taking his statement
>
> misunderstood what he was trying to say. Keep in mind he was a nervous 15
>
> year old kid. The person taking his statement may have assumed the white
>
> spot was probably a bald spot, a description more likely on a white man
>
> than a black man. There is no evidence whatsoever a black employee or
>
> any other black person fired a rifle at the motorcade.
>
Euins' 12/14/63 FBI interview: "He stated he saw a man's hand on what appeared to be the trigger housing & he could also see a bald spot onthe man's head. He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand extended outside the window on the rifle."
As I said, the FBI were a bunch of doofusses who could never seem to get Euins' statements right. On 12/14, for instance, the suspect had a bald spot *and* he was white...!
dcw
>
> > Edwards & Fischer saw a suspicious man at a wide-open window, too.
>
>
>
> Cite please.
>
WR testimony
> > Edwards & Fischer saw a suspicious man at a wide-open window, too.
>
>
>
> Cite please.
>
>
> > And a patrolman radioed re a shot from the "second window from the end".
>
>
>
> Cite please.
>
DPD radio log 12:37pm
> > And a patrolman radioed re a shot from the "second window from the end".
>
>
>
> Cite please.
>
>
> > So floor #, window, & the shooter's description varied from witness to witness....
>
>
>
> To some degree, but enough witnesses got it right to provide
>
> corroboration. Empty shells were found under the 6th floor window inside
>
> the sniper's nest
We have no way of knowing *where* they were found since Fritz (according to Mooney, Alyea & Faulkner) handled them before they could be photographed.
> > So floor #, window, & the shooter's description varied from witness to witness....
>
>
>
> To some degree, but enough witnesses got it right to provide
>
> corroboration. Empty shells were found under the 6th floor window inside
>
> the sniper's nest
claviger
Aug 11, 2012, 5:14:05 PM8/11/12
to
Sean,
> Stop right there. No need to make things more confusing than they
> already are. I have an HSCA document.
> "Originator: New Orleans D.A." Subject: "Mrs. Carolyn E. Walther."
> "Walton" is apparently a mistake, a typo perhaps....
Perhaps. Carolyn Walther was a strange witness, to say the least.
Yeuhd did some excellent research on Walther.
Carolyn Walther
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/260defbab3e41916/84784168715448c1?q=claviger+walther&lnk=ol&
Carolyn Walther said 4th or 5th floor — and meant
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b9e9e45c610498e2/080346ad54e43c14?lnk=gst&q=claviger+walther#080346ad54e43c14
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2087.htm
>
> > > Brennan saw a man firing from a wide-open window.
>
> > Multiple corroboration of a rifle in the 6th floor window and shots fired
>
> > from that window.
>
> Edwards & Fischer said "wide open window" & "5th floor".
> Brennan, Couch & Jackson said wide open window, or indicated
> (Jackson) wide open window. Can't be the 6th floor.
There were no "wide open" windows in the TSBN that day, reason being
those windows only opened halfway at most.
No open windows at all on the 7th floor.
There were 3 half opened windows on the 6th floor,
5 on the 5th floor, and 1 on the 4th floor.
There were a couple of 1/4 open windows, one being the sniper's nest.
> Euins' 11/29/63 FBI interview: Euins "never saw anything other than
> what appeared to be his hand on the stock".
> Euins' 12/14/63 FBI interview: "He stated he saw a man's hand on
> what appeared to be the trigger housing & he could also see a bald
> spot on the man's head. He said he was sure this man was white,
suggestion that a black teenager may refer to a bald spot on a white man
as a "white spot". This is confirmation Euins saw the sniper on the 6th
floor and corroborates witness Brenner the assassin was a white man.
Good work.
> > > Edwards & Fischer saw a suspicious man at a wide-open window, too.
>
> > Cite please.
>
> WR testimony
No such thing as a "wide-open window" in the TSBD. Maybe they meant a
wide-open half window.
> > > And a patrolman radioed re a shot from the "second window from the end".
>
> > Cite please.
>
> DPD radio log 12:37pm
OK, so he got it wrong. What does this prove?
> > > So floor #, window, & the shooter's description varied from witness to witness....
>
> > To some degree, but enough witnesses got it right to provide
> > corroboration. Empty shells were found under the 6th floor window inside
> > the sniper's nest
>
> We have no way of knowing *where* they were found since Fritz (according to Mooney, Alyea & Faulkner) handled them before they could be photographed.
I believe Fritz picked up one to look at it and there were other witnesses
who observed the shells in situ before he did. What reason would Fritz
have to rearrange the empty shells? It would be OK to do that with a
pencil inside the hull and carefully place it back down with other
witnesses watching, however today it is best to leave everything as is.
> Stop right there. No need to make things more confusing than they
> already are. I have an HSCA document.
> "Originator: New Orleans D.A." Subject: "Mrs. Carolyn E. Walther."
> "Walton" is apparently a mistake, a typo perhaps....
Yeuhd did some excellent research on Walther.
Carolyn Walther
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/260defbab3e41916/84784168715448c1?q=claviger+walther&lnk=ol&
Carolyn Walther said 4th or 5th floor — and meant
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/b9e9e45c610498e2/080346ad54e43c14?lnk=gst&q=claviger+walther#080346ad54e43c14
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/exhibits/ce2087.htm
>
> > > Brennan saw a man firing from a wide-open window.
>
> > Multiple corroboration of a rifle in the 6th floor window and shots fired
>
> > from that window.
>
> Edwards & Fischer said "wide open window" & "5th floor".
> Brennan, Couch & Jackson said wide open window, or indicated
> (Jackson) wide open window. Can't be the 6th floor.
those windows only opened halfway at most.
No open windows at all on the 7th floor.
There were 3 half opened windows on the 6th floor,
5 on the 5th floor, and 1 on the 4th floor.
There were a couple of 1/4 open windows, one being the sniper's nest.
> Euins' 11/29/63 FBI interview: Euins "never saw anything other than
> what appeared to be his hand on the stock".
> Euins' 12/14/63 FBI interview: "He stated he saw a man's hand on
> what appeared to be the trigger housing & he could also see a bald
> because his hand extended outside the window on the rifle."
>
> As I said, the FBI were a bunch of doofusses who could never
> seem to get Euins' statements right. On 12/14, for instance,
> the suspect had a bald spot *and* he was white...!
That solves the mystery of the "white spot" and confirms my previous
>
> As I said, the FBI were a bunch of doofusses who could never
> seem to get Euins' statements right. On 12/14, for instance,
> the suspect had a bald spot *and* he was white...!
suggestion that a black teenager may refer to a bald spot on a white man
as a "white spot". This is confirmation Euins saw the sniper on the 6th
floor and corroborates witness Brenner the assassin was a white man.
Good work.
> > > Edwards & Fischer saw a suspicious man at a wide-open window, too.
>
> > Cite please.
>
> WR testimony
wide-open half window.
> > > And a patrolman radioed re a shot from the "second window from the end".
>
> > Cite please.
>
> DPD radio log 12:37pm
> > > So floor #, window, & the shooter's description varied from witness to witness....
>
> > To some degree, but enough witnesses got it right to provide
> > corroboration. Empty shells were found under the 6th floor window inside
> > the sniper's nest
>
> We have no way of knowing *where* they were found since Fritz (according to Mooney, Alyea & Faulkner) handled them before they could be photographed.
who observed the shells in situ before he did. What reason would Fritz
have to rearrange the empty shells? It would be OK to do that with a
pencil inside the hull and carefully place it back down with other
witnesses watching, however today it is best to leave everything as is.
seansmil...@gmail.com
Aug 12, 2012, 10:37:41 AM8/12/12
to
dcw
seansmil...@gmail.com
Aug 15, 2012, 8:59:32 AM8/15/12
to
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 2:14:05 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
Jackson testified that the shooter's window was open as far as the "window on the 6th floor of the *westernmost* [asterisks added] portion of the building," in CE 348, (v2p159) which Jackson indeed said was open "halfway". But we can see that it is in fact a wide open casement window which looks open only halfway.... Jackson pointedly did not use the "sniper's nest" window (open halfway, or quarterway, if you must) to show how far the window was open. He had to leave the "sniper's nest" window to describe what he saw....
dcw
John King
Aug 20, 2012, 11:20:02 AM8/20/12
to
In article <06d6fb0b-49be-4d18...@googlegroups.com>,
Oh lordy, Kent Biffle, of all people? Wasn't he the one who made the
outlandish claim that he saw Oswald in Truly's "roll call" of employees
when everyone else says Oswald didn't show for that? Biffle seems to me
to be one of the most unreliable of all the reporters covering the
assassination that day. Most likely he heard Euins say that he saw a
man with a rifle AND ALSO SAW a colored man on a different floor, and
misunderstood, thinking Euins was talking about the same man. And as
there were three "colored men" that we all know didn't fire any shots,
all of whom were absurdly visible on the fifth floor, it is a perfectly
sensible explanation that Euins didn't mean that the colored man and the
shooter were the same person and that Biffle merely misunderstood.
As for Underwood, not so sure about that, but in this same WC testimony,
while he did admittedly claim that Euins said the colored man was also
the one with the rifle, Underwood himself said he himself "saw two
colored men leaning out there with their heads turned toward the top of
the building, trying, I suppose, to determine where the shots were
coming from." In regard to Euins, he also said something about
"leaning" out of the window:
"He [Euins] was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man
what race, never "leaned" *out* of the window at any point; I have not
seen even the most dedicated CT claim such a thing. True, then
Underwood went on to give what he claimed was a verbatim quote of Euins:
'By that time, motorcycle officers were arriving, homicide officers were
I still wonder if Underwood didn't misunderstand Euins or that Euins
misunderstood what Underwood was asking him, or both. Twice Underwood
said (once before the part I quoted) that he couldn't understand Euins
clearly when he said his name, thinking he had said "Eunice." And am I
incorrect in my recollection that there was at least one occasion in
which Euins specifically denied that he had ever told any police officer
or reporter that the man with the rifle was colored?
outlandish claim that he saw Oswald in Truly's "roll call" of employees
when everyone else says Oswald didn't show for that? Biffle seems to me
to be one of the most unreliable of all the reporters covering the
assassination that day. Most likely he heard Euins say that he saw a
man with a rifle AND ALSO SAW a colored man on a different floor, and
misunderstood, thinking Euins was talking about the same man. And as
there were three "colored men" that we all know didn't fire any shots,
all of whom were absurdly visible on the fifth floor, it is a perfectly
sensible explanation that Euins didn't mean that the colored man and the
shooter were the same person and that Biffle merely misunderstood.
As for Underwood, not so sure about that, but in this same WC testimony,
while he did admittedly claim that Euins said the colored man was also
the one with the rifle, Underwood himself said he himself "saw two
colored men leaning out there with their heads turned toward the top of
the building, trying, I suppose, to determine where the shots were
coming from." In regard to Euins, he also said something about
"leaning" out of the window:
"He [Euins] was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man
lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle."
Yet we all know that the shooter, no matter who he was, no matter of
what race, never "leaned" *out* of the window at any point; I have not
seen even the most dedicated CT claim such a thing. True, then
Underwood went on to give what he claimed was a verbatim quote of Euins:
'By that time, motorcycle officers were arriving, homicide officers were
arriving and I went over and asked this boy if he had seen someone with
a rifle and he said "Yes, sir." I said, "Were they white or black?" He
said, "It was a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored
man?" He said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I
could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice.'
a rifle and he said "Yes, sir." I said, "Were they white or black?" He
said, "It was a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored
man?" He said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing I
I still wonder if Underwood didn't misunderstand Euins or that Euins
misunderstood what Underwood was asking him, or both. Twice Underwood
said (once before the part I quoted) that he couldn't understand Euins
clearly when he said his name, thinking he had said "Eunice." And am I
incorrect in my recollection that there was at least one occasion in
which Euins specifically denied that he had ever told any police officer
or reporter that the man with the rifle was colored?
John King
Aug 20, 2012, 11:20:08 AM8/20/12
to
In article <988ad056-3ca0-4808...@googlegroups.com>,
that whether or not Euins initially said the shooter was "colored" is a
fairly trivial matter. Likewise it is trivial that some witnesses said
the shooter was on one floor, some on another. Also trivial regarding
how far open the window was. Witnesses are naturally going to be all
over the place on matters such as this, and most especially on physical
descriptions of the suspect, which are often the most notoriously
unreliable of all witness recollections.
Of an astonishingly different nature was the firm convergence of more
than 90% of 216 witnesses who thought all the shots came from a single
location, even if they didn't came anywhere close to converging on which
location it was. More than 90% of all the witnesses who thought shots
came from the TSBD said *ALL* the shots sounded as if they came from
there. More than 90% of all the witnesses who thought shots came from
the grassy knoll said *ALL* the shots sounded as if they came from
there. More than 90% of all the witnesses who thought shots came from
the Triple Underpass said *ALL* the shots sounded as if they came from
there. No matter which direction the witness thought the shots came
from, the witness almost always thought ALL the shots came from that
location, and that not one shot came from any other direction. This
aspect is almost always omitted in any discussion by anyone who proposes
multiple shooters. They'll merely say things like, "Many people thought
shots came from the grassy knoll," with the obvious implication that
these people supposedly thought only "some" of the shots came from
there, when in reality more than nine of out ten of them thought *ALL*
the shots came from there and not one shot, not one, came from any other
location. This even includes people who recalled more or less than
three shots.
seansmil...@gmail.com wrote:
> A Mrs Walthers saw a white man with a rifle on a floor no higher than the
> 5th. Brennan saw a man firing from a wide-open window. Euins changed his
> description of the shooter from one statement to the next. Edwards &
> Fischer saw a suspicious man at a wide-open window, too. And a patrolman
> radioed re a shot from the "second window from the end". So floor #,
> window, & the shooter's description varied from witness to witness....
Thus you are confirming, and admitting, whether you realize it or not,
> A Mrs Walthers saw a white man with a rifle on a floor no higher than the
> 5th. Brennan saw a man firing from a wide-open window. Euins changed his
> description of the shooter from one statement to the next. Edwards &
> Fischer saw a suspicious man at a wide-open window, too. And a patrolman
> radioed re a shot from the "second window from the end". So floor #,
> window, & the shooter's description varied from witness to witness....
that whether or not Euins initially said the shooter was "colored" is a
fairly trivial matter. Likewise it is trivial that some witnesses said
the shooter was on one floor, some on another. Also trivial regarding
how far open the window was. Witnesses are naturally going to be all
over the place on matters such as this, and most especially on physical
descriptions of the suspect, which are often the most notoriously
unreliable of all witness recollections.
Of an astonishingly different nature was the firm convergence of more
than 90% of 216 witnesses who thought all the shots came from a single
location, even if they didn't came anywhere close to converging on which
location it was. More than 90% of all the witnesses who thought shots
came from the TSBD said *ALL* the shots sounded as if they came from
there. More than 90% of all the witnesses who thought shots came from
the grassy knoll said *ALL* the shots sounded as if they came from
there. More than 90% of all the witnesses who thought shots came from
the Triple Underpass said *ALL* the shots sounded as if they came from
there. No matter which direction the witness thought the shots came
from, the witness almost always thought ALL the shots came from that
location, and that not one shot came from any other direction. This
aspect is almost always omitted in any discussion by anyone who proposes
multiple shooters. They'll merely say things like, "Many people thought
shots came from the grassy knoll," with the obvious implication that
these people supposedly thought only "some" of the shots came from
there, when in reality more than nine of out ten of them thought *ALL*
the shots came from there and not one shot, not one, came from any other
location. This even includes people who recalled more or less than
three shots.
John King
Aug 20, 2012, 11:20:38 AM8/20/12
to
In article <59f07b49-5441-46a0...@googlegroups.com>,
thread you used Kent Biffle, of all people, to corroborate Euins
initially saying the shooter was "colored," when Biffle was even more
likely to misunderstand Euins than the FBI, due to Biffle's astonishing
gaffe about an imaginary Oswald that no one else saw in Truly's roll
call. In short, why did you not unhesitatingly assume Biffle to be even
more unreliable than the FBI?
seansmil...@gmail.com wrote:
> Euins' 11/29/63 FBI interview: Euins "never saw anything other than what
> appeared to be his hand on the stock".
> Euins' 12/14/63 FBI interview: "He stated he saw a man's hand on what
> appeared to be the trigger housing & he could also see a bald spot onthe
> man's head. He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand
> extended outside the window on the rifle."
>
> As I said, the FBI were a bunch of doofusses who could never seem to get
> Euins' statements right. On 12/14, for instance, the suspect had a bald spot
> *and* he was white...!
> dcw
Exactly. So I am at a loss to understand why in another article in this
> Euins' 11/29/63 FBI interview: Euins "never saw anything other than what
> appeared to be his hand on the stock".
> Euins' 12/14/63 FBI interview: "He stated he saw a man's hand on what
> appeared to be the trigger housing & he could also see a bald spot onthe
> man's head. He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand
> extended outside the window on the rifle."
>
> As I said, the FBI were a bunch of doofusses who could never seem to get
> Euins' statements right. On 12/14, for instance, the suspect had a bald spot
> *and* he was white...!
> dcw
thread you used Kent Biffle, of all people, to corroborate Euins
initially saying the shooter was "colored," when Biffle was even more
likely to misunderstand Euins than the FBI, due to Biffle's astonishing
gaffe about an imaginary Oswald that no one else saw in Truly's roll
call. In short, why did you not unhesitatingly assume Biffle to be even
more unreliable than the FBI?
John King
Aug 20, 2012, 11:20:44 AM8/20/12
to
In article
<b9b4340d-37b5-4eba...@z11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
of all that are related to this case. I've seen it hundreds of times
and hardly need to be told, at this late date, what it shows. Isn't
that also the case with you? And why would anyone need a link when in
less than ten seconds I went to images.google.com, typed two keywords,
"dillard jfk," and saw the photo?
But oh well, here ya go anyway, one of the several links to several
postings of the photo on several websites that I found in less than ten
seconds:
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9ed77de83702.jpg
Again, I am not supporting all of his claims -- do not misunderstand me
-- I merely find it novel that you would ask for a link to a photo that
is almost literally all over the Internet, and is absurdly easy to find
without anyone giving a link for it. ;-)
For the record, I do agree with most of your points, though in some of
my replies to you today it may falsely seem that I do not.
<b9b4340d-37b5-4eba...@z11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 9, 10:33�am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > What he could see was a white spot on the head of this sniper. �There was
> > > no black employee of the TSBD with a white spot on his head leaning out a
> > > window. �None of the three black employees looking out the 5th floor
> >
> > Sure there was. Look at the Dillard photo.
>
> Why did you not include a link?
Why on earth would he need to? That's one of the most well-known photos
> On Aug 9, 10:33�am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > What he could see was a white spot on the head of this sniper. �There was
> > > no black employee of the TSBD with a white spot on his head leaning out a
> > > window. �None of the three black employees looking out the 5th floor
> >
> > Sure there was. Look at the Dillard photo.
>
> Why did you not include a link?
of all that are related to this case. I've seen it hundreds of times
and hardly need to be told, at this late date, what it shows. Isn't
that also the case with you? And why would anyone need a link when in
less than ten seconds I went to images.google.com, typed two keywords,
"dillard jfk," and saw the photo?
But oh well, here ya go anyway, one of the several links to several
postings of the photo on several websites that I found in less than ten
seconds:
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9ed77de83702.jpg
Again, I am not supporting all of his claims -- do not misunderstand me
-- I merely find it novel that you would ask for a link to a photo that
is almost literally all over the Internet, and is absurdly easy to find
without anyone giving a link for it. ;-)
For the record, I do agree with most of your points, though in some of
my replies to you today it may falsely seem that I do not.
John King
Aug 20, 2012, 10:28:29 PM8/20/12
to
In article <98cdbe52-a6ee-42d1...@googlegroups.com>,
witnesses are almost always all over the place, even when there are more
than 100 witnesses, on physical descriptions of suspects. It's
tremendously different when the majority of more than 100 witnesses (many
more than usually witness a murder) converge on a single aspect of the
crime. The majority of 216 witnesses gave no physical description of any
suspect. More than 90% of them, however, said all the shots came from a
single direction. They were nowhere near as firm on which direction that
was, but they were astonishingly firm on whatever direction it was, all
the shots came from that location.
seansmil...@gmail.com wrote:
> Unfortunately, Euins had to contradict his "sworn statement", later, at
> the hearings. The "white man" has become a "white spot" (v2p208). So
> much for calm, correct statements....
Which is awfully trivial, as I told you in my earlier reply. Once again,
> Unfortunately, Euins had to contradict his "sworn statement", later, at
> the hearings. The "white man" has become a "white spot" (v2p208). So
> much for calm, correct statements....
witnesses are almost always all over the place, even when there are more
than 100 witnesses, on physical descriptions of suspects. It's
tremendously different when the majority of more than 100 witnesses (many
more than usually witness a murder) converge on a single aspect of the
crime. The majority of 216 witnesses gave no physical description of any
suspect. More than 90% of them, however, said all the shots came from a
single direction. They were nowhere near as firm on which direction that
was, but they were astonishingly firm on whatever direction it was, all
the shots came from that location.
seansmil...@gmail.com
Aug 20, 2012, 10:35:22 PM8/20/12
to
On Monday, August 20, 2012 8:20:08 AM UTC-7, John King wrote:
> In article <988ad056-3ca0-4808...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> seansmil...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > A Mrs Walthers saw a white man with a rifle on a floor no higher than the
>
> > 5th. Brennan saw a man firing from a wide-open window. Euins changed his
>
> > description of the shooter from one statement to the next. Edwards &
>
> > Fischer saw a suspicious man at a wide-open window, too. And a patrolman
>
> > radioed re a shot from the "second window from the end". So floor #,
>
> > window, & the shooter's description varied from witness to witness....
>
>
>
> Thus you are confirming, and admitting, whether you realize it or not,
>
> that whether or not Euins initially said the shooter was "colored" is a
>
> fairly trivial matter. Likewise it is trivial that some witnesses said
>
> the shooter was on one floor, some on another. Also trivial regarding
>
> how far open the window was. Witnesses are naturally going to be all
>
> over the place on matters such as this
But they were not "all over the place" on how wide the window was open.
> In article <988ad056-3ca0-4808...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> seansmil...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > A Mrs Walthers saw a white man with a rifle on a floor no higher than the
>
> > 5th. Brennan saw a man firing from a wide-open window. Euins changed his
>
> > description of the shooter from one statement to the next. Edwards &
>
> > Fischer saw a suspicious man at a wide-open window, too. And a patrolman
>
> > radioed re a shot from the "second window from the end". So floor #,
>
> > window, & the shooter's description varied from witness to witness....
>
>
>
> Thus you are confirming, and admitting, whether you realize it or not,
>
> that whether or not Euins initially said the shooter was "colored" is a
>
> fairly trivial matter. Likewise it is trivial that some witnesses said
>
> the shooter was on one floor, some on another. Also trivial regarding
>
> how far open the window was. Witnesses are naturally going to be all
>
> over the place on matters such as this
Oddly, Euins was the only one asked who replied that the window was
half-open, as was the "sniper's nest" window. All other witnesses who
were asked indicated that the window was wide open--Brennan, Jackson,
Couch, Edwards, Fischer. This near-unanimity is not trivial....
dcw
seansmil...@gmail.com
Aug 20, 2012, 11:00:10 PM8/20/12
to
On Monday, August 20, 2012 8:20:38 AM UTC-7, John King wrote:
> In article <59f07b49-5441-46a0...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> seansmil...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Euins' 11/29/63 FBI interview: Euins "never saw anything other than what
>
> > appeared to be his hand on the stock".
>
> > Euins' 12/14/63 FBI interview: "He stated he saw a man's hand on what
>
> > appeared to be the trigger housing & he could also see a bald spot onthe
>
> > man's head. He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand
>
> > extended outside the window on the rifle."
>
> >
>
> > As I said, the FBI were a bunch of doofusses who could never seem to get
>
> > Euins' statements right. On 12/14, for instance, the suspect had a bald spot
>
> > *and* he was white...!
>
> > dcw
>
>
>
> Exactly. So I am at a loss to understand why in another article in this
>
> thread you used Kent Biffle, of all people, to corroborate Euins
>
> initially saying the shooter was "colored,"
Biffle & Underwood used the same phrase for Euins: "colored man". That
> In article <59f07b49-5441-46a0...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> seansmil...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Euins' 11/29/63 FBI interview: Euins "never saw anything other than what
>
> > appeared to be his hand on the stock".
>
> > Euins' 12/14/63 FBI interview: "He stated he saw a man's hand on what
>
> > appeared to be the trigger housing & he could also see a bald spot onthe
>
> > man's head. He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand
>
> > extended outside the window on the rifle."
>
> >
>
> > As I said, the FBI were a bunch of doofusses who could never seem to get
>
> > Euins' statements right. On 12/14, for instance, the suspect had a bald spot
>
> > *and* he was white...!
>
> > dcw
>
>
>
> Exactly. So I am at a loss to understand why in another article in this
>
> thread you used Kent Biffle, of all people, to corroborate Euins
>
> initially saying the shooter was "colored,"
sounds like corroboration....
dcw
Anthony Marsh
Aug 20, 2012, 11:01:00 PM8/20/12
to
On 8/20/2012 11:20 AM, John King wrote:
> In article
> <b9b4340d-37b5-4eba...@z11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 9, 10:33 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> What he could see was a white spot on the head of this sniper. There was
>>>> no black employee of the TSBD with a white spot on his head leaning out a
>>>> window. None of the three black employees looking out the 5th floor
>>>
>>> Sure there was. Look at the Dillard photo.
>>
>> Why did you not include a link?
>
> Why on earth would he need to? That's one of the most well-known photos
> of all that are related to this case. I've seen it hundreds of times
> and hardly need to be told, at this late date, what it shows. Isn't
> that also the case with you? And why would anyone need a link when in
> less than ten seconds I went to images.google.com, typed two keywords,
> "dillard jfk," and saw the photo?
>
That if beyond the capabilities of some people here. We even have a chorus
> In article
> <b9b4340d-37b5-4eba...@z11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> claviger <histori...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 9, 10:33 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> What he could see was a white spot on the head of this sniper. There was
>>>> no black employee of the TSBD with a white spot on his head leaning out a
>>>> window. None of the three black employees looking out the 5th floor
>>>
>>> Sure there was. Look at the Dillard photo.
>>
>> Why did you not include a link?
>
> Why on earth would he need to? That's one of the most well-known photos
> of all that are related to this case. I've seen it hundreds of times
> and hardly need to be told, at this late date, what it shows. Isn't
> that also the case with you? And why would anyone need a link when in
> less than ten seconds I went to images.google.com, typed two keywords,
> "dillard jfk," and saw the photo?
>
here who claim it evasion to tell people to Google it. BTW, there are many
different versions and resolutions of the Dillard photo.
> But oh well, here ya go anyway, one of the several links to several
> postings of the photo on several websites that I found in less than ten
> seconds:
>
> http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9ed77de83702.jpg
>
> Again, I am not supporting all of his claims -- do not misunderstand me
> -- I merely find it novel that you would ask for a link to a photo that
> is almost literally all over the Internet, and is absurdly easy to find
> without anyone giving a link for it. ;-)
>
seansmil...@gmail.com
Aug 20, 2012, 11:02:40 PM8/20/12
to
On Monday, August 20, 2012 8:20:02 AM UTC-7, John King wrote:
> In article <06d6fb0b-49be-4d18...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> seansmil...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 6:39:27 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>
> > > As we can see from reading both a sworn statement by Amos Euins on
>
> > >
>
> > > 11/22/63 and later testimony to the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II:
>
> > >
>
> > > [The testimony in this volume was conducted between February 27 and March
>
> > >
>
> > > 19, 1964], that Euins never said he saw a black man shoot at the
>
> > >
>
> > > President. For some reason Euins is frequently misquoted by CTs that he
>
> > >
>
> > > saw a black man firing a rifle from a TSBD window above.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > Even before Euins' 11/22 statement, two reporters reported that Euins said
>
> > he saw a "colored man" upstairs in the depository, with a rifle.
>
> > Underwood testified to this before the WC; Kent Biffle wrote about this,
>
> > but was not called to testify. Wouldn't want corroboration!
>
>
>
> Oh lordy, Kent Biffle, of all people? Wasn't he the one who made the
>
> outlandish claim that he saw Oswald in Truly's "roll call" of employees
>
> when everyone else says Oswald didn't show for that?
You might be confusing him with someone else. In "This Couldn't Be
> In article <06d6fb0b-49be-4d18...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> seansmil...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 6:39:27 PM UTC-7, claviger wrote:
>
> > > As we can see from reading both a sworn statement by Amos Euins on
>
> > >
>
> > > 11/22/63 and later testimony to the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II:
>
> > >
>
> > > [The testimony in this volume was conducted between February 27 and March
>
> > >
>
> > > 19, 1964], that Euins never said he saw a black man shoot at the
>
> > >
>
> > > President. For some reason Euins is frequently misquoted by CTs that he
>
> > >
>
> > > saw a black man firing a rifle from a TSBD window above.
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > Even before Euins' 11/22 statement, two reporters reported that Euins said
>
> > he saw a "colored man" upstairs in the depository, with a rifle.
>
> > Underwood testified to this before the WC; Kent Biffle wrote about this,
>
> > but was not called to testify. Wouldn't want corroboration!
>
>
>
> Oh lordy, Kent Biffle, of all people? Wasn't he the one who made the
>
> outlandish claim that he saw Oswald in Truly's "roll call" of employees
>
> when everyone else says Oswald didn't show for that?
Happening", he writes that Truly "told detectives about Lee Oswald failing
to show up at a roll call. My impression is there was an earlier roll
call but it was inconclusive inasmuch as several employees were missing.
This time however all were accounted for but Oswald." Or you may be
misremembering Biffle's words....
dcw
Biffle seems to me
>
> to be one of the most unreliable of all the reporters covering the
>
> assassination that day.
Most likely he heard Euins say that he saw a
>
> man with a rifle AND ALSO SAW a colored man on a different floor, and
>
> misunderstood, thinking Euins was talking about the same man. And as
>
> there were three "colored men" that we all know didn't fire any shots,
>
> all of whom were absurdly visible on the fifth floor, it is a perfectly
>
> sensible explanation that Euins didn't mean that the colored man and the
>
> shooter were the same person and that Biffle merely misunderstood.
>
Underwood & Biffle. I myself think that Euins simply mistook Williams at
the window for the shooter, who had been in a window very close to
Williams. I myself speculate that he, Euins, took his eyes away from the
shooter, & when he looked back, he saw Williams, almost in the same
spot....
> As for Underwood, not so sure about that, but in this same WC testimony,
>
> while he did admittedly claim that Euins said the colored man was also
>
> the one with the rifle, Underwood himself said he himself "saw two
>
> colored men leaning out there with their heads turned toward the top of
>
> the building, trying, I suppose, to determine where the shots were
>
> coming from." In regard to Euins, he also said something about
>
> "leaning" out of the window:
>
>
>
> "He [Euins] was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man
>
> lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle."
>
>
>
> Yet we all know that the shooter, no matter who he was, no matter of
>
> what race, never "leaned" *out* of the window at any point; I have not
>
> seen even the most dedicated CT claim such a thing.
only leaned out the window, but he "sat sideways on the window sill"
(v3p144)! Now, I am not going to claim that the suspect in fact did this,
but Brennan said that he did....
Sandy McCroskey
Aug 21, 2012, 11:15:02 PM8/21/12
to
Anthony Marsh
Aug 21, 2012, 11:21:26 PM8/21/12
to
had to use the latest politically correct phrase.
>
> dcw
>
John King
Aug 21, 2012, 11:28:38 PM8/21/12
to
In article <ca2249cf-f2ed-4614...@googlegroups.com>,
I don't think so. I remember going through this in an extensive thread a
while back and I'm 99% certain it was Biffle who initially made the
unsupported claim that he saw Oswald still there quite a bit later than he
actually was. The thing is he didn't stick by that claim very long once
he found out that Oswald had been arrested and found out that no one else
corroborated him, thus the source of the initial claim is difficult to
find, but I do recall that one of the posters in that thread found it and
quoted it. But naturally by the time he wrote what you quoted above he
realized he made a mistake.
> Biffle seems to me
> >
> > to be one of the most unreliable of all the reporters covering the
> >
> > assassination that day.
>
> Or is it your memory which is unreliable?
I don't think so.
> Most likely he heard Euins say that he saw a
> >
> > man with a rifle AND ALSO SAW a colored man on a different floor, and
> >
> > misunderstood, thinking Euins was talking about the same man. And as
> >
> > there were three "colored men" that we all know didn't fire any shots,
> >
> > all of whom were absurdly visible on the fifth floor, it is a perfectly
> >
> > sensible explanation that Euins didn't mean that the colored man and the
> >
> > shooter were the same person and that Biffle merely misunderstood.
> >
>
> Many have tried to speculate their way out of the observations of
> Underwood & Biffle. I myself think that Euins simply mistook Williams at
> the window for the shooter, who had been in a window very close to
> Williams. I myself speculate that he, Euins, took his eyes away from the
> shooter, & when he looked back, he saw Williams, almost in the same
> spot....
Ok, that seems plausible.
> > As for Underwood, not so sure about that, but in this same WC testimony,
> >
> > while he did admittedly claim that Euins said the colored man was also
> >
> > the one with the rifle, Underwood himself said he himself "saw two
> >
> > colored men leaning out there with their heads turned toward the top of
> >
> > the building, trying, I suppose, to determine where the shots were
> >
> > coming from." In regard to Euins, he also said something about
> >
> > "leaning" out of the window:
> >
> >
> >
> > "He [Euins] was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man
> >
> > lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle."
> >
> >
> >
> > Yet we all know that the shooter, no matter who he was, no matter of
> >
> > what race, never "leaned" *out* of the window at any point; I have not
> >
> > seen even the most dedicated CT claim such a thing.
>
> "At any point"? Brennan testified that *before* 12:30, the suspect not
> only leaned out the window, but he "sat sideways on the window sill"
> (v3p144)! Now, I am not going to claim that the suspect in fact did this,
> but Brennan said that he did....
But isn't Brennan uncorroborated on this by any other witness?
while back and I'm 99% certain it was Biffle who initially made the
unsupported claim that he saw Oswald still there quite a bit later than he
actually was. The thing is he didn't stick by that claim very long once
he found out that Oswald had been arrested and found out that no one else
corroborated him, thus the source of the initial claim is difficult to
find, but I do recall that one of the posters in that thread found it and
quoted it. But naturally by the time he wrote what you quoted above he
realized he made a mistake.
> Biffle seems to me
> >
> > to be one of the most unreliable of all the reporters covering the
> >
> > assassination that day.
>
> Or is it your memory which is unreliable?
> Most likely he heard Euins say that he saw a
> >
> > man with a rifle AND ALSO SAW a colored man on a different floor, and
> >
> > misunderstood, thinking Euins was talking about the same man. And as
> >
> > there were three "colored men" that we all know didn't fire any shots,
> >
> > all of whom were absurdly visible on the fifth floor, it is a perfectly
> >
> > sensible explanation that Euins didn't mean that the colored man and the
> >
> > shooter were the same person and that Biffle merely misunderstood.
> >
>
> Many have tried to speculate their way out of the observations of
> Underwood & Biffle. I myself think that Euins simply mistook Williams at
> the window for the shooter, who had been in a window very close to
> Williams. I myself speculate that he, Euins, took his eyes away from the
> shooter, & when he looked back, he saw Williams, almost in the same
> spot....
> > As for Underwood, not so sure about that, but in this same WC testimony,
> >
> > while he did admittedly claim that Euins said the colored man was also
> >
> > the one with the rifle, Underwood himself said he himself "saw two
> >
> > colored men leaning out there with their heads turned toward the top of
> >
> > the building, trying, I suppose, to determine where the shots were
> >
> > coming from." In regard to Euins, he also said something about
> >
> > "leaning" out of the window:
> >
> >
> >
> > "He [Euins] was telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man
> >
> > lean out of the window upstairs and he had a rifle."
> >
> >
> >
> > Yet we all know that the shooter, no matter who he was, no matter of
> >
> > what race, never "leaned" *out* of the window at any point; I have not
> >
> > seen even the most dedicated CT claim such a thing.
>
> "At any point"? Brennan testified that *before* 12:30, the suspect not
> only leaned out the window, but he "sat sideways on the window sill"
> (v3p144)! Now, I am not going to claim that the suspect in fact did this,
> but Brennan said that he did....
John King
Aug 21, 2012, 11:28:50 PM8/21/12
to
John King
Aug 21, 2012, 11:29:32 PM8/21/12
to
In article <0a6fac98-9fcc-4300...@googlegroups.com>,
Yes, you are right. I think your explanation in your other reply to me
is more plausible, that Euins simply initially confused the shooter with
one of the three men on the floor below.
is more plausible, that Euins simply initially confused the shooter with
one of the three men on the floor below.
Anthony Marsh
Aug 22, 2012, 9:07:48 AM8/22/12
to
seansmil...@gmail.com
Aug 22, 2012, 9:10:38 AM8/22/12
to
On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 8:28:38 PM UTC-7, John K SNIP
dcw
I think he may have been embellishing, although Edwards and/or Fischer said the suspect was lying down in a funny way (or words to that effect), funny enough at least to get him noticed by the two, & Mrs Walthers had the guy I think leaning out the window with a Tommy gun or something. Again, embellishing--no one else reported anyone sticking a rifle out the window *before* 12:30.... In sum, the suspect certainly didn't seem to be trying to cloak his presence, but I trust Edwards & Fischer more than Brennan & Mrs W here.
> > > outlandish claim that he saw Oswald in Truly's "roll call" of employees
>
> > >
>
> > > when everyone else says Oswald didn't show for that?
>
> >
>
> > You might be confusing him with someone else. In "This Couldn't Be
>
> > Happening", he writes that Truly "told detectives about Lee Oswald failing
>
> > to show up at a roll call. My impression is there was an earlier roll
>
> > call but it was inconclusive inasmuch as several employees were missing.
>
> > This time however all were accounted for but Oswald." Or you may be
>
> > misremembering Biffle's words....
>
>
>
> I don't think so. I remember going through this in an extensive thread a
>
> while back and I'm 99% certain it was Biffle who initially made the
>
> unsupported claim that he saw Oswald still there quite a bit later than he
>
> actually was. The thing is he didn't stick by that claim very long once
>
> he found out that Oswald had been arrested and found out that no one else
>
> corroborated him, thus the source of the initial claim is difficult to
>
> find, but I do recall that one of the posters in that thread found it and
>
> quoted it. But naturally by the time he wrote what you quoted above he
>
> realized he made a mistake.
>
That might have been--the above quote was originally from 1964. But Biffle also had an article in the Morning News on 11/23/63 & even back then said much the same thing: "Oswald later failed to report at a 1:15pm roll call of employes. Truly reported this to police." Yet, I think I too have heard of someone saying Oswald was still at the building, say about 12:45, but I don't think that someone was a newsperson....
>
> > >
>
> > > when everyone else says Oswald didn't show for that?
>
> >
>
> > You might be confusing him with someone else. In "This Couldn't Be
>
> > Happening", he writes that Truly "told detectives about Lee Oswald failing
>
> > to show up at a roll call. My impression is there was an earlier roll
>
> > call but it was inconclusive inasmuch as several employees were missing.
>
> > This time however all were accounted for but Oswald." Or you may be
>
> > misremembering Biffle's words....
>
>
>
> I don't think so. I remember going through this in an extensive thread a
>
> while back and I'm 99% certain it was Biffle who initially made the
>
> unsupported claim that he saw Oswald still there quite a bit later than he
>
> actually was. The thing is he didn't stick by that claim very long once
>
> he found out that Oswald had been arrested and found out that no one else
>
> corroborated him, thus the source of the initial claim is difficult to
>
> find, but I do recall that one of the posters in that thread found it and
>
> quoted it. But naturally by the time he wrote what you quoted above he
>
> realized he made a mistake.
>
dcw
seansmil...@gmail.com
Aug 22, 2012, 9:10:55 AM8/22/12
to
dcw
John King
Aug 22, 2012, 10:59:12 PM8/22/12
to
In article <51a290d1-22e4-4a4d...@googlegroups.com>,
Hmmm, you know what, maybe that poster in that other thread got it wrong
and produced a quote incorrectly attributed to Biffle, and I've been
running with that erroneously.
Btw, I wish Google Groups would stop inserting extra spaces between the
lines of previously quoted articles; it's a bit annoying to have to scroll
down so far to find the new text in replies.
and produced a quote incorrectly attributed to Biffle, and I've been
running with that erroneously.
Btw, I wish Google Groups would stop inserting extra spaces between the
lines of previously quoted articles; it's a bit annoying to have to scroll
down so far to find the new text in replies.
David Emerling
Aug 22, 2012, 11:05:01 PM8/22/12
to
On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 8:02:01 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> Go to the earliest statements of a witness. Before someone had told him
> what to say.
What evidence do you have that people were being told what to say?
I think we're all aware that many witnesses changed their stories and,
when asked why their stories differed so much, it was popular for them to
claim that they were being coerced. Of course, this became much more
prevalent when conspiracy theories were beginning to flourish and capture
center stage - mostly due to the efforts of Mark Lane. If you told Mark
Lane what he wanted to hear, you could be in his book or on TV!
How about Jean Hill's earlier statements? She claimed to have seen no
shooter. Later, she *did* see a shooter by the grassy knoll. I guess that
was a little detail that escaped her recollection on November 22, 1963. Do
you think somebody told her what to say?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
> Go to the earliest statements of a witness. Before someone had told him
> what to say.
What evidence do you have that people were being told what to say?
I think we're all aware that many witnesses changed their stories and,
when asked why their stories differed so much, it was popular for them to
claim that they were being coerced. Of course, this became much more
prevalent when conspiracy theories were beginning to flourish and capture
center stage - mostly due to the efforts of Mark Lane. If you told Mark
Lane what he wanted to hear, you could be in his book or on TV!
How about Jean Hill's earlier statements? She claimed to have seen no
shooter. Later, she *did* see a shooter by the grassy knoll. I guess that
was a little detail that escaped her recollection on November 22, 1963. Do
you think somebody told her what to say?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
seansmil...@gmail.com
Aug 23, 2012, 4:00:48 PM8/23/12
to
dcw
Anthony Marsh
Aug 23, 2012, 4:11:51 PM8/23/12
to
On 8/22/2012 11:05 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 8:02:01 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Go to the earliest statements of a witness. Before someone had told him
>> what to say.
>
> What evidence do you have that people were being told what to say?
>
Dave Powers. Charles Crenshaw. Jean Hill. Mary Woodward. Etc.
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 8:02:01 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Go to the earliest statements of a witness. Before someone had told him
>> what to say.
>
> What evidence do you have that people were being told what to say?
>
> I think we're all aware that many witnesses changed their stories and,
> when asked why their stories differed so much, it was popular for them to
> claim that they were being coerced. Of course, this became much more
> prevalent when conspiracy theories were beginning to flourish and capture
> center stage - mostly due to the efforts of Mark Lane. If you told Mark
> Lane what he wanted to hear, you could be in his book or on TV!
>
> How about Jean Hill's earlier statements? She claimed to have seen no
> shooter. Later, she *did* see a shooter by the grassy knoll. I guess that
> was a little detail that escaped her recollection on November 22, 1963. Do
> you think somebody told her what to say?
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Aug 23, 2012, 10:04:34 PM8/23/12
to
0 new messages