Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions - #43

[Robert Caprio]

[b]The WC claimed in its report that LHO was upstairs on the sixth
floor by 11:55 a.m. to prepare for the shooting of JFK. What evidence
did they present to show this was true? NONE is the answer.

Here is an overview of the case they made against LHO.[/b]

**************************************************


[b]How did the Warren Commission (WC) come to the conclusion that Lee
Harvey Oswald (LHO) fired three shots at the president on 11/22/63?
Let's examine their case against LHO.

LHO worked in the TSBD and had access to the whole building, thus, the
supposed evidence the WC claimed showed LHO to be on the sixth floor
during the shooting was meaningless as it could have been left at any
time. The WC would use [color=red]Charles Givens[/color] to try and
support their claim that he was on the sixth floor at the time of the
shots. They said [color=red]Givins[/color] returned to the sixth floor
to get his cigarettes at 11:55 a.m. and saw LHO on the floor (VI, p.
349). The proper first question is, so what? He worked there and was
known to jump floors as part of his job (order filler). [color=red]The
next question is why does the WC assume just because he was seen at
11:55 a.m. that he was still there at 12:30 p.m.?[/color] They have no
other sighting to prove he was there, in fact, the opposite is true as
there was another man, [color=red]Bonnie Ray Williams[/color], who was
eating his lunch on the floor and he testified to seeing no one when
he left at 12:20 p.m. The police also made a big deal of bringing
[color=red]Givens[/color] down to the station to make a statement
about seeing LHO on the sixth floor at 11:55 a.m. (V, pp. 35-36; VI,
pp. 321-22). The police log shows something different, it shows
[color=red]Givens[/color] being picked up and questioned about his
police record (a narcotics charge) and for why he was
[color=red]MISSING[/color] from the TSBD after the shooting (XXIII, p.
873).

[color=red]Givens[/color] himself told the Commission he was picked up
and asked to make a statement, but not in reference to having seen LHO
(VI, p. 355). Indeed, the affidavit he filed on November 22, 1963,
makes no mention of either his return to the sixth floor or his having
seen LHO there (XXIV, p. 210).

Was [color=red]Givens[/color] telling the truth or did he just go
along with the authorities and tell a false story? In reading his
testimony, it becomes clear his position was between the elevators at
the northwest corner of the building to about midway between the north
and south walls. Either way, he would have been along the far west
side of the sixth floor (VI, pp. 349-50). However, [color=red]Givens[/
color] said he observed LHO walking along the [color=red]*east*[/
color] wall of the building, walking away from the southeast corner in
the direction of the elevators (VI, pp. 349-50).

[color=red][b]Dallas Police photographs of the sixth floor (CEs 725,
726, 727, 728) show that such a view would have been obscured by
columns and stacks of cartons as high as a man.[/b][/color] If
[color=red]Givens[/color] saw LHO, then there must be a major flaw in
his description of the event. As the record stands, [color=red]Givens[/
color] could NOT have seen LHO on the sixth floor at 11:55 a.m.

IT is clear from the fact that the WC jumped on the [color=red]Givens[/
color]' version of events as he was supposedly the last person to see
LHO before the shooting. It claims he must have stayed since no one
saw him elsewhere (which is NOT true), but even if it was it was not
that big of a point since LHO was unknown by most employees as he kept
to himself. The other major part of this is that most of the
employees had gone outside themselves to see the motorcade so no one
seeing LHO is not proof that he was not in the lunchroom as he said he
was. The WC would call in the FBI to prove no one saw LHO between
11:55 a.m. and 12:30 p.m., but as usual they produced "evidence" that
did not corroborate their conclusion.

[color=red][b]The FBI would interview 73 employees as many said they
did not see him ever, or during the entire morning (XXII, pp.
632-86). The interviewers also failed to give a time period, and
instead just said 12:30 p.m. in regards to whether LHO was seen or not.
[/b][/color] How come? [color=red]Because WC counsel Rankin told them
to ask about 12:30 p.m. ONLY[/color], and then they used the answers
to imply NO one saw LHO between 11:55 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Why did
they not want to know who might have seen him between these times?

Well we now know they did know of two employees who had seen LHO on
the first floor between 12:00 and 12:30 p.m., but they suppressed this
and lied in their report by saying NO one had seen LHO between these
times. As we know now [color=red]Eddie Piper[/color] twice said that
he saw LHO at 12:00 p.m. in the first floor lunchroom (VI, p.383; XIX,
p. 499). This is from [color=red]Piper’s[/color] affidavit.[/b]

“I came to work yesterday about 10:00 AM and I worked until 2:00 PM.
There has been a man that I know only as "Lee" who has been working
there about 5 weeks. He fills the orders and I pack the orders.
[color=red][u][b]Yesterday at about 12:00 Noon, this fello Lee says to
me, "I'm going up to eat" [/b][/u][/color]and I went on to my lunch. I
went to the front window on the first floor and ate my lunch and
waited to see the President's parade go by.”

[b]We see here he says LHO says he is “going up” to eat at 12:00 p.m,
but the WC said he was already up there. Also, according to his
affidavit [color=red][b]Piper[/b][/color] is on the first floor. Does
this mean he was going to the sixth floor as the WC said? Not
necessarily as there was a second-floor lunchroom too and he could
just as easily meant that one. In fact, there is evidence showing this
is what he meant as it is corroborated by another witness.

Thus, [color=red]despite him being firm in, and consistent in, his
affidavit and testimony he was called a "confused witness" by the WC
because he contradicted their theory.[/color] This is a total
falsehood [color=red][b]as Piper was able to describe post-shot events
that matched up perfectly with what was known to have happened thus
making him a very credible witness. [/b][/color] This of course by
itself does not preclude LHO from being at the window at 12:30 p.m.,
but the very nature in the way the WC suppressed and lied about this
sighting makes it carry a lot of weight. We do know LHO told
[color=red]Piper[/color] he was going "up" or "out" to eat and LHO
would tell the police he was eating at the time of the shooting.

Three official sources would quote close to the same thing from LHO's
interrogation regarding the lunch subject. [color=red]Captain Fritz[/
color] thought LHO "said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys
who worked with him. One of them was called `Junior' and the other was
a little short man whose name he didn't know" (WCR, p. 605). FBI Agent
[color=red]James Bookhout[/color] wrote that "[color=red][b]Oswald had
eaten lunch in the lunchroom . . .alone, but recalled possibly two
Negro employees walking through the room during this period. He stated
possibly one of these employees was called `Junior' and the other was
a short individual whose name he could not recall but whom he would be
able to recognize" [/b][/color](WCR, p. 622). Furthermore, Secret
Service Inspector [color=red]Thomas Kelley [/color]recalled that LHO
"said he ate lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He
described one of them as `Junior,' a colored boy, and the other was a
little short negro [sic] boy" (WCR, p. 626). Of the three versions I
would bet the one by FBI agent [color=red]Bookhout[/color] is correct
as LHO was known to keep to himself and probably just observed the two
men coming into the lunchroom.

The other point that needs to be made is this—how could LHO know these
two men were eating in the lunchroom IF he was NOT there himself?
What are the odds of him picking out these two men from over SEVENTY
employees present that day if he was NOT there? ZERO in my mind.
What do you think?

Also, read this comment from [color=red]Bookout[/color] from his WC
testimony:[/b]

Mr. STERN - Then what occurred, that you observed?

Mr. BOOKHOUT - I believe he was taken directly into Captain Fritz'
office and the interview started at that time with Captain Fritz, and
two homicide officers.

Mr. STERN - Were you present?

Mr. BOOKHOUT - I was not in the office at that time. I called our
office, advised them he had been brought in, and that the interview
was starting and [color=red][b]shortly thereafter Mr. Shanklin, our
SAC called back and said the Bureau wanted the agents present in the
interview and that Hosty, James P. Hosty, I believe was ,to sit in on
the interview, and I was to also be present with Hosty.[/b][/color]
So, at that time, we asked Captain Fritz to sit in on the interview,
and that was approximately 3:15 p.m.

[b]I have said this for years, the FBI HAD NO JURISDICTION in this
case as the murder of a president in 1963 was NOT a federal law
violation. It was a LOCAL matter, so why was Shanklin demanding that
his agents be present at the interview? Why did the DPD acquiesce to
this demand? Was it to help cover-up the truth as many have said over
the years or was it because the FBI was afraid the DPD would do this?
Or was it a combination of the two? We will never know for sure, but I
find it odd the FBI was demanding to sit in, and given the right to,
when they had NO jurisdiction.

Could this carte blanche have come due to the FACT that Dallas DA
Henry Wade was ex-FBI? Oh, and of course Agent [color=red]Hosty[/
color] was with[color=red] Bookout[/color] and many have said Hosty
was LHO’s contact man for the FBI in Dallas.[/b]

Mr. STERN - By "we," you mean Agent Hosty and yourself?

Mr. BOOKHOUT - Right.

[b]This could explain too why they were given permission so fast. We
know it was fast too because [color=red]Bookout[/color] testified to
this:[/b]

Mr. STERN - How long had the interview gone on before you were
present?

Mr. BOOKHOUT - Very shortly. [color=red][b]I would give a rough
estimate of not more than 5 to 10 minutes at the most.[/b][/color]

[b]So we see within five to ten minutes they were given access to the
accused. Pretty quick work, don’t you think?

The other witness who said they saw LHO between 12:00 p.m. and 12:30
p.m. was [color=red]Carolyn Arnold[/color]. The WC said she saw LHO
at 12:15 p.m. on the first floor. [color=red]Ms. Arnold[/color] was a
secretary to one of the Vice Presidents of the TSBD and her testimony
is crucial. Her story was omitted not only from the Report but also
from the Commission's printed evidence. It was only through the
diligent searching of [color=red]Harold Weisberg[/color] that a FBI
report of an early interview with her came to light.[Harold Wesiberg,
Photographic Whitewash, pp. 74-75, 210-11.] She spoke with FBI agents
on November 26, 1963, only three days after the assassination. The
brief report of the interview states that:[/b]

[quote]

She was in her office on the second floor of the building on November
22, 1963, and left that office between 12:00 and 12:15 PM, to go
downstairs and stand in front of the building to view the Presidential
Motorcade. As she was standing in front of the building, she stated
that she thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of LEE HARVEY OSWALD
standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors
leading into the warehouse, located on the first floor. She could not
be sure this was OSWALD, but said she felt it was and believed the
time to be a few minutes before 12:15 PM. (CD5:41)

[/quote]

[b]As [color=red]Weisberg[/color] cautioned in his book
[i]Photographic Whitewash[/i], where he presents this FBI report,
"This is the FBI retailing [sic] of what [color=red]Mrs. Arnold [/
color]said, not her actual words."[Ibid., p. 74.] [color=red]Part of
the retelling is that she just "glimpsed" (this has to be the WC's
favorite word) LHO and, therefore, they are implying she could be
mistaken. She in fact said she walked into the second floor lunchroom
and saw LHO sitting in a booth eating his lunch.[/color] The two
versions aren't even close and again the question has to be asked,
what was the WC so afraid of if they were telling the truth? Why
suppress her story?

[color=red]Weisberg[/color] would continue with this:[/b]

Quote on

This is why, as I brought to light in [i]Photographic Whitewash[/i]
(pages 210-11) in early 1967, the Commission's [color=red][u][b]OWN
files REVEAL THE PROOF[/b][/u] that Mrs. R.E. (Carolyn) Arnold told
the FBI that [u][b]SHE HAD SEEN OSWALD on the FIRST FLOOR[/b][/u] that
day AT 12:25 P.M.![/color]

Aware of the import, when the FBI interviewed her on November 26, four
days after the assassination, it[u][b][color=red] MISTIMED[/color][/b]
[/u] what she said, stating [u][b][color=red]INCORRECTLY[/color][/b][/
u]that it was a "few minutes BEFORE 12:15 P.M." that she saw Oswald.

When in March, 1964, the Commission asked the FBI to interview all
employees in that building and asked them to respond to five
Commission questions, [b][color=red][u]Mrs. Arnold STATED THE TIME WAS
"AT ABOUT 12:25 P.M."[/u][/color] [/b]

In taking those March statements the FBI agents who asked the
questions wrote out in longhand on yellowpads what they then asked the
witnesses to sign. [color=red]Still acutely aware of the meaning of
what Mrs. Arnold said, that [u][b]she SAW OSWALD ON THE FIRST FLOOR[/b]
[/u], "between the front door and the double doors to the warehouse,"
in the handwritten statement the FBI then asked her to sign it again
[color=red][u][b]MISTATED [/b][/u][/color]the time. The statement [u]
[b][color=red]SET THE TIME she gave INCORRECTLY still again, placing
it at "12:25 A.M."! [/color][/b][/u]SHE CORRECTED THIS IN HER OWN
HANDWRITING.[/color]

The FBI then typed these handwritten statements for the Commission. In
even its typed form, in facsimile on page 211 of that third of my
books, i[color=red]t is [u]APPARENT[/u] that the time was [u]
[b]CHANGED from A.M. TO P.M.[/b][/u] The "P.M." is the ONLY typing on
that full page that is OUT OF LINE.[/color] It is considerably above
the line, as happened with the typewriters of those days when what is
typed is REMOVED and then PLACED BACK in the typewriter.

[b][color=red]Harold Weisberg[/color][/b], [i]Case Open[/i], Carroll &
Graf, 1994, pages 122-23 (emphasis mine)

Quote off

[b]We see the FACT [color=red]Mrs. Arnold[/color] did NOT change her
story obviously caused great concern for the FBI and the WC. They
tried repeatedly to change the time. Why did they think anyone would
buy 12:25 [color=red][u][b]A.M.[/b][/u][/color] when the assassination
occurred at 12:30 P.M.? This shows how desperate they were to me.

The other things are the lack of a witness for LHO actually firing a
rifle from the supposed sniper's nest, and the fingerprints on the
boxes that made up the sniper's nest. Why did NO one see LHO firing a
rifle if he really did? The official case is that [color=red]Howard
Brennan[/color] saw LHO, but his description is way off base and does
not match LHO at all (it also failed to mention any clothing
description). Furthermore, there is serious doubt that he was looking
up when he said he was as the various films caught a glimpse of him
and he is not looking up when he said he was. Even with this aside,
his descriptions do NOT match LHO in appearance or clothing. The
prints on the boxes leave a lot to be desired as well, and the fact
there is only two brings up more questions than they answer. No prints
were found on the other boxes, the floor, the window sill, the window
frame, the rifle (save for the alleged palm print which has NO chain
of custody tied to it), the bolt, the shell casings, the pipes, or the
clip. How can that be when LHO wore no gloves?

Furthermore, one of the boxes was known to be in the DPD HQ when LHO
was under arrest, and that raises the possibility of the print being
put there.

Even if prints were found all over the floor, so what? LHO worked
there and was an order filler, and a big part of his job was moving
boxes to find the books he had an order for, so the fact that two of
the boxes had his prints on them is like saying a butcher had blood on
his apron. Also, why did the boxes LACK anyone else’s prints when we
know they had to be moved to lay the new floor? One would also be
correct in assuming they were packed, shipped and unloaded into the
TSBD at some point too. So again, why were NO prints of any worker
found on them supposedly?

What the prints did not tell us is WHEN they were left, but according
to FBI fingerprint expert [color=red]Sebastian Latona[/color] they
were recent. He said this during his WC testimony.[/b]

Mr. EISENBERG. You testified before concerning the aging of
fingerprints. Considering the material on which this print was
developed, 649, do you think you could form an opinion, any opinion at
all, concerning the freshness or staleness of this print?

Mr. LATONA. Bearing in mind the fact that this is an absorbent
material, and realizing, of course, that a print when it is left on a
material of this type it starts to soak in. Now, the reason that we in
the FBI do not use powder is because of the fact that in a short
period of time the print will soak in so completely that there won't
be any moisture left. Accordingly when you brush powder across there
won't be anything developed. [color=red][b]Under circumstances,
bearing in mind that here the box was powdered, and a print was
developed with powder, the conclusion is that this is comparatively a
fresh print. Otherwise, it would not have developed.[/b][/color]

We know, too, that we developed two other fingerprints on this by
chemicals. How long a time had elapsed since the time this print was
placed on there until the time that it would have soaked in so that
the resulting examination would have been negative I don't know, but
that could not have been too long.

Mr. EISENBERG. [b][color=blue]When you say "not too long," would you
say not 3 weeks, or not 3 days, or not 3 hours?[/color][/b]

Mr. LATONA. Very definitely I'd say not 3 days. I'd say not 3 weeks.

Mr. EISENBERG. And not 3 days, either?

Mr. LATONA. No; I don't believe so, because I don't think that the
print on here that is touched on a piece of cardboard will stay on a
piece of cardboard for 3 days.

Mr. EISENBERG. Would you bring that any closer?

Mr. LATONA. I am afraid I couldn't come any closer.

Mr. EISENBERG. 3 days?

Mr. LATONA. That is right.

[b]So in [color=red]Latona’s[/color] estimation the print could have
been left up to less than THREE DAYS before! This does NOT show LHO
moved and used it for a rest for his rifle as claimed since he could
have touched it as early as 11/20/63!

The WC would NOT obviously make this answer known, but implied instead
it was when he moved them to build his sniper's nest or when he rested
the rifle on the box to take aim. If this was true, why did ONLY two
boxes bare his prints when he supposedly moved between 20-25 boxes?
Again, why did they bare no one else's according to the WC? Again,
surely others had to touch them from the point they were initially
boxed and shipped, and then during the unloading into the TSBD.

The bottom line here is that like the rest of the official case, there
is NO firm evidence here to show LHO was guilty of shooting JFK. This
leads a reasonable person to the conclusion it had to be someone else,
or quite a few others.