Four Daze in November -- Airbrushing History V: Bugliosi Omits a Window, Again
dcwi...@netscape.net
Airbrushing History V
Page 86 Again, as in “Reclaiming History”, Bugliosi quotes the first
five patrolmen to radio re the TSBD in full, except one, in fact the
only one to cite a specific window:
“Get some men up here to cover this building, this TSBD,” Officer CA
Haygood radios in. “It is believed these shots came from [there].”
His source: the “DPD tapes, 12:39pm”
Just about anything that could be wrong, or omitted, here, is wrong or
omitted. The dispatcher’s time for the transmission is 12:37. The
transmission ends, very specifically, “them shots came from… the upper
right hand corner, at the second window from the end.” And the caller
is “22”, or one Patrolman Leonard L. Hill, not 142, Haygood--the
caller’s second ID of himself is quite clear: “22”.
Why does Bugliosi seem nervous about the “second window” and Patrolman
Hill? Perhaps because the only open window fitting Hill’s description
of the TSBD was on the *fifth* floor, not the 6th, & because Hill
seems to have been his own witness. It was not a disappearing witness
who was Hill’s source, but himself. And, finally, because Hill
apparently followed up on his own eyewitnessing, & made a beeline for
the TSBD, the fifth floor, the second window, where he found three
hulls. Hence, the necessity for replacing Hill with Haygood at the
hearings. Hill was a walking expose.
See a more complete accounting of the above in my posts “Reclaiming
History”, II (2) [alt.conspiracy.jfk 6/21/07] and “12:37: Patrolman
Hill Radios re Shots…” [alt.conspiracy.jfk 4/18/08].
dw
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a3f1fa1deaea8a7e
Conspiracy theorist Donald C. Willis seems to think that the lengthy
"Four Days In November" chapter of Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book
("Reclaiming History") is designed as a chapter where Bugliosi would
want to lay out every single last discrepancy with respect to every
tiny thing associated with JFK's murder that CTers like to think is
"suspicious" or "conspiratorial" in some fashion.
But, quite obviously, Vince saved the "LN vs. CT" type of arguing and
debate for later in his massive book. But Donald apparently thinks
that every last version of each and every event detailed by Bugliosi
within Chapter 1 of his book should have been included in that
chapter.
But the "Four Days" section of VB's book is a chapter written in a
NARRATIVE fashion, which obviously also means that the text we find in
that chapter consists only of the WHEAT (i.e., the best and most-
logical evidence in the case), instead of the CHAFF (i.e., the stupid
stuff that people like Donald Willis seem to believe with respect to
things like conspirators deliberately planting three spent bullet
shells on a floor of the Depository, the 5th Floor, where [evidently,
per Mr. Willis] the plotters didn't plan on ultimately "framing" their
"patsy" named Lee Oswald from).
Yes, I also realize that Donald Willis is apparently "reviewing"
Bugliosi's shorter 2008 paperback volume, which includes ONLY the
"Four Days" chapter from "Reclaiming History". But Donald also surely
knows that that entire softcover book is merely a word-for-word re-
print edition of the first chapter of "RH". Therefore, given this
fact, all of Bugliosi's arguments against conspiracy are obviously not
going to be included in such a shorter volume.
In order to get the "whole 9 VB yards", you've got to buy "RH", which
is just exactly what readers of the "Four Days In November" paperback
volume are told in the "Editor's Note" at the beginning of the book:
"Readers who enjoy FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER, or who have unanswered
questions about conspiracy theories and the various investigations of
the assassination, will want to consult Bugliosi's masterwork,
RECLAIMING HISTORY, which has raised scholarship on the assassination
to a new and final level, one that far surpasses all other books on
the subject." -- Starling Lawrence; W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
====================================
Endnote from "Reclaiming History", relating to text found on Page #55
of the main volume of "RH":
" “Get some men up here”: FBI transcripts list Unit 22,
Patrolman L. L. Hill, as the source of this transmission (CE 1974, 23
H 914). However, the channel 2 police recordings show the caller to be
Unit 142, Clyde A. Haygood." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 33 of "RH"
Endnotes on CD-ROM (c.2007)
====================================
dcwi...@netscape.net
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a3f1f...
A lotta words just to arrive back at the same untenable position which
Bugliosi took in his endnote in "Reclaiming History"--i.e., that
"142", Haygood, sent the 12:37 transmission. DVP apparently hasn't
listened to the "police recordings", which show the caller to be "22",
not "142". I guess VB & DVP figure if you repeat something enuf
times--like "Thanks but no thanks"--people will begin to believe it,
even if the evidence says otherwise....
dw
David Von Pein
Take a guess at how much I care about which officer made that radio
call, Don.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> Take a guess at how much I care about which officer made that radio
> call, Don.
Obviously, neither you nor VB are interested in what actually
happened, so I'd guess, yes, you wouldn't want to bother yourselves
about matters like falsified police-radio transcriptions & suborned
perjury by Dallas police officers, intended to cover up the affair of
the second window from the end. VB is so disinterested in the subject
he can't even mention it! Instead, he offers "[there]". Wuss.
dw
David Von Pein
Donald C. Willis is a fucking evidence-mangling idiot. And has been
for years.
He's so concerned about make-believe "perjured" testimony (which never
happened, of course), but he's not the least bit concerned (or
ashamed) about accusing an untold number of individuals of heinous
crimes like "conspiracy to commit murder" -- people like Williams,
Arce, Norman, Jarman, and no doubt countless other innocent
bystanders.
Don's worse than a kook -- he's a shameless teller of tall tales that
implicate obviously-innocent people in the most despicable crime
imaginable.
Willis should be ridden out of town on a razor-sharp rail.
David Von Pein
I don't think Willis is a racist. He's merely an evidence-skewing,
conspiracy-happy idiot (like almost all CTers here).
He sees a chance to twist and turn a few things here & there into a
whole new angle on the case -- so he'll totally ignore the fact that
all the evidence leads to one man (Oswald) on the sixth floor, and
he'll shift everything down to the fifth floor, despite the fact he
hasn't a speck of hard evidence to support his nonsense. Not a speck.
And Willis knows he hasn't a speck of hard evidence. He's got to know
this. But it doesn't matter to a kook like Willis. He'll spout his
fanciful shit year after year (on both forums here), despite the fact
that not a single soul buys into any of his tripe.
It's a chess game for Don. Williams, Arce, Norman, and Jarman (and
Oswald) are pawns to be moved around the chess board called the
Depository.
I think Danny Arce (if he's still alive) ought to sue the bastard for
defamation.
aeffects
> Take a guess at how much I care about which officer made that radio
> call, Don.
its all about credibility Keating, think CREDIBILITY....
aeffects
> Donald C. Willis is a fucking evidence-mangling idiot. And has been
> for years.
David, er Steve Keating... what are we to make of you.... next we'll
be treated to a solo Lone Nut-Wing Nut whining exhibition. Vinnie
*stipend check* hasn't arrived yet, eh? Or you still pissed about
those Reclaiming History ***GHOST WRITER[S]***?
> He's so concerned about make-believe "perjured" testimony (which never
> happened, of course), but he's not the least bit concerned (or
> ashamed) about accusing an untold number of individuals of heinous
> crimes like "conspiracy to commit murder" -- people like Williams,
> Arce, Norman, Jarman, and no doubt countless other innocent
> bystanders.
son, you need to get a grasp on this case, treat it like your rubber
chicken, choke it!
tomnln
"Chuck Schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:69342e97-ccd8-4d19...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Don hauls out the racist 'ol "let's blame it on the black guys" when
he shifts the scene of the shooting to the fifth floor.
Don must either blame the assassination of JFK on "the black guys" or
must think they were too stupid to notice someone a few feet away on
the same floor shooting at the motorcade.
Either way, you don't come off looking too good here, Don.
You make Rossley sound almost...um, normal.
You're startin to sound like your wife when she's Eating me when she moans
ummmmm.
Only, you left out the GOOD ! ! ! !
Hey chuckie;
Do you believe ALL 4 of officer Baker's different stories???
dcwi...@netscape.net
> Donald C. Willis is a fucking evidence-mangling idiot. And has been
> for years.
>
> He's so concerned about make-believe "perjured" testimony (which never
> happened, of course)
Even the much-maligned Warren Report rightly attributed the 12:37
transmission to Patrolman Hill; Haygood lied to the Commission re
sending it.... Also, *Sgt* Gerald Hill eventually admitted that *he*
committed perjury when he testified that the "38 automatic"
transmission was sent by someone else....
dw
, but he's not the least bit concerned (or
> ashamed) about accusing an untold number of individuals of heinous
> crimes like "conspiracy to commit murder" -- people like Williams,
> Arce, Norman, Jarman
I don't think the latter two were involved. The first two days after
the shooting, Friday & Saturday, Williams had Norman & Jarman upstairs
with him at 12:30, while Jarman had Williams out front with him,
Jarman. Obviously, the two (Williams & Jarman) did not know where
each other was, respectively, at 12:30. And Norman did not say
anything about the 5th floor for 4 days!
dcwi...@netscape.net
> he shifts the scene of the shooting to the fifth floor.
>
was a "colored man", & I doubt that he was racist. Oswald, Williams,
& Arce all came to the TSBD about a month before the assassination. I
think they were all in on it, whether upstairs or down, & we have a
nice range of colors there....
dw
PS See my rebuttal to DVP, above, re Norman & Jarman
dcwi...@netscape.net
> I don't think Willis is a racist. He's merely an evidence-skewing,
> conspiracy-happy idiot (like almost all CTers here).
Uh, thank you, David. Your first sentence means more to me than the
second....
dw