Question For Jean Davison

[David Von Pein]

Hi Jean,

Near the bottom of the webpage linked below I have used one of your posts
as a source for something relating to Buddy Walthers. Could you please
look it over and tell me if you know of a specific source (or document)
for this? Thank you....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-927.html

[Jean Davison]

Hi David,

The only cite I have is the Baton Rouge newspaper you mentioned.
Garrison had told the press that a photo taken in Dealey Plaza showed
Walthers picking up a bullet. Walthers' response was that it wasn't a
bullet, it was a piece of skull or bone. It's the object in his hand at
the upper right:

http://s10.postimg.org/tjacc1crd/Walthers2.jpg

If I remember correctly, I actually read Walthers' statement in a New
Orleans newspaper that quoted the Baton Rouge article, but I don't have
access to either of those newspaper archives now.

Jean

[John McAdams]

On 18 Apr 2015 15:21:00 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I haven't been able to find that exact article, but I did find this:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ3f8dWTRVOFhxWVZWOUk/view?usp=sharing

Here, Walthers says that "if it was anything, it was a piece of bone."

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Jean Davison]

Thanks, John.

Let me try to correct what I said before. Garrison had said that the
person picking up a bullet was a federal agent. Walthers said "if it was

anything, it was a piece of bone."

I found this old post in a 2001 thread in which someone asked to see the
article I'd mentioned:

QUOTE

>I'd like to see that Baton Rouge article, tho'.

Send your address to dav...@globalnetisp.net
and it's yours. The actual quote is:

"Dec. 12, 1967: Garrison released a series of
photographs which he said shows a federal agent
picking up a .45 caliber bullet near where President
Kennedy was shot while a Dallas deputy sheriff looks
on. [.....]
"Dec. 13, 1967: Dallas Deputy Sheriff Raymond
Walter [sic] said he was the man in the Garrison
photographs, but that the object was not a bullet
but a piece of the President's skull."

This was in an article headlined "Garrison Assassination
Probe Events Are Listed," Baton Rouge Sunday Advocate,
March 17, 1968.
Jean
UNQUOTE

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/z2vSq3lJSNo

In 2001 I still had the BR article. I don't think I ever found the
original article that it quoted, though.
Jean

[David Von Pein]

Hi Jean,

Yeah, after I submitted my thread-starting post, I poked around some more
and found your 1997 post with the Baton Rouge quote. But thanks for
replying anyway. Any excuse to talk to you for a little bit is always
worth it. :)

Plus, John McAdams' post gives me one more source to use for the "bone
fragment instead of a bullet" conclusion. Thanks, John.

[David Von Pein]

To expand on John McAdams' comment about Buddy Walthers' remarks that
appeared in the Waco newspaper on 12/14/67, here are additional excerpts
from that article:

[Quote On:]

"DALLAS (UPI) ---- A deputy sheriff who appears in a picture which New
Orleans Dist. Atty. Jim Garrison claims shows a federal agent picking up a
bullet near the Kennedy assassination site said Wednesday [12/13/67] he
doubted the object was anything of the kind.

"It was nothing significant," said Dallas deputy Buddy Walthers. "If it
had been a bullet, it would have been significant."

Walthers appears, standing alongside a uniformed Dallas policeman and
watching another man in civilian clothes picking something up from the
grass near the assassination site.

Garrison produced the picture on a television program in Dallas last week,
along with another showing the unidentified man holding something in his
hand and walking away. The New Orleans district attorney said the man was
picking up a 45-caliber bullet.

[...]

"This city officer and I were standing by watching this man pick up
something," Walthers said. "It was what appeared to be blood. You've seen
blood that has hit grass. If it was anything it was a piece of skull. It
was nothing significant. If it had been a bullet, it would have been
significant."

Walthers said the photograph was taken about 10 minutes after the
assassination. At the time, he was not sure anybody had been wounded
though the blood indicated somebody had been.

Immediately after the three shots and the President's car had roared off,
Walthers started looking for whoever fired the shots. It occurred to him
that a man who had just shot at the President would not walk around
carrying a rifle, so he started looking for evidence.

"If he (man in the photograph) had found a bullet, he certainly would have
yelled, 'Look, a bullet!' or something like that," Walthers said. "Because
a bullet was what we were looking for.""

[End 12/14/67 Newspaper Quotes.]

So, unless there are other interviews with Buddy Walthers that indicate
otherwise, it would appear that it's not a correct assumption to say that
Walthers HIMSELF ever picked up a bone fragment in Dealey Plaza on
11/22/63. Because Walthers is quite clear in that Waco newspaper article
when he said this -- "This city officer and I were standing by watching
this man pick up something."

So I'm wondering where the story came from which suggests that Walthers
himself actually picked up the bone fragment? ~shrug~

But that inaccuracy (re: Walthers himself handling the object that was
picked up) is not nearly as important when compared to what Walthers
revealed about the object that was apparently picked up by somebody else
in Dealey Plaza. It's clear from Walthers' 1967 statements that the object
was surrounded by BLOOD, which would indicate the likelihood that the
object being retrieved was a skull (bone) fragment from President
Kennedy's head rather than being a bullet of any kind.

But I'm a little puzzled as to why Deputy Walthers would think that
finding a chunk of the President's head on the ground could be classified
as being "nothing significant". It would seem to me that finding a portion
of JFK's head lying in the grass would rise to the level of at least
"somewhat significant", wouldn't you think?

But I suppose when compared to finding a BULLET in the grass right after a
Presidential assassination attempt, perhaps the discovery of merely
finding a piece of skull in the Plaza could be looked upon as being of
LESS significance to the police officers who were searching for ballistics
type evidence at that time. ~shrug~

Now, the question remains: What happened to that skull fragment? And why
wasn't it handed over to somebody for further examination and testing
after it was found in Dealey Plaza? Those questions remain unanswered, and
can probably never be answered. But from Buddy Walthers' statements that
we find in that Waco article, I'm satisfied that if an object was
recovered from the grass in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, that object
was very likely NOT a "45-caliber bullet", as suggested by Jim Garrison.
(And I wonder how Garrison could possibly know exactly what caliber the
bullet was? He must have some great eyes.)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YQG-85YC534/VTLWUdq-tDI/AAAAAAABFq8/icPHkLPBHDQ/s1600/Waco-Newspaper-From-December-14-1967-Regarding-Buddy-Walthers.png

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/18/2015 3:28 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 18 Apr 2015 15:21:00 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/18/2015 11:31 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> Hi Jean,
>>>
>>> Near the bottom of the webpage linked below I have used one of your posts
>>> as a source for something relating to Buddy Walthers. Could you please
>>> look it over and tell me if you know of a specific source (or document)
>>> for this? Thank you....
>>>
>>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-927.html
>>>
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> The only cite I have is the Baton Rouge newspaper you mentioned.
>> Garrison had told the press that a photo taken in Dealey Plaza showed
>> Walthers picking up a bullet. Walthers' response was that it wasn't a
>> bullet, it was a piece of skull or bone. It's the object in his hand at
>> the upper right:
>>
>> http://s10.postimg.org/tjacc1crd/Walthers2.jpg
>>
>> If I remember correctly, I actually read Walthers' statement in a New
>> Orleans newspaper that quoted the Baton Rouge article, but I don't have
>> access to either of those newspaper archives now.
>>
>> Jean
>
> I haven't been able to find that exact article, but I did find this:
>

Do you guys mean the white object between his index finger and his
middle finger? Could be a bone. But was it placed into evidence or
pocketed. Do you have a CE number for it?

> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ3f8dWTRVOFhxWVZWOUk/view?usp=sharing
>
> Here, Walthers says that "if it was anything, it was a piece of bone."
>

There's the key. IF. If it was even an object or IF it was evidence.
Is a piece of paper evidence?

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Jean Davison]

Thanks, David. It's still amazing to me how far in front of the
limousine this bloody debris was found, as marked on this map:

https://cfrankdavis.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/jfk-dealeyplaza.gif

What CT source that brings up Hargis ever mentions this? None, right?

Jean

[John McAdams]

On 19 Apr 2015 21:34:31 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I that map (the Cutler map) accurate as to the location of Walthers,
Foster, "Agent," etc.?

I'm not saying it's not, but looking at the Murray/Allen photos I have
handy, I have trouble locating how far down the plaze the little scene
is.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

You are on a slippery slope.
If you accept that it was a piece of bone then you have prima facia
evidence of destruction of evidence. Unless you can give me a CE number.

[David Von Pein]

GARY MACK SAID:

Hi Dave,

On 12/13/67, and published in the Dallas Morning News the next day, Buddy
Walthers flat-out denied that they found a bullet:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Qtel2QFHk9g/VTRbYQ-YmlI/AAAAAAABFt8/YLiVj73MmdQ/s1600/DMN-12-14-67.png

Gary


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks very much, Gary.

"I never saw any bullet." -- Buddy Walthers; 12/13/67

[John McAdams]

On 19 Apr 2015 00:01:57 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>

I'm just a bit confused about the small discrepancy between the UPI
article I posted a link to, and the Baton Rouge article.

In the UPI article, Walthers says that *if* it was anything, it was a
bone fragment.

In the BR article, he is saying it *was* a bone fragment.

I'm suspecting that the BR article may have done a poor job of
recounting what he said, slightly distorting it.

Was the reporter working from an actual interview with Walthers?

Not that it makes a huge difference, since he was unequivocal that it
was not a bullet.

Everybody else who was there likewise denied it was a bullet.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/slug.htm

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Jean Davison]

> ..John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm


I'm not sure, John, but Walthers et al. were next to a manhole
cover, and the only one I can find in that area is beyond the GK steps:

http://image.rvmagonline.com/f/travel/1408-the-sixth-floor-museum-texas-school-book-depository/75620100/the-sixth-floor-museum-dallas-texas-sniper-s-perch.jpg

Bottom photo shows the manhole/storm drain and the men standing
around:

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1663/manholecovermontage01.jpg

Maybe Gary Mack will comment on their location, if he's still here?

Jean

[John McAdams]

On 20 Apr 2015 12:08:58 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>

I see the manhole cover in the bottom right photo, and yes, it would
be as far down as Cutler puts.

It's also true that Foster mentioned a "manhole cover."

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

Clint Hill destroyed evidence when he jumped on the trunk of the limo.

> Unless you can give me a CE number.

Unless you can show that the DPD cataloged every sliver of bone from
every shooting scene they processed 50 years ago.

But it seems unlikely that it was anything at all. The person picking it
up never examined it, but continued looking at the ground. That isn`t
something you do if you pick up something interesting.

[Ace Kefford]

The various articles quoted in this thread are a good example of why one
has to be careful with quotes written by reporters in newspapers and the
like.

My personal experience from the few times I have been interviewed by a
reporter or been present when someone else was and then read the
subsequent story is that often quotes are mangled. This can be the result
of bad notes, misunderstandings, editing during the process including
attempts at making a quote clearer which end up losing nuances or making
it inaccurate, and even I suppose intentionally making the story more
appealing and a better read.

Even legal transcripts from tapes have mistakes, so one should not think
that any quote even in an article by a responsible journalists is accurate
as to what the person being interviewed actually said.

[John McAdams]

On 18 Apr 2015 15:21:00 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Jean,

Here are the links for the two files you sent me:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ3f8dYWpLTEktMXAzSEE/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4jS38HQ3f8dY1FDRHlRYWp4MkU/view?usp=sharing

I would like to see the initial source of the claim that Walther's
said he had picked up a bullet, but it's obvious that the claim is
bogus.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Jean Davison]

I don't know. I agree that it's unclear. I believe there may be a
article missing because the BR quote mentioning a piece of skull was on
Dec. 13, 1967, yet the only mention of Walthers I could find in the DMN
was not until December 14 (I'll e-mail you a PDF). I'm guessing that a
different version of Walthers' statement may have been reported by an
afternoon paper like the Dallas Times-Herald on the 13th and the BR paper
is quoting that one.

I've seen it happen that a next-day newspaper's version of an
interview might be shorter and worded differently. But I don't have
access to the Dallas Times-Herald archive (or any Fort Worth papers).

>
> Not that it makes a huge difference, since he was unequivocal that it
> was not a bullet.
>
> Everybody else who was there likewise denied it was a bullet.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/slug.htm

Also, the manhole cover is in the same general area where the
Harper fragment was reportedly found:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/harpermap.gif

Garrison was suspicious of the "federal agent" who could be seen
picking up something in those photos, but the man's actions are more
consistent with someone picking up a piece of skull. He doesn't make eye
contact with the others, he doesn't show the object to anyone as he might
with a bullet, he simply pockets it and walks away. It wasn't something he
wanted to talk about, imo.

Jean

[John McAdams]

On 20 Apr 2015 17:42:42 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>

Indeed. And I'm thinking that perhaps Walthers didn't want to
explicitly say a piece of skull bone was picked up, and just sort of
hinted at it.

People had more strict notions of what was decent to talk about in
those days.

I've long noticed that the WCR did not talk about Oswald's gonorrhea.

According to Shenon, this was a conscious decision, made on the basis
that it just wasn't decent to talk about that.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

Hi Jean!

Seems pretty compelling to me that since the furrow was in line from
where the limo was at z-313 and the SN that this furrow is actually from a
bullet or bullet fragment. So for this to be valid the biggest obstacle
would be the windshield. Looking at the Cutler map that .John linked to it
appears as though the limo would be angled enough that the bullet path
would miss the windshield to the left if you hold a straightedge from the
SN to where the bullet furrow was.

https://cfrankdavis.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/jfk-dealeyplaza.gif

Of course I don`t know whether the map, limo placement and furrow
placement are accurate enough for such precision. It seems clear to me the
furrow was created by the 313 shot, so possibly a bullet fragment arching
over the windshield that sheds gore when it hits the ground there, hitting
the ground causes it to change direction a little to hit the curb near
Tague.

Here is a video of a ricochet that appears to change direction a little
bit when it hits the ground to the left of the shooter.

https://youtu.be/0ABGIJwiGBc

[Bud]

This page has some information on the manhole covers....

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5078.0

[Jean Davison]

I agree completely, Ace. Errors crop up everywhere.

Jean

[John McAdams]

On 20 Apr 2015 17:48:43 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>
wrote:

And each one is the basis of a conspiracy theory, since they all
(pretty much) contradict the "official version."

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

I agree, but what if the other guy picked up a bullet and put it in his
pocket before anyone could see it?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/19/2015 9:34 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On 4/18/2015 11:02 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>> Hi Jean,
>>
>> Yeah, after I submitted my thread-starting post, I poked around some more
>> and found your 1997 post with the Baton Rouge quote. But thanks for
>> replying anyway. Any excuse to talk to you for a little bit is always
>> worth it. :)
>>
>> Plus, John McAdams' post gives me one more source to use for the "bone
>> fragment instead of a bullet" conclusion. Thanks, John.
>>
>
> Thanks, David. It's still amazing to me how far in front of the
> limousine this bloody debris was found, as marked on this map:
>

That is Bob Cutler map that he modified to show the storm drain shot.
Exactly where do YOU see blood?

Do youo agree that the Harper fragment was found 25 feet away from where
the limo was at frame 313. How do you explain that with a shot from
behind?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/20/2015 3:30 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 9:54:24 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 4/19/2015 12:02 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> Hi Jean,
>>>
>>> Yeah, after I submitted my thread-starting post, I poked around some more
>>> and found your 1997 post with the Baton Rouge quote. But thanks for
>>> replying anyway. Any excuse to talk to you for a little bit is always
>>> worth it. :)
>>>
>>> Plus, John McAdams' post gives me one more source to use for the "bone
>>> fragment instead of a bullet" conclusion. Thanks, John.
>>>
>>
>> You are on a slippery slope.
>> If you accept that it was a piece of bone then you have prima facia
>> evidence of destruction of evidence.
>
> Clint Hill destroyed evidence when he jumped on the trunk of the limo.
>
>> Unless you can give me a CE number.
>
> Unless you can show that the DPD cataloged every sliver of bone from
> every shooting scene they processed 50 years ago.
>

Who said DPD? I asked for a CE. That means WC. DPD did not use CEs.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Apparently those days are returning. In a different form and for a
different purpose.

As you've experienced firsthand.

[Jean Davison]

> ..John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

I agree. In his original affidavit Walthers didn't mention
anything being picked up by anybody. The claim that he'd found a bullet
started early, though, because he specifically denied it in his testimony:

QUOTE
Mr. LIEBELER. There has also been a story, some sort of story that you
were supposed to have found a spent bullet.
Mr. WALTHERS. Yes; that's what the story was in this book, and man, I've
never made a statement about finding a spent bullet.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you never found any spent bullet?
Mr. WALTHERS. No. [...]
UNQUOTE

Jean

[Jean Davison]

Gary Mack sent me a note to say that, yes, that's the manhole
cover where Walthers and the others were.

>
> I see the manhole cover in the bottom right photo, and yes, it would
> be as far down as Cutler puts.
>
> It's also true that Foster mentioned a "manhole cover."
>

> ..John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Jean
>

[Jean Davison]

Thanks, Bud. That link shows some of the Murray and Allen
photos of the men examining something on the ground.

Jean

[John McAdams]

On 20 Apr 2015 21:26:28 -0400, Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com>

Right. One of the Murray or Allen photos you linked to in a previous
post (which I had not seen before) does indeed show the manhole.

So you were quite right about the distance that some of the debris
from Kennedy's shattered head flew.

(That's assuming that it was bone picked up. Walther's statement --
even if we discount the Baton Rouge paper -- clearly implies that.)

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Jean Davison]

Then, too, there's Weitzman, who said he picked up a piece of the
President's skull from the street, though he didn't indicate the exact
location:

Mr. BALL - What part of the street did you pick this up?
Mr. WEITZMAN - As the President's car was going off, it would be on the
left-hand side of the street. It would be the----
Mr. BALL - The left-hand side facing----
Mr. WEITZMAN - That would be the south side of the street.

https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=17717

Jean

[Bud]

On Monday, April 20, 2015 at 9:04:31 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/20/2015 3:30 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 19, 2015 at 9:54:24 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 4/19/2015 12:02 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> Hi Jean,
> >>>
> >>> Yeah, after I submitted my thread-starting post, I poked around some more
> >>> and found your 1997 post with the Baton Rouge quote. But thanks for
> >>> replying anyway. Any excuse to talk to you for a little bit is always
> >>> worth it. :)
> >>>
> >>> Plus, John McAdams' post gives me one more source to use for the "bone
> >>> fragment instead of a bullet" conclusion. Thanks, John.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You are on a slippery slope.
> >> If you accept that it was a piece of bone then you have prima facia
> >> evidence of destruction of evidence.
> >
> > Clint Hill destroyed evidence when he jumped on the trunk of the limo.
> >
> >> Unless you can give me a CE number.
> >
> > Unless you can show that the DPD cataloged every sliver of bone from
> > every shooting scene they processed 50 years ago.
> >
>
> Who said DPD? I asked for a CE. That means WC. DPD did not use CEs.

What is the CE for the rest of Kennedy`s body?

[Anthony Marsh]

Show me the blood. Jean said BLOOD.

> (That's assuming that it was bone picked up. Walther's statement --
> even if we discount the Baton Rouge paper -- clearly implies that.)
>

And what is the CE number of this evidence?
Is that the Late Arriving Fragment?

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

But now the WC defenders like to talk about JFK's drug use and womanizing,
as if that will solve the case. How does Oswald's VD and the cover-up of
it solve the case?