Givens Down to One Lie

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Since at least the publication of Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After
the Fact, it has been taken as a "given" by most conspiracy theorists
that Charles Givens told two lies regarding the assassination of
President Kennedy.

1. He initially claimed he saw Oswald in the domino room at 11:50 AM
on the day of the shooting, but then pretended this never occurred.
2 He initially claimed he saw Oswald on the fifth floor as he (Givens)
headed down for lunch between 11:30 and 11:45, but then testified he
saw Oswald on the sixth floor, during his lunch, after going back up
to get his cigarettes.

I have found reason to believe the first of these lies was not a lie,
but a colossal misunderstanding.

The source of the confusion is an FBI report on its 11-22-63 interview
of Givens. It has long been quoted as claiming: "Givens observed Lee
reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch
about 11:50 A.M." Some researchers, based upon this statement, have
even taken to stating that Givens said he saw Oswald at 11:50 in the
domino room.

But this is clearly incorrect. And here's why. This FBI report is not
a verbatim account of Givens' statements. It is a typed-up report
taken from the notes created by the FBI agent interviewing Givens.
While the FBI has never released the original notes of any of its
agents, I have recently realized there is another report written based
upon these notes that sheds fresh light on what Givens actually said.
This report is a teletype written early on the 23rd in which Dallas
Special Agent in Charge Gordon Shanklin summarized the interviews
conducted in Dallas for FBI headquarters.

Here is Shanklin's discussion of Givens:

[i]"Charles Douglas Givens, Employee, TSBD, worked on sixth floor
until about eleven thirty A.M. Left at this time going down on
elevator. Saw Oswald on fifth floor as left going down. Oswald told
him to close the gates when he got to first floor so Oswald could
signal for elevator later. Givens stayed on first floor until twelve
o'clock and then walked out of the building to watch the parade pass.
Oswald was reading paper in the first floor domino room seven-fifty
A.M. November twenty two last when Givens came to work." [/i]

This passage can be found in the Mary Ferrel Archives in FBI file
62-109060, sec 9, p54.

As you can see he specifies that Givens saw Oswald at 7:50, not 11:50
as appeared in the typed-up report. But that's not quite accurate,
either. After reading Shanklin's account, I went back and re-read the
FBI's typed-up report on its interview with Givens, and realized that
the report had actually never claimed Givens saw Oswald at 11:50. This
is what people thought it claimed. But it's not what it actually
claimed. It actually claimed exactly what Shanklin said it claimed,
with the unfortunate subtraction of the time Givens saw Oswald. Here
is the confusingly written passage, from which people, including
myself, have long extracted that Givens saw Oswald at 11:50.

"Givens said that during the past few days Lee had commented that he
rode to work with a boy named Wesley. Givens said all employees enter
the back door of the building when Jack Dougherty, the foreman opens
the door about 7 A.M. On the morning of November 22, 1963, Givens
observed Lee reading a newspaper in the domino room where the
employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M.” (CD5 p329)

So, you see, by leaving out the time Givens saw Oswald--7:50--the
writer of the report allowed people to think the words "On the
morning" referred to 11:50.

It's clear when one views this all in context, moreover, that Givens
never did claim to see Oswald at 11:50. It's not all bad news for
conspiracy theorists, however. Oswald's reading the paper at 7:50 in
the domino room does little to suggest his guilt, and actually makes
him look less guilty. I mean, if he's gonna shoot the President in a
few hours, shouldn't he be picking out a window or stacking up some
boxes or something?

There's also this. Shanklin's teletype asserts that Givens: [i]"Saw
Oswald on fifth floor as left going down. Oswald told him to close the
gates when he got to first floor so Oswald could signal for elevator
later. [b]Givens stayed on first floor until twelve o'clock and then
walked out of the building to watch the parade pass[/b]."[/i]

While the FBI's typed-up report said Givens traveled to the first
floor and then walked around until 12 o'clock, it did not specify that
he did not go back up. Shanklin's message is much more specific on
this matter. There is NO WAY this is compatible with Givens'
subsequent testimony he went back up to the sixth floor and talked to
Oswald. Shanklin's teletype thereby clears Givens of one lie, but
helps convict him of another.

[claviger]

Pat,

In the first place this sentence, can be read two ways:

"On the morning of November 22, 1963, Givens observed Lee reading a
newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50
A.M."

A. On the morning of November 22, 1963, Givens observed Lee reading a
newspaper in the domino room (at 7:30 AM) where the employees eat lunch
about 11:50 A.M.

B. On the morning of November 22, 1963, Givens observed Lee reading a
newspaper in the domino room (at 11:50 AM) where the employees eat lunch
about 11:50 A.M.

Witness testimony can be confusing because some witnesses simply cannot
communicate their thoughts using plain english. For instance, the word
"run" has 179 meanings. Often times a regional vernacular dialect is
confusing to people from other parts of the country, coupled with the fact
some investigators in this case did a minimal job interviewing witnesses.

As for the second point, Givens may have been on the 5th floor when he saw
or heard LHO on the 6th floor.

[Anthony Marsh]

> employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M.? (CD5 p329)

>
> So, you see, by leaving out the time Givens saw Oswald--7:50--the
> writer of the report allowed people to think the words "On the
> morning" referred to 11:50.
>

So your only way out of this is to claim that the "11:50 AM" refers to
when the employees eat lunch in the domino room and Givens actually meant
that it was about 7:50 AM when he saw Oswald in the domino room? I
seriously don't think that someone with Givens background would be
explaining when the manual labor usually eats lunch and instead of saying
noon says "11:50:00 AM CST."

> It's clear when one views this all in context, moreover, that Givens
> never did claim to see Oswald at 11:50. It's not all bad news for
> conspiracy theorists, however. Oswald's reading the paper at 7:50 in
> the domino room does little to suggest his guilt, and actually makes
> him look less guilty. I mean, if he's gonna shoot the President in a
> few hours, shouldn't he be picking out a window or stacking up some
> boxes or something?
>

No, that's silly. Why no just put up a sign on the window that says,
"Reserved for the sniper"? And no one saw Oswald up on the sixth floor
diagramming the shooting or checking shooting angles or stacking boxes.
Again, those boxes had been stacked there by the floor laying crew. And we
don't know how the 3 boxes near the window were stacked because the cops
keep moving them around.

> There's also this. Shanklin's teletype asserts that Givens: [i]"Saw
> Oswald on fifth floor as left going down. Oswald told him to close the
> gates when he got to first floor so Oswald could signal for elevator
> later. [b]Givens stayed on first floor until twelve o'clock and then
> walked out of the building to watch the parade pass[/b]."[/i]
>
> While the FBI's typed-up report said Givens traveled to the first
> floor and then walked around until 12 o'clock, it did not specify that
> he did not go back up. Shanklin's message is much more specific on
> this matter. There is NO WAY this is compatible with Givens'
> subsequent testimony he went back up to the sixth floor and talked to
> Oswald. Shanklin's teletype thereby clears Givens of one lie, but
> helps convict him of another.
>

Maybe he lied all the time about everything. So we need to compare the
lies to each other to see how and why he lied each time. How come you
don't quote his sworn WC testimony? Would that be perjury? Would the cops
be guilty of suborning perjury?

Mr. BELIN. When you got to work on the morning of November 22, did
you see him at all there or not?
Mr. GIVENS. 22d? That was on Friday, wasn't it?
Mr. BELIN. Friday; that is the day the President came by.
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, I saw him that day.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you see him first?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, I first saw him on the first floor.
Mr BELIN. About what time was that?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, about 8:30.
Mr. BELIN. Now, let me ask you this. You got to work at a quarter to
8?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do between a quarter of 8 and 8:30? Where
were
Mr. GIVENS. Well, I went upstairs. We went to work at 8 o'clock.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see him come into the domino room at all?
Mr. GIVENS. Not that morning, no, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BELIN. When did you leave the domino room to go up to the sixth
floor?
Mr. GIVENS. 8 o'clock.
Mr. BELIN.. At 8 o'clock?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.

So it seems from this that the "7:50 AM" refers to when Givens got to
work. Not when he saw Oswald. He told the WC that was at 8:30. Was he
lying again?

Or like all witnesses was he telescoping memories as Loftus warns us
about?

And what was then correct sequence of events?
A. Givens was already in the Domino room and then Oswald came in after
8:00 AM.
B. Oswald was already in the Domino room reading a newspaper and then
Givens came in and saw him at 7:50 even though Oswald did not get there
until 8:00 AM.

Mr. BELIN. So you don't feel he came in the domino room before 8
o'clock?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir; not that morning he didn't.

And exactly where was Oswald when Givens FIRST saw him that morning?

Mr. BELIN. How did you get up to the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. On the elevator.
Mr. BELIN. The east or the west one? The west one is the one that
would be nearest the railroad tracks, and the east one would be nearer
the Houston Street.
Mr. GIVENS. We went up on the east one.
Mr. BELIN. Any particular reason why you took the east one rather
than the west one?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, I don't know whether you call it a particular
reason, but on the west, you have double gates on that.
Mr. BELIN. Was the west elevator on the first floor when you took
the east elevator up?
Mr. GIVENS. It was that morning, yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. It was that morning around 8 o'clock?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Now, where did you see him at 8:30 o'clock first?
Mr. GIVENS. I came back down to use the rest room.
Mr. BELIN. Where was he?
Mr. GIVENS. He was over there in the bin filling orders.

348

Page 349

Mr. BELIN. He was over in the bin filling orders?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir; they had some bins there.
Mr. BELIN. Did you talk to him at all?
Mr. GIVENS. No.
Mr. BELIN. Did you say hello, Lee?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir; I didn't say anything to him. I just looked at
him.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what he was wearing?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, I believe it was kind of a greenish looking shirt
and pants was about the same color as his shirt, practically the same
thing he wore all the time he worked there. He never changed clothes the
whole time he worked there, and he would wear a grey looking jacket.
Mr. BELIN. All right. You saw him at 8:30 on the first floor?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.

So, was Oswald reading a newspaper in the domino room while filling
orders from the bins?
How big are the bins in the Domino room? Can you show them to me in a WC
exhibit?

So when did Givens go back up to the sixth floor and see Oswald?
No clue from his earliest statements and then suddenly extremely
specific for the WC.

Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, we went back upstairs and started to work.
Mr. BELIN. You went back up to the sixth floor to continue laying
the floor?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When did you see Lee Harvey Oswald next?
Mr. GIVENS. Next?
Mr. BELIN. Yes.
Mr. GIVENS. Well, it was about a quarter till 12, we were on our way
downstairs, and we passed him, and he was standing at the gate on the
fifth floor.
I came downstairs, and I discovered I left my cigarettes in my jacket
pocket upstairs, and I took the elevator back upstairs to get my jacket
with my cigarettes in it. When I got back upstairs, he was on the sixth
floor in that vicinity, coming from that way.
Mr. BELIN. Coming from what way?
Mr. GIVENS. Toward the window up front where the shots were fired
from.
Mr. BELIN. Just a second, where did you go? Where were you when you
saw him on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. I had went and got my jacket and was on my way back to
the elevator.

How many months did it take him to remember this and who paid him how much
money to remember to incriminate Oswald?

[Anthony Marsh]

You also need someone who can translate Southern into Standard English.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

This is my point precisely. That the sentence can be read two ways, and
that the first way is clearly the correct way once one takes into account
Shanklin's teletype.

>
> Witness testimony can be confusing because some witnesses simply cannot
> communicate their thoughts using plain english. For instance, the word
> "run" has 179 meanings. Often times a regional vernacular dialect is
> confusing to people from other parts of the country, coupled with the fact
> some investigators in this case did a minimal job interviewing witnesses.
>
> As for the second point, Givens may have been on the 5th floor when he saw
> or heard LHO on the 6th floor.

What? Givens said a lot of things, but never said anything about being on
the fifth floor. He was on the sixth floor work crew, and said he saw
Oswald on the fifth floor as he took the elevator down for lunch.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Feb 6, 2:46 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

The sentence about 11:50 was not a direct quote. It was a line in an FBI
report.

The lies Givens told the WC are a separate matter, which I address on my
webpage. The question I addressed in this post was whether or not Givens
initially claimed he saw Oswald at 11:50 in the break room, as long
claimed by most CTs, including myself. And the answer is "No, he didn't;
he said he saw him in the morning, before work."

> ...
>
> read more »

[claviger]

Anthony,

> > Witness testimony can be confusing because some witnesses simply cannot
> > communicate their thoughts using plain english.  For instance, the word
> > "run" has 179 meanings.  Often times a regional vernacular dialect is
> > confusing to people from other parts of the country, coupled with the fact
> > some investigators in this case did a minimal job interviewing witnesses.

> You also need someone who can translate Southern into Standard English.

Exactly.

[claviger]

Pat,

> What? Givens said a lot of things, but never said anything about being on
> the fifth floor. He was on the sixth floor work crew, and said he saw
> Oswald on the fifth floor as he took the elevator down for lunch.

The point is in some warehouse buildings you can see and talk to
another employee through the elevator shaft from floor to floor.
Givens claimed LHO talked to him from the 6th floor as they were
headed down to the first floor, correct? Didn't LHO call to them
again when they landed on the first floor?

[Anthony Marsh]

So you're saying it's only hearsay. Or that the FBI lied?

>> read more ?
>
>

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Feb 7, 10:36 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

No. I'm saying neither of those things. Apparently, you decided to respond
to my post without carefully reading it. Here is the paragraph from which
CTs have long extracted Givens' saying he saw Oswald at 11:50.

"Givens said that during the past few days Lee had commented that he rode
to work with a boy named Wesley. Givens said all employees enter the back
door of the building when Jack Dougherty, the foreman opens the door about
7 A.M. On the morning of November 22, 1963, Givens observed Lee reading a
newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50
A.M.?"

The last line is not a quote attributed to Givens. It is a statement made
by the author of the report, based upon notes we are not allowed to see.

It specifies, moreover, that Givens saw Lee ON THE MORNING of November 22.
The previous sentences are a discussion of Oswald's actions before
starting his work day. The MORNING, in this context, is the time before
work. The bit about 11:50 is apparently something the author of the report
decided to add that has nothing to do with the time Givens saw Oswald.
Shanklin's teletype, almost certainly written before this report was
written up, thankfully, clears this up, as it specifies the time Givens
thought he saw Oswald...7:50.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Anthony Marsh]

Not I. I ignore Givens because he is a known liar and witness statements
are very unreliable when money is passing hands.

> "Givens said that during the past few days Lee had commented that he rode
> to work with a boy named Wesley. Givens said all employees enter the back
> door of the building when Jack Dougherty, the foreman opens the door about
> 7 A.M. On the morning of November 22, 1963, Givens observed Lee reading a
> newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50
> A.M.?"
>
> The last line is not a quote attributed to Givens. It is a statement made
> by the author of the report, based upon notes we are not allowed to see.
>

As Sibert and O'Neill explained to the ARRB FBI agents routinely destroy
their notes once the 302 is typed up.

> It specifies, moreover, that Givens saw Lee ON THE MORNING of November 22.
> The previous sentences are a discussion of Oswald's actions before
> starting his work day. The MORNING, in this context, is the time before
> work. The bit about 11:50 is apparently something the author of the report
> decided to add that has nothing to do with the time Givens saw Oswald.

Now why would he do that? You don't see anything suspicious about the
time?

> Shanklin's teletype, almost certainly written before this report was
> written up, thankfully, clears this up, as it specifies the time Givens
> thought he saw Oswald...7:50.
>

Before Oswald walked into the TSBD?

>> read more ?
>
>

[John McAdams]

On 6 Feb 2012 08:06:25 -0500, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@AOL.COM>
wrote:

>employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M.=94 (CD5 p329)

>
>So, you see, by leaving out the time Givens saw Oswald--7:50--the
>writer of the report allowed people to think the words "On the
>morning" referred to 11:50.
>
>It's clear when one views this all in context, moreover, that Givens
>never did claim to see Oswald at 11:50. It's not all bad news for
>conspiracy theorists, however. Oswald's reading the paper at 7:50 in
>the domino room does little to suggest his guilt, and actually makes
>him look less guilty. I mean, if he's gonna shoot the President in a
>few hours, shouldn't he be picking out a window or stacking up some
>boxes or something?
>
>There's also this. Shanklin's teletype asserts that Givens: [i]"Saw
>Oswald on fifth floor as left going down. Oswald told him to close the
>gates when he got to first floor so Oswald could signal for elevator
>later. [b]Givens stayed on first floor until twelve o'clock and then
>walked out of the building to watch the parade pass[/b]."[/i]
>
>While the FBI's typed-up report said Givens traveled to the first
>floor and then walked around until 12 o'clock, it did not specify that
>he did not go back up. Shanklin's message is much more specific on
>this matter. There is NO WAY this is compatible with Givens'
>subsequent testimony he went back up to the sixth floor and talked to
>Oswald. Shanklin's teletype thereby clears Givens of one lie, but
>helps convict him of another.
>

I just finished reading Bugliosi on the testimony of the TSBD
employees. There are two conclusions that are clear:

1.) None of the testimony puts Oswald in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30
p.m.

2.) None of the testimony *precludes* Oswald having been in the
Sniper's Nest at 12:30 p.m.

Given those two things, all the blater about "lying" just doesn't make
any sense. Why concoct an elaborate (and rather mean sprited) theory
about how Given "lied?"

If somebody was going to have him lie, why didn't they have him tell a
better lie?

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, right. Why not just pay Givens to say he was on the sixth floor and
SAW Oswald shooting the President? The public would be gullible enough to
fall for that. You seem to forget that Givens was not always alone. Others
saw him and could testify that he couldn't have seen Oswald shooting the
President. Likewise some other witness might notice that Givens was not
where he said he was when. Do you have any witness to corroborate Givens
seeing Oswald on the first floor at either 7:50 or 11:50? No, I didn't
think so. And his WC testimony is in conflict with his supposed FBI
statements. I guess little discrepancies like that don't bother WC
defenders. As long as he saw Oswald in the TSBD some time that day. That
is what you cite as proof that Oswald was up on the sixth floor shooting
at the President. Givens is phonied up to try to counter Oswald's alibi.

So your answer is that Givens was lying in either statement, but it
doesn't matter. Nice way to carry on an investigation.

So according to you perjury in a murder case is not mean spirited, but
pointing it out is?

[John McAdams]

On 7 Feb 2012 18:16:29 -0500, Anthony Marsh

Actually, no the don't.

No version of Given's testimony even begins to prove that Oswald was

in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30 p.m.

And no version even begins to prove that Oswald was *not* in the

Sniper's Nest at 12:30 p.m.

So you have him "lying" for no purpose at all.

>As long as he saw Oswald in the TSBD some time that day. That
>is what you cite as proof that Oswald was up on the sixth floor shooting
>at the President. Givens is phonied up to try to counter Oswald's alibi.
>
>So your answer is that Givens was lying in either statement, but it
>doesn't matter. Nice way to carry on an investigation.
>

I don't follow you, Tony.

>So according to you perjury in a murder case is not mean spirited, but
>pointing it out is?
>
>

You buffs crying "liar" and "perjury" is terribly mean-spirited. You
seem to hate people who gave inconvenient testimony.

And in the case of Givens, it's hard to see why it was even mildly
inconvenient.

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

[pjsp...@aol.com]

I tend to agree with you, John, about it being mean-spirited to assume the
witnesses are lying when they say something we don't like. I am
particularly offended when CTs call the Parkland witnesses claiming they
were mistaken about seeing cerebellum , e.g Jenkins and Carrico, liars,
while at the same time insisting they support the Parkland witnesses.

But Givens is another matter.

1. He initially said he'd seen Oswald on the morning of the shooting,
reading the paper, but testified that he hadn't seen him that morning.

2. He initially said he'd seen Oswald at lunch time as he descended to the
first floor, and never went back upstairs. He repeated this story many
times. Then, during his testimony, he pops out with this amazing but about
going back upstairs to get cigarettes, and seeing Oswald coming from the
direction of the sniper's nest.

Now, this could be a simple case of his having a bad memory. But there are
some mighty good reasons to believe otherwise.

1. There is a DPD report saying Givens was the kind who would change his
story for money.

2. The WC counsel tasked with taking Givens' testimony, David Belin, was
well aware that Givens had testified in opposition to his earlier
statements, yet failed to confront Givens about his changes during his
testimony. This was incompetence at best.

3. His failure to point out Givens' lack of credibility, conveniently, set
the stage for the commission's acceptance of Givens' latter-day story, and
the claim Givens was the last one to see Oswald in the building.

4. The claim Givens was the last to see Oswald allowed the commission to
claim Oswald never came down for lunch. This helped them paint him as the
assassin. They did this even though the far more consistent Eddie Piper
repeatedly claimed to see Oswald on the ground floor at 12, well after
Givens claimed to see him.

5. When interviewed by CBS in 1967, Givens had changed his story yet
again, so that he was now claiming to have seen Oswald after Piper had
seen him.

6. The HSCA, after studying Givens' story and interviewing his lunch mate
on 11-22-63, decided not to accept Givens' story.

P.S. I thought of you when I first realized people had misunderstood the
FBI's initial report. I thought "Well, here's a conspiracy factoid." Feel
free to add it to your site.

On Feb 7, 3:22 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2012 18:16:29 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 2/7/2012 5:11 PM, John McAdams wrote:

> >> On 6 Feb 2012 08:06:25 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM>

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why do some WC defenders cite it? Why not just ignore because you
know it is wrong?

> And no version even begins to prove that Oswald was *not* in the
> Sniper's Nest at 12:30 p.m.
>

It calls into question his honesty as a witness.

> So you have him "lying" for no purpose at all.
>

Not MY purpose. The purpose of some WC defenders to place Oswald in the
sniper's nest at noon and no coming down for lunch.

>
>> As long as he saw Oswald in the TSBD some time that day. That
>> is what you cite as proof that Oswald was up on the sixth floor shooting
>> at the President. Givens is phonied up to try to counter Oswald's alibi.
>>
>> So your answer is that Givens was lying in either statement, but it
>> doesn't matter. Nice way to carry on an investigation.
>>
>
> I don't follow you, Tony.
>

Not a very good way to conduct an investigation by using perjured
testimony and suborning perjury. In some cases it might get the case
thrown out of court or be grounds for appeal.

>
>> So according to you perjury in a murder case is not mean spirited, but
>> pointing it out is?
>>
>>
>
> You buffs crying "liar" and "perjury" is terribly mean-spirited. You
> seem to hate people who gave inconvenient testimony.
>

So you don't think that lying about a murder case and perjury are
mean-spirited? But if someone complains about it that person is
mean-spirited?

> And in the case of Givens, it's hard to see why it was even mildly
> inconvenient.
>

Then don't use him for anything.

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

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/7/2012 11:58 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> I tend to agree with you, John, about it being mean-spirited to assume the
> witnesses are lying when they say something we don't like. I am

I don't ASSuME. I proved. John's point was that is it mean-spirited to
merely point out that someone is lying.

> particularly offended when CTs call the Parkland witnesses claiming they
> were mistaken about seeing cerebellum , e.g Jenkins and Carrico, liars,
> while at the same time insisting they support the Parkland witnesses.
>

Well, do you know the difference between being mistaken and simply lying?
I have no problem with Givens simply being mistaken. I have a problem with
people lying about what he said and basing theories on those lies and then
Givens being paid to lie.

> But Givens is another matter.
>
> 1. He initially said he'd seen Oswald on the morning of the shooting,
> reading the paper, but testified that he hadn't seen him that morning.
>
> 2. He initially said he'd seen Oswald at lunch time as he descended to the
> first floor, and never went back upstairs. He repeated this story many
> times. Then, during his testimony, he pops out with this amazing but about
> going back upstairs to get cigarettes, and seeing Oswald coming from the
> direction of the sniper's nest.
>
> Now, this could be a simple case of his having a bad memory. But there are
> some mighty good reasons to believe otherwise.
>

I like that better. Let's just say that Givens was always mistaken about
that day and just ignore him. But some WC defenders can't do that. They
need to rely on him to put Oswald in the sniper's nest.

> 1. There is a DPD report saying Givens was the kind who would change his
> story for money.
>
> 2. The WC counsel tasked with taking Givens' testimony, David Belin, was
> well aware that Givens had testified in opposition to his earlier
> statements, yet failed to confront Givens about his changes during his
> testimony. This was incompetence at best.
>

In legal terms it's called suborning perjury.

> 3. His failure to point out Givens' lack of credibility, conveniently, set
> the stage for the commission's acceptance of Givens' latter-day story, and
> the claim Givens was the last one to see Oswald in the building.
>

Even John McAdams of all people publicly admits that the WC should not
have accepted anything that Givens said.

> 4. The claim Givens was the last to see Oswald allowed the commission to
> claim Oswald never came down for lunch. This helped them paint him as the
> assassin. They did this even though the far more consistent Eddie Piper
> repeatedly claimed to see Oswald on the ground floor at 12, well after
> Givens claimed to see him.
>

Well after? 10 minutes. 11:50 versus 12:00.

> 5. When interviewed by CBS in 1967, Givens had changed his story yet
> again, so that he was now claiming to have seen Oswald after Piper had
> seen him.
>

I wonder how much Dan Rather paid him for that?

> 6. The HSCA, after studying Givens' story and interviewing his lunch mate
> on 11-22-63, decided not to accept Givens' story.
>

That's one reason why we needed a new investigation and why some people
need a retrial. Which is why the WC defenders opposed that and claim we
knew everything we need to know on 11/22/63.

> P.S. I thought of you when I first realized people had misunderstood the
> FBI's initial report. I thought "Well, here's a conspiracy factoid." Feel
> free to add it to your site.
>

How about all the WC defender factoids?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Feb 7, 9:38 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

I think we're in agreement that John's website would be a lot better
if it spent as much time on WC defender factoids as conspiracy
factoids. I also think it would benefit from more balance in its
attacks on single-assassin theorists and conspiracy theorists. He has
has an article on Wecht's lack of credibility, for example, but
nothing on the wackiness of Lattimer, or the trials and tribulations
of Baden and Spitz, etc... It's very one-sided. And mean-spirited,
IMO.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Jean Davison]

Hi, Pat,

I understand your point, but I don't think we've ever had the
complete record on this. I ran across Belin's own explanation from a book
review he wrote in 1976:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=9925&relPageId=67

According to Belin, Givens had already told the 6th floor story to
the Secret Service, and since he had contradictory statements, Belin took
his testimony without ever talking to him beforehand (to avoid appearing
to sway him, I suppose). And in fact, at the end of Givens' testimony,
there's this exchange.

QUOTE:
Mr. BELIN. You walked into the room and you raised your right hand and
we started taking your testimony. Is that correct?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Have I ever met you before?
Mr. GIVENS. I don't believe so. I don't believe I have.
UNQUOTE

I think I'd agree with you that Belin should've confronted him on
this contradiction. On the other hand, there was other evidence that
Givens initially said he saw Oswald on the sixth floor. Both Sawyer and
Revill testified that the police went looking for Givens for this reason.
(Two more lying witnesses?)

I've never seen that SS document, but it might be on the Ferrell
site -- or not (a lot of SS docs went missing, apparently). I found one at
the NA site dated 12/07/63.

http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/9339/jfksnew.txt

>
> 4. The claim Givens was the last to see Oswald allowed the commission to
> claim Oswald never came down for lunch. This helped them paint him as the
> assassin. They did this even though the far more consistent Eddie Piper
> repeatedly claimed to see Oswald on the ground floor at 12, well after
> Givens claimed to see him.
>
> 5.  When interviewed by CBS in 1967, Givens had changed his story yet
> again, so that he was now claiming to have seen Oswald after Piper had
> seen him.

Can we be sure that he gave a different time earlier? (Don't
recall what this is from.)


Jean
[snip]

[Anthony Marsh]

Gee, he sounds like one of those mean-spirited conspiracy kooks. Sounds
like he knew there was something wrong with Givens' testimony. In all
other cases they would ask the witness if they had given prior statements
to law enforcement and then produce a copy of it for the witness. But only
NOT in this case?

> QUOTE:
> Mr. BELIN. You walked into the room and you raised your right hand and
> we started taking your testimony. Is that correct?
> Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
> Mr. BELIN. Have I ever met you before?
> Mr. GIVENS. I don't believe so. I don't believe I have.
> UNQUOTE
>

Thus clearing himself of suborning perjury. Someone else did it, but he is
proving that it wasn't him.

> I think I'd agree with you that Belin should've confronted him on
> this contradiction. On the other hand, there was other evidence that
> Givens initially said he saw Oswald on the sixth floor. Both Sawyer and
> Revill testified that the police went looking for Givens for this reason.
> (Two more lying witnesses?)
>
> I've never seen that SS document, but it might be on the Ferrell
> site -- or not (a lot of SS docs went missing, apparently). I found one at

Well, ian't that convenient? You guys depend on the government to make
sure all the documents are destroyed.

> the NA site dated 12/07/63.
>
> http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/9339/jfksnew.txt
>

Your link points to a Closed Session error.

[Jean Davison]

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=992...

>
>         According to Belin, Givens had already told the 6th floor story to
> the Secret Service, and since he had contradictory statements, Belin took
> his testimony without ever talking to him beforehand (to avoid appearing
> to sway him, I suppose).  And in fact, at the end of Givens' testimony,
> there's this exchange.
>
> QUOTE:
> Mr. BELIN. You walked into the room and you raised your right hand and
> we started taking your testimony. Is that correct?
> Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
> Mr. BELIN. Have I ever met you before?
> Mr. GIVENS. I don't believe so. I don't believe I have.
> UNQUOTE
>
>          I think I'd agree with you that Belin should've confronted him on
> this contradiction.  On the other hand, there was other evidence that
> Givens initially said he saw Oswald on the sixth floor. Both Sawyer and
> Revill testified that the police went looking for Givens for this reason.
> (Two more lying witnesses?)
>
>          I've never seen that SS document, but it might be on the Ferrell
> site -- or not (a lot of SS docs went missing, apparently). I found one at
> the NA site dated 12/07/63.
>
> http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/9339/jfksnew.txt

Since that link is kaput, please go to the NA JFK search page,
pick "simple search" and type GIVENS and CHARLES in the boxes. That should
bring up 25 documents, only one of which is listed as coming from the
"Secret Service" on that date.

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/search.html

Jean

[pjsp...@aol.com]

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=992...

>
>         According to Belin, Givens had already told the 6th floor story to
> the Secret Service, and since he had contradictory statements,

Thanks for the link. It sinks Belin, IMO. He acts as though Givens' had
offered two versions of his story--one to the FBI and one to the SS--and
that he testified in accordance with the second. This is totally
disingenuous. Belin is trying to deceive his readers. Yeah, the story
Givens told the SS included a reference to the clipboard and sixth floor,
but was quite clear in that this happened BEFORE Givens went down for
lunch and heard Oswald yelling out from the fifth floor. The bit about
going back up for cigarettes and seeing Oswald-- which the commission used
to claim Oswald never went down for lunch-- was introduced during Givens'
testimony, and Belin failed to confront him on this.

Here is the SS report:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10490&relPageId=780

Belin took
> his testimony without ever talking to him beforehand (to avoid appearing
> to sway him, I suppose).  And in fact, at the end of Givens' testimony,
> there's this exchange.
>
> QUOTE:
> Mr. BELIN. You walked into the room and you raised your right hand and
> we started taking your testimony. Is that correct?
> Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
> Mr. BELIN. Have I ever met you before?
> Mr. GIVENS. I don't believe so. I don't believe I have.
> UNQUOTE
>
>          I think I'd agree with you that Belin should've confronted him on
> this contradiction.  On the other hand, there was other evidence that
> Givens initially said he saw Oswald on the sixth floor. Both Sawyer and
> Revill testified that the police went looking for Givens for this reason.
> (Two more lying witnesses?)

They never said anything about this prior to their testimony. While it's
possible they were lying, I actually find Dale Myers' explanation they
were just clutching at straws, and really had no recollections why they
were trying to find Givens, reasonable.

>
>          I've never seen that SS document, but it might be on the Ferrell
> site -- or not (a lot of SS docs went missing, apparently). I found one at
> the NA site dated 12/07/63.
>
> http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/9339/jfksnew.txt
>
>
>
> > 4. The claim Givens was the last to see Oswald allowed the commission to
> > claim Oswald never came down for lunch. This helped them paint him as the
> > assassin. They did this even though the far more consistent Eddie Piper
> > repeatedly claimed to see Oswald on the ground floor at 12, well after
> > Givens claimed to see him.
>
> > 5.  When interviewed by CBS in 1967, Givens had changed his story yet
> > again, so that he was now claiming to have seen Oswald after Piper had
> > seen him.
>
>            Can we be sure that he gave a different time earlier? (Don't
> recall what this is from.)

Givens testified to seeing Oswald after going upstairs, but before he went
back down at 11:55. The WC report claimed this meant Givens was the last
person to see Oswald in the building before the shooting. This was untrue.
Eddie Piper said he saw Oswald on the ground floor at 12:00. Well, what do
you know, when Givens is interviewed by CBS in 67, he suddenly remembers
seeing Oswald on the sixth floor at one or two minutes after 12.
Coincidence? I doubt it.

> Jean
> [snip]

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, it does already. Inventing WC defender factoids. Like Kennedy in his
LAST press conference saying that he would keep the troops in Vietnam.

>> read more ?
>
>

[Jean Davison]

Thanks for finding this Secret Service report, Pat. I
noticed that it's a summary of all the TSBD interviews conducted by
three SS agents between 12/2 and 12/6. IOW, pretty early.

The document says:

QUOTE:

Givens, along with other employees working on the sixth floor, was
laying the new plywood floor. Givens stated that he saw Oswald on the
sixth floor at about 11:45 A.M. on that date, and that Oswald was
carrying a clipboard that appeared to have some orders on it. Givens
felt that Oswald was looking for some books to fill an order, which is
his job, and did not give the matter further thought. Shortly
thereafter, Givens and the other employees working on the floor-laying
project quit for lunch and they took both elevators. They were racing
the elevators to the first floor and Givens heard Oswald call to them
to send one of the elevators back up.

UNQUOTE

What is wrong with this picture? Oswald is on the sixth
floor and then he's on the fifth?

Givens testified that he and the others went downstairs at
about 11:45. Others on the floor-laying crew placed Oswald on the 5th
floor calling for the elevator, but NONE of them testified that Oswald
had come up to the sixth floor while they were working. IOW, I think
that whoever wrote the SS account misunderstood Givens and simply got
the sequence of events wrong. If there's another explanation for the
discrepancy that makes sense, let me hear it, please.

Belin may've been wrong not to pursue it, but I don't think
you can show that he was "trying to deceive." There *were* two
different versions of Givens' story in the record -- the SS version
placed Oswald on the 6th floor, while the FBI account didn't mention
it.

>
> Here is the SS report:
>

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=104...

>
> Belin took
>
>
>
>
>
> > his testimony without ever talking to him beforehand (to avoid appearing
> > to sway him, I suppose).  And in fact, at the end of Givens' testimony,
> > there's this exchange.
>
> > QUOTE:
> > Mr. BELIN. You walked into the room and you raised your right hand and
> > we started taking your testimony. Is that correct?
> > Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
> > Mr. BELIN. Have I ever met you before?
> > Mr. GIVENS. I don't believe so. I don't believe I have.
> > UNQUOTE
>
> >          I think I'd agree with you that Belin should've confronted him on
> > this contradiction.  On the other hand, there was other evidence that
> > Givens initially said he saw Oswald on the sixth floor. Both Sawyer and
> > Revill testified that the police went looking for Givens for this reason.
> > (Two more lying witnesses?)
>
> They never said anything about this prior to their testimony. While it's
> possible they were lying, I actually find Dale Myers' explanation they
> were just clutching at straws, and really had no recollections why they
> were trying to find Givens, reasonable.

Revill and Sawyer couldn't remember, so they just made up
Givens seeing Oswald on the 6th floor?? That's a mighty specific
"clutching at straws," imo. But what did Dale say, exactly? Could
you quote it, if you have it handy? (My copy is on the other side of
the country.)

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >          I've never seen that SS document, but it might be on the Ferrell
> > site -- or not (a lot of SS docs went missing, apparently). I found one at
> > the NA site dated 12/07/63.
>
> >http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/9339/jfksnew.txt
>
> > > 4. The claim Givens was the last to see Oswald allowed the commission to
> > > claim Oswald never came down for lunch. This helped them paint him as the
> > > assassin. They did this even though the far more consistent Eddie Piper
> > > repeatedly claimed to see Oswald on the ground floor at 12, well after
> > > Givens claimed to see him.
>
> > > 5.  When interviewed by CBS in 1967, Givens had changed his story yet
> > > again, so that he was now claiming to have seen Oswald after Piper had
> > > seen him.
>
> >            Can we be sure that he gave a different time earlier? (Don't
> > recall what this is from.)
>
> Givens testified to seeing Oswald after going upstairs, but before he went
> back down at 11:55. The WC report claimed this meant Givens was the last
> person to see Oswald in the building before the shooting. This was untrue.
> Eddie Piper said he saw Oswald on the ground floor at 12:00. Well, what do
> you know, when Givens is interviewed by CBS in 67, he suddenly remembers
> seeing Oswald on the sixth floor at one or two minutes after 12.
> Coincidence? I doubt it.

IMO, it doesn't really matter what Givens told CBS-- or
anyone else, for that matter. None of these time estimates,
especially years later, are certain. And it matters where Oswald was
at 12:30, not a half hour earlier.

Jean

[claviger]

On Feb 8, 9:00 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=104...

Pat,

I'm unclear why you belabor this point. Wasn't LHO part of the crew
working on the 6th floor that morning? He was filling orders from
both the 5th and 5th floor that day was he not? When Givens went down
to see the parade LHO was not on the 5th floor and he yelled down to
send up the elevator. LHO would know most employees knock off for
lunch at ten till noon. That gives him 40 minutes to get into
position to fire at the motorcade. In that time span he could go down
to the ground floor to be seen by witnesses then return to the
sniper's nest. Sounds logical. No one saw LHO in the lunchroom
except Baker and Truly.

Givens may or may not be lying. Several people know LHO reported for
work that day and saw him back and forth to his work area. He was the
only employee to abandon his job without permission from or notice to
his supervisor. As such he is legally AWOL and subject to
disciplinary action. His rifle was found on the 6th floor and empty
shells from the same ammo were found under the window from where shots
were fired. A paper bag was found in the corner. LHO goes home and
his landlady is watching TV about the shooting. She speaks to LHO but
he doesn't respond or show any curiosity about the news. He goes to
his room but doesn't take a nap. Instead he grabs a revolver and
takes off down the street. Within a few minutes he murders a police
officer execution style.

What makes you think Lee Harvey Oswald is an innocent man and not a
cold blooded murderer?

[charles wallace]

On Feb 6, 4:46 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

Givens testimony proves there was no conspiracy by the DPD as a whole to
frame Oswald for the JFK murder, but it also proves there was a DPD
officer that tried to use Givens to frame Oswald. This officer was
present on the sixth floor and witnessed the encounter between Oswald and
Givens. See DPD Fritz's testimony and DPD Sawyer's testimony. Now you
claim that it is an illusion that a man in a DPD uniform is photographed
in Dillard's close-up photo seconds after the fatal shots. And you have
some excuse for Lillian Moonyham's FBI report about her seeing a man in
the window after the shots as not being accurate. Tell us all again that
you are a JFK assassination researcher.

[charles wallace]

On Feb 7, 5:22 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 7 Feb 2012 18:16:29 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>
> <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 2/7/2012 5:11 PM, John McAdams wrote:

> >> On 6 Feb 2012 08:06:25 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM>

Givens' testimony about going back up to the sixth floor to get his
cigarettes and seeing Oswald about noon is entirely truthful. In fact
when taken with DPD Sawyer's tesimony and DPD Fritz' testimony it proves
that a DPD officer was on the sixth floor when Givens saw Oswald. The
testimonies also prove this officer knew Givens police record and where
Oswald lived. Therefore he knew both men. There was a witness, Arnold
Rowland who saw this man at 12:15 holding Oswald's rifle and wearing a
light colored jacket over his police uniform.

[Anthony Marsh]

So now you claim it is a known fact that all most employees knock off
for lunch at ten till noon? Prove that. Who said that?

> position to fire at the motorcade. In that time span he could go down
> to the ground floor to be seen by witnesses then return to the
> sniper's nest. Sounds logical. No one saw LHO in the lunchroom
> except Baker and Truly.
>

You seem to be confusing the Domino room on the first floor with the
lunchroom on the second floor. Common day workers eat in the Domino room.
Office staff eat in the lunchroom. The only reason for a common day worker
to go into the lunchroom is to buy a Coke. You can call the second floor
the ground floor if you wish. But I don't think that's what you mean.

> Givens may or may not be lying. Several people know LHO reported for
> work that day and saw him back and forth to his work area. He was the

I don't know of any researchers who claim that Oswald never went to work
that day.

> only employee to abandon his job without permission from or notice to
> his supervisor. As such he is legally AWOL and subject to

Then why did they put out an APB for Givens?
Truly didn't tell him to go home.

> disciplinary action. His rifle was found on the 6th floor and empty
> shells from the same ammo were found under the window from where shots
> were fired. A paper bag was found in the corner. LHO goes home and
> his landlady is watching TV about the shooting. She speaks to LHO but
> he doesn't respond or show any curiosity about the news. He goes to
> his room but doesn't take a nap. Instead he grabs a revolver and
> takes off down the street. Within a few minutes he murders a police
> officer execution style.
>
> What makes you think Lee Harvey Oswald is an innocent man and not a
> cold blooded murderer?
>

I don't know how to explain this to a person who already has his mind made
up, but Oswald could kill Tippit without having first killed President
Kennedy.

>
>
>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Have you ever heard of a thing called "hearsay"? Do you understand what
is wrong with it?

> Belin may've been wrong not to pursue it, but I don't think
> you can show that he was "trying to deceive." There *were* two

I think Belin was a very smart lawyer and knew enough to try to protect
himself from a suborning perjury charge.

> different versions of Givens' story in the record -- the SS version
> placed Oswald on the 6th floor, while the FBI account didn't mention
> it.
>

And yet you claim that the WC investigation was perfect.

That's right, so don't bother citing Givens for anything.

> Jean
>

[charles wallace]

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=992...

Givens testimony about seeing Oswald about noon when he went to get his
cigarettes is entirely truthful. This testimony taken with DPD Sawyer
testimony, DPD Fritz testimony, Arnold Rowland testimony, Lillian
Mooneyham FBI statement and the photographic facial image shown in Dillard
prove it was a DPD officer that fired Oswald's rifle. It explains why
Oswald shot and killed DPD Tippit. It explains why Oswald blamed the DPD
for the assassination according to DPD Fritz. Did not Fritz say, he
(Oswald) accused me of being to blame for the assassination?

[Anthony Marsh]

I think Belin as a smart lawyer is trying to protect himself from
charges of suborning perjury.

> Givens told the SS included a reference to the clipboard and sixth floor,
> but was quite clear in that this happened BEFORE Givens went down for
> lunch and heard Oswald yelling out from the fifth floor. The bit about
> going back up for cigarettes and seeing Oswald-- which the commission used
> to claim Oswald never went down for lunch-- was introduced during Givens'
> testimony, and Belin failed to confront him on this.
>
> Here is the SS report:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10490&relPageId=780
>

It doesn't sound to me like Givens going back to the sixth floor to get
his cigarettes and seeing Oswald in the sniper's nest. But then again I am
not a WC defender and don't have any vested interest in framing Oswald.

How much did CBS pay Givens for that interview? $50,000?
Did he report it on his taxes?

>> Jean
>> [snip]
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Much better.
The same caveat applies to NAIL digital exhibits and RIFs.

[Anthony Marsh]

There is no facial image of the sixth floor showing anyone in the
Dillard photo.

[Anthony Marsh]

An FBI memo from November 23, 1963 states:

Oswald was observed on the fifth floor of the building in
which he was employed at approximately 11:50 a.m., November 22,
1963.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Bonnie Ray Williams said he saw Oswald on the east side of the sixth
floor at some point before lunch, but he didn't specify the time.

> IOW, I think
> that whoever wrote the SS account misunderstood Givens and simply got
> the sequence of events wrong.  If there's another explanation for the
> discrepancy that makes sense, let me hear it, please.

Here's an explanation. Givens DID see Oswald on the sixth floor before
going down for lunch, and was later convinced to say this happened
after going down for lunch.

>
>            Belin may've been wrong not to pursue it, but I don't think
> you can show that he was "trying to deceive."  There *were* two
> different versions of Givens' story in the record -- the SS version
> placed Oswald on the 6th floor, while the FBI account didn't mention
> it.

I appreciate your trying not to think bad of the guy. But he's not
worth giving the benefit of the doubt. His failure to cross-examine
Givens about his story change was not an isolated incident. His
February 64 memo shows he knew Eddie Piper said he saw Oswald at 12.
His partner Ball took Piper's testimony in which Piper repeated his
claim he saw Oswald at 12. And yet the chapter written by Belin and
Ball claimed Givens was the last to see Oswald in the building. This
was not a mistake. In 1971, Sylvia Meagher wrote an article on Givens
in which Piper's statements were mentioned. Belin was shown this
article, and allowed to comment on this article. Two years later, his
book, November 22, 1963,: You Be The Jury, was published. Here, he
repeated the claim Givens was the last to see Oswald in the building
before the shooting not once, not twice, but three times, by my count.
He NEVER mentions Piper. The man was almost certainly a liar.

As far as Oswald's guilt, I pretty much agree. But if those tasked
with establishing Oswald's guilt either 1) suborned perjury, or
failed to properly cross-examine those who may have been lying, and 2)
lied about the evidence in the Warren Report and afterwards, don't you
think there's reason to doubt?
>
> Jean

[pjsp...@aol.com]

He was not part of the floor crew.

>He was filling orders from
> both the 5th and 5th floor that day was he not?

Yes.

>When Givens went down
> to see the parade LHO was not on the 5th floor and he yelled down to
> send up the elevator.

LHO was supposedly on the fifth floor when they went down, if that's
what you mean.

>LHO would know most employees knock off for
> lunch at ten till noon.  That gives him 40 minutes to get into
> position to fire at the motorcade.  In that time span he could go down
> to the ground floor to be seen by witnesses then return to the
> sniper's nest.  Sounds logical.  No one saw LHO in the lunchroom
> except Baker and Truly.

This was the HSCA's position. That Givens' claim didn't matter.

>
> Givens may or may not be lying.

If Givens was lying, and Belin put him up to it, the case against
Oswald is called into question.

>Several people know LHO reported for
> work that day and saw him back and forth to his work area.  He was the
> only employee to abandon his job without permission from or notice to
> his supervisor.

Not sure of this is true. A number of employees failed to return.
Oswald was the only one in the building to leave on his own, however.

>As such he is legally AWOL and subject to
> disciplinary action.

Silly. Work was not resumed. If he hadn't been implicated in the
shooting, he would have had his job on Monday.

>His rifle was found on the 6th floor and empty
> shells from the same ammo were found under the window from where shots
> were fired.  A paper bag was found in the corner.  LHO goes home and
> his landlady is watching TV about the shooting.  She speaks to LHO but
> he doesn't respond or show any curiosity about the news.  He goes to
> his room but doesn't take a nap.  Instead he grabs a revolver and
> takes off down the street.  Within a few minutes he murders a police
> officer execution style.
>
> What makes you think Lee Harvey Oswald is an innocent man and not a
> cold blooded murderer?

I have a book on this at patspeer.com. In short, I believe Oswald was
involved in some way, and that he probably killed Tippit, but that
Kennedy was killed by two shooters, Oswald not among them.

[Sean Smiley]

On Feb 9, 5:19 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:snip

>
> > Givens testified to seeing Oswald after going upstairs, but before he went
> > back down at 11:55. The WC report claimed this meant Givens was the last
> > person to see Oswald in the building before the shooting. This was untrue.
> > Eddie Piper said he saw Oswald on the ground floor at 12:00. Well, what do
> > you know, when Givens is interviewed by CBS in 67, he suddenly remembers
> > seeing Oswald on the sixth floor at one or two minutes after 12.
> > Coincidence? I doubt it.
>
> Pat,
>
> I'm unclear why you belabor this point.  Wasn't LHO part of the crew
> working on the 6th floor that morning?

No, not the crew that was installing the new floor.

 He was filling orders from
> both the 5th and 5th floor that day was he not?

Yes, tho I assume you mean 5th & 6th....

 When Givens went down
> to see the parade LHO was not on the 5th floor and he yelled down to
> send up the elevator.  LHO would know most employees knock off for
> lunch at ten till noon.  That gives him 40 minutes to get into
> position to fire at the motorcade.  In that time span he could go down
> to the ground floor to be seen by witnesses then return to the
> sniper's nest.

Not if (a) witnesses said they saw him at noon, & (b) Williams was on
the 6th floor between 12 & 12:25, which the testimony of Williams,
Norman & Jarman suggest he was.... LHO is down to 15 minutes....
dcw

[claviger]

Yes, so what's your point?

[claviger]

DCW,

> Not if (a) witnesses said they saw him at noon, & (b) Williams was on
> the 6th floor between 12 & 12:25, which the testimony of Williams,
> Norman & Jarman suggest he was.... LHO is down to 15 minutes....

I would think 15 minutes is plenty of time to get back to the 6th floor
after employees are gathered to watch the motorcade pass by. Had any of
them been on the 5th and 6th floor LHO, or the mystery assassins, would
have to abort their mission.

[Sean Smiley]

I've got to give 2 cheers to Belin. After he took Brennan's testimony, in
which Brennan insisted that the sniper fired from a window wide-open like
the windows *below* the sniper's "nest", Belin-- apparently curious--made
it a point to ask all the window witnesses how far open that window was:
Couch, Fischer, Edwards, Jackson. Unanimous results: All testified that
the window was wide open. What did Belin do with this info? Kept it
under his hat. He's still curious, no doubt....

dcw

[claviger]

Pat,

> > I'm unclear why you belabor this point.  Wasn't LHO part of the crew
> > working on the 6th floor that morning?
>
> He was not part of the floor crew.
>
> >He was filling orders from
> > both the 5th and 5th floor that day was he not?
>
> Yes.
>
> >When Givens went down
> > to see the parade LHO was not on the 5th floor and he yelled down to
> > send up the elevator.
>
> LHO was supposedly on the fifth floor when they went down, if that's
> what you mean.

Which means he could probably yell down from either the 5th or 6th floor
since voice carries in the elevator shaft, sort of like speaking into a
well.

> >LHO would know most employees knock off for
> > lunch at ten till noon.  That gives him 40 minutes to get into
> > position to fire at the motorcade.  In that time span he could go down
> > to the ground floor to be seen by witnesses then return to the
> > sniper's nest.  Sounds logical.  No one saw LHO in the lunchroom
> > except Baker and Truly.
>
> This was the HSCA's position. That Givens' claim didn't matter.

Givens claim does not prove LHO did the shooting, nor is this claim
exculpatory evidence he didn't do the shooting. LHO had 40 minutes to go
back and forth, and still shoot at the motorcade by 12:30 PM. Givens
observation proves LHO was doing his job and right where he was supposed
to be that day filling orders on the 5th and 6th floors. So what?

> > Givens may or may not be lying.
>
> If Givens was lying, and Belin put him up to it, the case against
> Oswald is called into question.

How so?

> >Several people know LHO reported for
> > work that day and saw him back and forth to his work area.  He was the
> > only employee to abandon his job without permission from or notice to
> > his supervisor.
>
> Not sure of this is true. A number of employees failed to return.

All employees working for Truly were accounted for that day except
LHO.

> Oswald was the only one in the building to leave on his own, however.

Which is called job abandonment and he could be disciplined for doing
so, including being fired.

> >As such he is legally AWOL and subject to
> > disciplinary action.
>
> Silly. Work was not resumed. If he hadn't been implicated in the
> shooting, he would have had his job on Monday.

Not so. As a full time employee of TSBD he must have permission to leave
his job. That permission might be granted after all employees were
accounted for and then dismissed early. Employees working an 8 hour shift
are not allowed to leave early without permission from their employer.
LHO did not make a phone call from his house to inform his supervisor of
where he was and why he left early without checking with Mr Truly.
Instead he grabbed a pistol and shot a police officer on the way to see a
movie. Do you consider this reasonable behavior by an innocent man?

> >His rifle was found on the 6th floor and empty
> > shells from the same ammo were found under the window from where shots
> > were fired.  A paper bag was found in the corner.  LHO goes home and
> > his landlady is watching TV about the shooting.  She speaks to LHO but
> > he doesn't respond or show any curiosity about the news.  He goes to
> > his room but doesn't take a nap.  Instead he grabs a revolver and
> > takes off down the street.  Within a few minutes he murders a police
> > officer execution style.
>
> > What makes you think Lee Harvey Oswald is an innocent man and not a
> > cold blooded murderer?
>
> I have a book on this at patspeer.com. In short, I believe Oswald was
> involved in some way, and that he probably killed Tippit, but that
> Kennedy was killed by two shooters, Oswald not among them.

In what way was LHO involved?

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "Here's an explanation. Givens DID see Oswald on the sixth floor
before going down for lunch, and was later convinced to say this happened
after going down for lunch." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's ridiculous, since we're only talking about a very few minutes in
real time here (probably less than 3 minutes in actual time).

Plus, as noted previously by other posters, Givens' account of seeing
Oswald on the sixth floor at about 11:55 doesn't put LHO on the sixth
floor (or inside the Sniper's Nest) when the shooting occurred at 12:30.
It only puts him on an upper floor of the building at about 11:55.

And here's a very important point that I think conspiracy theorists
overlook:

Charlie Givens is not even needed when it comes to putting Oswald on an
upper floor of the TSBD at about lunchtime on 11/22/63. And that's because
there were multiple OTHER employees who testified that Oswald yelled down
the elevator shaft (from either the fifth or sixth floor) when the other
employees raced the elevators downstairs.

So Givens making up a lie about seeing Oswald is not even needed to put
Oswald on an upper floor of the Book Depository about 45 minutes before
the assassination.

And surely there aren't too many conspiracists who want to call all three
of the following TSBD employees liars when it comes to their testimony
about hearing Lee Oswald shout down the elevator shaft from an upper floor
shortly before noon on November 22 --- Bonnie Ray Williams, Billy
Lovelady, and Danny Arce.

All three of the above employees testified they heard Oswald's voice
coming from an upper (fifth or sixth) floor. Therefore, why would Charles
Givens lie about anything relating to Lee Harvey Oswald's whereabouts
around noontime on November 22, 1963?

I suppose the concpiracy theorists will insist that the police and FBI
desperately HAD to have a witness say that he physically saw Lee Oswald on
the SIXTH floor shortly before the assassination (vs. the inconclusive
testimony of Arce, Williams, and Lovelady concerning the exact floor that
Oswald was on when he yelled down the elevator shaft).

But that type of speculation regarding the authorities in this case
(although it's speculation that has become commonplace and routine among
CTers, of course) is something I do not buy at all -- particularly when
there are so many otrher people who could (and did) testify to the fact
that Oswald was, indeed, on an upper TSBD floor around lunchtime. (Plus
there's Howard Brennan as well, who saw Oswald actually murder JFK.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/tsbd-workers-and-elevators.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Which brings up an interesting question. Was Oswald officially fired? Did
he get a full paycheck for that week? What happened to that paycheck?

[Jean Davison]

You're right, I forgot about Williams. Sorry. (He did
start his answer, though, with "I am not sure.")

>
> > IOW, I think
> > that whoever wrote the SS account misunderstood Givens and simply got
> > the sequence of events wrong.  If there's another explanation for the
> > discrepancy that makes sense, let me hear it, please.
>
> Here's an explanation. Givens DID see Oswald on the sixth floor before
> going down for lunch, and was later convinced to say this happened
> after going down for lunch.

I don't think that's the most probable explanation, by any
means. First of all, the Secret Service version is second- or third-
hand, and the other is a sworn statement in Givens' own words. If you can
show that he lied, fine.

>
>
> >            Belin may've been wrong not to pursue it, but I don't think
> > you can show that he was "trying to deceive."  There *were* two
> > different versions of Givens' story in the record -- the SS version
> > placed Oswald on the 6th floor, while the FBI account didn't mention
> > it.
>
> I appreciate your trying not to think bad of the guy. But he's not
> worth giving the benefit of the doubt. His failure to cross-examine
> Givens about his story change was not an isolated incident. His
> February 64 memo shows he knew Eddie Piper said he saw Oswald at 12.
> His partner Ball took Piper's testimony in which Piper repeated his
> claim he saw Oswald at 12. And yet the chapter written by Belin and
> Ball claimed Givens was the last to see Oswald in the building. This
> was not a mistake. In 1971, Sylvia Meagher wrote an article on Givens
> in which Piper's statements were mentioned. Belin was shown this
> article, and allowed to comment on this article. Two years later, his
> book, November 22, 1963,: You Be The Jury, was published. Here, he
> repeated the claim Givens was the last to see Oswald in the building
> before the shooting not once, not twice, but three times, by my count.
> He NEVER mentions Piper. The man was almost certainly a liar.

What was Belin's response to Meagher's article, I wonder.

The Warren Report called Piper and Jack Dougherty "confused
witnesses" and therefore not credible. Dougherty was certainly confused.
Piper I'm not sure about, but if Belin really thought so, it might explain
why he ignored Piper. (I'm not giving Belin the benefit of the doubt to
be kind, but because I don't want to base anything on suspicion alone.)

You seem to suspect that Belin persuaded Givens to change his
story. I can't imagine how that conversation might've gone, can you?
The two were strangers to one another prior to the day he testified,
right?

It's hard for me to believe that Belin would risk everything
to suborn perjury for such a small result. How could Belin be sure that
Givens and anyone Givens confided in would never talk? How many others
had to zip their lips for decades -- Revill, Sawyer, Kaiser (the clipboard
owner), or was it Belin alone in your view?

IMO, Givens' testimony doesn't sound as if he were rehearsed
or unsure of his story. Belin asked him numerous questions about Oswald
on the 6th floor that might've tripped him up, but didn't. (I'm adding
that part of his testimony below as a P.S.)

I'm not convinced that anybody did suborn perjury or lie,
but I'm listening if you want to continue. You know the record well,
and I appreciate that.

P.S.

Givens/Belin exchange re LHO on 6th floor....

QUOTE:

Mr. BELIN. All right. You saw him at 8:30 on the first floor?

Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, we went back upstairs and started to work.
Mr. BELIN. You went back up to the sixth floor to continue laying the
floor?

Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. When did you see Lee Harvey Oswald next?
Mr. GIVENS. Next?
Mr. BELIN. Yes.
Mr. GIVENS. Well, it was about a quarter till 12, we were on our way
downstairs, and we passed him, and he was standing at the gate on the
fifth floor.
I came downstairs, and I discovered I left my cigarettes in my jacket
pocket upstairs, and I took the elevator back upstairs to get my
jacket with my cigarettes in it. When I got back upstairs, he was on
the sixth floor in that vicinity, coming from that way.
Mr. BELIN. Coming from what way?
Mr. GIVENS. Toward the window up front where the shots were fired
from.
Mr. BELIN. Just a second, where did you go? Where were you when you
saw him on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. I had went and got my jacket and was on my way back to the
elevator.

Mr. BELIN. All right, just a second. I am going to get a plan of the
sixth floor, if I have one, and try and have you point that out to
me.
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Well, I don't seem to have a sixth floor plan here, but
perhaps we can use another plan here to help us.
Here is a diagram of the front of the building. This is the Elm Street
side, and you can see the arrow pointing north.
This perhaps would be a diagram of the third floor. You notice that
there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven sets of windows,
right?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. On the Elm Street side, seven pairs of windows?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. You notice the two freight elevators toward the rear. Now
did you see--when you first saw him on the sixth floor there, were you
standing near any of these windows?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir. I was over here by the elevators.
Mr. BELIN. You are pointing your finger to a spot which would be
somewhat to the east of the east elevator, is that correct?
Mr. GIVENS. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. At a spot which is about on the same line as what I call
the south side of the east elevator, and about as far cast of the
front part of that elevator as the distance from the front of the
elevator to the back of the east elevator, is that about as far east
of the front part of that elevator, is that about right?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. You were standing at that point, and where did you see Lee
Harvey Oswald?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, I was along here [indicating].
Mr. BELIN. All right, you are pointing at a spot you say along in
here?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. That would be near the east wall of the building?
349

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. You can see a scale here that is from 0 to 20 feet. Well,
it would be about 30 to 40 feet north of the south wall of that
building, is that right?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. And around 10 feet or so away from the east wall, is that
about right?
Mr. GIVENS. That is about right.
Mr. BELIN. Now, did you notice whether or not there were any cartons
stacked up around the southeast corner of that sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, I didn't pay any attention about any being stacked,
because we had taken all that stock from that side of the building and
ran it down that side.
Mr. BELIN. You had taken stock down from the west part of the sixth
floor where you were working and put it there?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes; ran it down the side right in front of the window.
Mr. BELIN. Was he between that stock and the window, or was he on the
other side of the window?
Mr. GIVENS. He was between the stock and the window, coming towards
the elevators.
Mr. BELIN. Coming towards the elevators?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see all of his body or not?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir; he had his clipboard in his hand.
Mr. BELIN. He had his clipboard in his hand?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Was that kind of an aisleway over there right next to the
east wall that he was walking along, or what?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir; they have aisles.
Mr. BELIN. Now, was there stock in back of him as well as in front of
him?
Were you there where you had stacked it up, or not, or don't you
remember?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, it was already some books stacked there.
Mr. BELIN. Were there books stacked between where you saw him and the
window itself?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. All right, he was walking with his clipboard from that
southeast corner?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you see him walking? What direction did you see
him walking in?
Mr. GIVENS. He was coming towards the elevators.
Mr. BELIN. From the Elm Street side of the building?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, Sir.
Mr. BELIN. So that would be walking in a northerly direction?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Now, you said that he had a clipboard in his hand?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes; he had his board with his orders on it.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see the orders on the board?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, yes, sir; he had it in his hand.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have any books in his hand that he was carrying?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ever fill orders in November on the sixth floor?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether or not there were any books or book
cartons over in that corner from which he might have been filling
orders?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, yes, sir; it was possible.
Mr. BELIN. It was possible?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you watch where he walked to?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, no, sir; I didn't pay much attention. I was getting
ready on the elevator, and I say, "Boy, are you going downstairs?"
Mr. BELIN. What did he say to you?
350

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. GIVENS. I say, "It's near lunch time."
He said, "No, sir. When you get downstairs, dose the gate to the
elevator." That meant the elevator on the west side, you can pull both
gates down and it will come up by itself.
Mr. BELIN. What else did he say?
Mr. GIVENS. That is all.
Mr. BELIN. What did you say to that? Did you Say you would close the
elevator gate, or not say anything?
Mr. GIVENS. I said, "Okay," and got on the elevator.
Mr. BELIN. What elevator did you take down?
Mr. GIVENS. I taken this one.
Mr. BELIN. The east elevator?
Mr. GIVENS. The east elevator.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not when you got down to the first
floor, the west elevator was there?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir; it wasn't, because I looked over there to close
the gate and it wasn't there.
Mr. BELIN. It wasn't there when you got down to the first floor?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir; it wasn't.

UNQUOTE


Jean

[Sean Smiley]

I meant 15 minutes, total: 11:50-noon, & 12:25-12:30.

Apparently, Jack Dougherty was on an upper floor until 12:30, but
Williams & co. did not, I believe, say they saw him. So maybe he was
on the 6th.... But then it would seem that Williams would have seen
him *there*, before he went down to the 5th....
dcw

[Sean Smiley]

Shelley's story, however, is not corroborated; it's even contradicted, by
Williams, who testified that he & Arce left the area in a police car, &
that they were the only ones from the building in that car. Film footage
seems to bear out Williams. Shelley said he was in the car with them....

dcw

[Bud]

Why is this significant?

> dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/10/2012 7:47 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
>>>> "Here's an explanation. Givens DID see Oswald on the sixth floor
> before going down for lunch, and was later convinced to say this happened
> after going down for lunch."<<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> That's ridiculous, since we're only talking about a very few minutes in
> real time here (probably less than 3 minutes in actual time).
>

OK, let's run with your idea. What difference does the exact time make?
Why can you be satisfied with Givens saying he saw Oswald on the first
floor at 7:50 AM? Isn't that good enough for you to convict Oswald of
murder?

> Plus, as noted previously by other posters, Givens' account of seeing
> Oswald on the sixth floor at about 11:55 doesn't put LHO on the sixth
> floor (or inside the Sniper's Nest) when the shooting occurred at 12:30.
> It only puts him on an upper floor of the building at about 11:55.
>
> And here's a very important point that I think conspiracy theorists
> overlook:
>
> Charlie Givens is not even needed when it comes to putting Oswald on an
> upper floor of the TSBD at about lunchtime on 11/22/63. And that's because
> there were multiple OTHER employees who testified that Oswald yelled down
> the elevator shaft (from either the fifth or sixth floor) when the other
> employees raced the elevators downstairs.
>
> So Givens making up a lie about seeing Oswald is not even needed to put
> Oswald on an upper floor of the Book Depository about 45 minutes before
> the assassination.
>
> And surely there aren't too many conspiracists who want to call all three
> of the following TSBD employees liars when it comes to their testimony
> about hearing Lee Oswald shout down the elevator shaft from an upper floor
> shortly before noon on November 22 --- Bonnie Ray Williams, Billy
> Lovelady, and Danny Arce.
>

What difference does it make where Oswald was BEFORE noon?

> All three of the above employees testified they heard Oswald's voice
> coming from an upper (fifth or sixth) floor. Therefore, why would Charles
> Givens lie about anything relating to Lee Harvey Oswald's whereabouts
> around noontime on November 22, 1963?
>

Because someone paid him to.

> I suppose the concpiracy theorists will insist that the police and FBI
> desperately HAD to have a witness say that he physically saw Lee Oswald on
> the SIXTH floor shortly before the assassination (vs. the inconclusive
> testimony of Arce, Williams, and Lovelady concerning the exact floor that
> Oswald was on when he yelled down the elevator shaft).
>

Maybe the FBI wouldn't be crude enough to do that, but surely the DPD
would be.
You also have to remember that Givens had a police record and if he
didn't do what they wanted him to do they could easily frame him for
drug possession and put him away for 20 years in prison.

> But that type of speculation regarding the authorities in this case
> (although it's speculation that has become commonplace and routine among
> CTers, of course) is something I do not buy at all -- particularly when
> there are so many otrher people who could (and did) testify to the fact
> that Oswald was, indeed, on an upper TSBD floor around lunchtime. (Plus
> there's Howard Brennan as well, who saw Oswald actually murder JFK.)
>

No, Howard Brennan did not see Oswald shooting. Neither did Euins. You
have no witnesses, only perjury.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/tsbd-workers-and-elevators.html
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why do the WC defenders bother to cite him at all?

>>> Givens may or may not be lying.
>>
>> If Givens was lying, and Belin put him up to it, the case against
>> Oswald is called into question.
>
> How so?
>
>>> Several people know LHO reported for
>>> work that day and saw him back and forth to his work area. He was the
>>> only employee to abandon his job without permission from or notice to
>>> his supervisor.
>>
>> Not sure of this is true. A number of employees failed to return.
>
> All employees working for Truly were accounted for that day except
> LHO.
>
>> Oswald was the only one in the building to leave on his own, however.
>
> Which is called job abandonment and he could be disciplined for doing
> so, including being fired.
>
>>> As such he is legally AWOL and subject to
>>> disciplinary action.
>>
>> Silly. Work was not resumed. If he hadn't been implicated in the
>> shooting, he would have had his job on Monday.
>
> Not so. As a full time employee of TSBD he must have permission to leave
> his job. That permission might be granted after all employees were

Silly. The police had sealed off the building and Truly told the workers
there would be no more work done that. Was everyone paid for a full day
of work? Was Oswald?

> accounted for and then dismissed early. Employees working an 8 hour shift
> are not allowed to leave early without permission from their employer.

Do you get an hour long nap in your pre-school?

> LHO did not make a phone call from his house to inform his supervisor of
> where he was and why he left early without checking with Mr Truly.

Nor did Givens. So Givens must be the assassin! You've solved the case.
After all, Truly cleared Oswald when Baker was about to arrest him.

> Instead he grabbed a pistol and shot a police officer on the way to see a
> movie. Do you consider this reasonable behavior by an innocent man?
>

Why do you assume that he was on his way way to see a movie? You sound
like a conspiracy theorist. The ONLY reason to duck into the theater was
to hide from the police when he heard all the sirens.

>>> His rifle was found on the 6th floor and empty
>>> shells from the same ammo were found under the window from where shots
>>> were fired. A paper bag was found in the corner. LHO goes home and
>>> his landlady is watching TV about the shooting. She speaks to LHO but
>>> he doesn't respond or show any curiosity about the news. He goes to
>>> his room but doesn't take a nap. Instead he grabs a revolver and
>>> takes off down the street. Within a few minutes he murders a police
>>> officer execution style.
>>
>>> What makes you think Lee Harvey Oswald is an innocent man and not a
>>> cold blooded murderer?
>>
>> I have a book on this at patspeer.com. In short, I believe Oswald was
>> involved in some way, and that he probably killed Tippit, but that
>> Kennedy was killed by two shooters, Oswald not among them.
>
> In what way was LHO involved?

Look out man?

[Anthony Marsh]

That Givens did not suddenly make this up for the WC.
That Givens was telling different storied to different investigators.

[Sean Smiley]

Oh, uh, maybe because it suggests that no one shot from any half-open
window....
dcw
>
>
>
>
>
> > dcw

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Well, I've already shown it. Belin repeatedly claimed that Givens was
the last one to see Oswald in the building, even though he knew Piper
had consistently and from the beginning claimed to see Oswald at a
later time than Givens. That's called "lying."

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >            Belin may've been wrong not to pursue it, but I don't think
> > > you can show that he was "trying to deceive."  There *were* two
> > > different versions of Givens' story in the record -- the SS version
> > > placed Oswald on the 6th floor, while the FBI account didn't mention
> > > it.
>
> > I appreciate your trying not to think bad of the guy. But he's not
> > worth giving the benefit of the doubt. His failure to cross-examine
> > Givens about his story change was not an isolated incident. His
> > February 64 memo shows he knew Eddie Piper said he saw Oswald at 12.
> > His partner Ball took Piper's testimony in which Piper repeated his
> > claim he saw Oswald at 12. And yet the chapter written by Belin and
> > Ball claimed Givens was the last to see Oswald in the building. This
> > was not a mistake. In 1971, Sylvia Meagher wrote an article on Givens
> > in which Piper's statements were mentioned. Belin was shown this
> > article, and allowed to comment on this article. Two years later, his
> > book, November 22, 1963,: You Be The Jury, was published. Here, he
> > repeated the claim Givens was the last to see Oswald in the building
> > before the shooting not once, not twice, but three times, by my count.
> > He NEVER mentions Piper. The man was almost certainly a liar.
>
>            What was Belin's response to Meagher's article, I wonder.
>
>            The Warren Report called Piper and Jack Dougherty "confused
> witnesses" and therefore not credible.

No, it didn't. It said they were confused witnesses while discussing
the descent of Dougherty in the elevator after the shooting. It
carefully avoided ANY mention of Piper's consistent and repeated claim
he saw Oswald at noon. As the only reason offered for describing Piper
as "confused," moreover, was that Piper failed to mention seeing
Dougherty in his testimony, it seems clear that this was a deliberate
deception. You see, Belin's partner Ball questioned Piper and NEVER
asked him a single question about Dougherty.

> Dougherty was certainly confused.
> Piper I'm not sure about, but if Belin really thought so, it might explain
> why he ignored Piper.

You've got it all backwards. He had reason to doubt Givens' veracity
and honesty. He admitted as much in his memo. He had no reason to
doubt Piper. So if he accepted Givens' statement, but rejected Piper's
due to Piper's being "confused," it only goes to show how incredibly
incompetent he was. You must remember that Belin was supposed to be
acting as both prosecutor and defense attorney. Can you imagine a
defense attorney's allowing a witness to testify to an entirely
different story than previously told--that was very damaging to his
client--and not only not use this change to impeach the witness'
credibility, but blindly accept the brand new story?

> (I'm not giving Belin the benefit of the doubt to
> be kind, but because I don't want to base anything on suspicion alone.)
>
>             You seem to suspect that Belin persuaded Givens to change his
> story.

I'm not sure who convinced Givens to change his story, but Belin's
failure to confront Givens on his change of story while taking his
testimony suggests to me he knew it was coming. Compare Belin's
treatment of Givens to the treatment given Arnold Rowland, who caught
the WC by surprise when he claimed to see TWO men on the sixth floor
before the shooting.

>I can't imagine how that conversation might've gone, can you?
> The two were strangers to one another prior to the day he testified,
> right?
>
>              It's hard for me to believe that Belin would risk everything
> to suborn perjury for such a small result.  How could Belin be sure that
> Givens and anyone Givens confided in would never talk?

>How many others
> had to zip their lips for decades -- Revill, Sawyer, Kaiser (the clipboard
> owner), or was it Belin alone in your view?
>
>              IMO, Givens' testimony doesn't sound as if he were rehearsed
> or unsure of his story.

Really? It's clear to me he was just winging it, but knew he had to
put his seeing Oswald on the record.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Bud]

None of these witnesses ever indicated which particular opening in
the building they they were referring to?

>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > dcw

[Sean Smiley]

Brennan said the window was open like the windows on the 5th floor below
the "nest". Jackson said the window was wide open like the furthest west
window on the 6th floor....

dcw

[Sean Smiley]

Then Williams, Norman & Jarman were "confused", too--they failed to
mention seeing Dougherty on the 5th or 6th floor--and at least Williams
should have seen, or heard, him on the 6th floor....

dcw

[David Von Pein]

>>> "No, Howard Brennan did not see Oswald shooting." <<<

Sure he did, Tony. And we can know that he saw Oswald shooting JFK,
because the sum total of the evidence tells us that the only person
Brennan could have seen in that window firing at JFK was Lee H.
Oswald.

So there.

Now, let me hear you say "Fake Shells", "Fake C2766 Rifle", "Fake
Palmprint", "Fake Shirt Fibers", "Fake CE567", "Fake CE569", "Fake
CE399", and "Fake Paper Bag".

I want to hear you bury yourself in the above mountain of fake
evidence. Are you game?

[Bud]

the building they were referring to?

> dcw

[bigdog]

Just the sort of detail witnesses routinely get wrong because they don't
seem important enough to make note of at the time so their minds fill in
the blanks in their memory banks. We know they got this detail wrong
because the window they identified as the source of the shots was not all
the way open. We know that from the Dillard photo taken just seconds after
the shooting. We know thay window was only halfway open.

[Anthony Marsh]

You can can the kook baiting. Only a couple of pieces of evidence are
contaminated or destroyed. I never said anything about fake evidence.
In case you forgot I was the person who proved that the Zapruder film
is genuine. Not you.

Telling everyone where the missing third fragment from CE 840 is.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/ce840.jpghttp://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Rifle_Bullets/ce840.jpg

Did you pocket it?

Tell everyone where JFK's brain is now. Did you steal it?

Tell us where the chrome topping is.

Did you melt it down?

[claviger]

Anthony,

> Which brings up an interesting question. Was Oswald officially fired? Did
> he get a full paycheck for that week? What happened to that paycheck?

Interesting question. By today's employment law he would receive a
paycheck for time worked prior to being fired. That paycheck should be
sent to his widow. Wonder if it was? Maybe Gary Mack will know.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, just that no one SAW the shooter in the act of shooting.
The acoustical evidence proves that the shots were fired from the
shooter's nest.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> dcw
>
>

[Jean Davison]

Not if he had some reason to disregard Piper's testimony.
Besides, I was talking about Givens. Suspicion aside, can you show that
he lied? After that, can you show that anyone put him up to it? That's a
tall order, seems to me.

While it's true that witnesses who change their stories appear to
be unreliable, it doesn't work the other way around. Witnesses can often
be perfectly consistent, repeat something over and over, and still be dead
wrong.

>
>
>
> > > >            Belin may've been wrong not to pursue it, but I don't think
> > > > you can show that he was "trying to deceive."  There *were* two
> > > > different versions of Givens' story in the record -- the SS version
> > > > placed Oswald on the 6th floor, while the FBI account didn't mention
> > > > it.
>
> > > I appreciate your trying not to think bad of the guy. But he's not
> > > worth giving the benefit of the doubt. His failure to cross-examine
> > > Givens about his story change was not an isolated incident. His
> > > February 64 memo shows he knew Eddie Piper said he saw Oswald at 12.
> > > His partner Ball took Piper's testimony in which Piper repeated his
> > > claim he saw Oswald at 12. And yet the chapter written by Belin and
> > > Ball claimed Givens was the last to see Oswald in the building. This
> > > was not a mistake. In 1971, Sylvia Meagher wrote an article on Givens
> > > in which Piper's statements were mentioned. Belin was shown this
> > > article, and allowed to comment on this article. Two years later, his
> > > book, November 22, 1963,: You Be The Jury, was published. Here, he
> > > repeated the claim Givens was the last to see Oswald in the building
> > > before the shooting not once, not twice, but three times, by my count.
> > > He NEVER mentions Piper. The man was almost certainly a liar.
>
> >            What was Belin's response to Meagher's article, I wonder.
>
> >            The Warren Report called Piper and Jack Dougherty "confused
> > witnesses" and therefore not credible.
>
> No, it didn't. It said they were confused witnesses while discussing
> the descent of Dougherty in the elevator after the shooting.

It said, "Both Dougherty and Piper were confused witnesses. They
had no exact memory of the events of that afternoon." Assuming that's
true, they would not be credible witnesses, IMO, and that's what I meant.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=177

> It
> carefully avoided ANY mention of Piper's consistent and repeated claim
> he saw Oswald at noon. As the only reason offered for describing Piper
> as "confused," moreover, was that Piper failed to mention seeing
> Dougherty in his testimony, it seems clear that this was a deliberate
> deception. You see, Belin's partner Ball questioned Piper and NEVER
> asked him a single question about Dougherty.

I think that passage is talking about Dougherty's
credibility, more than Piper's.

> > Dougherty was certainly confused.
> > Piper I'm not sure about, but if Belin really thought so, it might explain
> > why he ignored Piper.
>
> You've got it all backwards. He had reason to doubt Givens' veracity
> and honesty. He admitted as much in his memo. He had no reason to
> doubt Piper. So if he accepted Givens' statement, but rejected Piper's
> due to Piper's being "confused," it only goes to show how incredibly
> incompetent he was.

He had no reason to doubt Piper that you know of, but Piper
told two stories on where the shots came from, what Oswald said to him,
and why he left the window to go to a table after the shots. Other things
he said were kind of odd, IMO. He wasn't sure whether Baker was a
policeman, for instance:

QUOTE:
.
Mr. BALL. You understand since this is a continuation of your
deposition you are under oath still?
Mr. PIPER. Thank you; I appreciate it.
Mr. BALL. Your deposition has been taken?
Mr. PIPER Yes; that's right.
Mr. BALL. I'm going to just ask you a few questions.
Mr. PIPER. Sure, that's all right.
Mr. BALL. You told us that after the shooting you came out onto the
floor?
Mr. PIPER. That's right.
Mr. BALL. And the first people that you saw on the floor after the
shooting was who?
Mr. PIPER. Mr. Truly and some fellow---I really don't know who it was;
like I say, it was some fellow that was with Mr. Truly.
Mr. BALL. Some fellow; how was he dressed?
Mr. PIPER. Oh, I don't know.
Mr. BALL. Was he an officer?
Mr. PIPER. Yes; I believe he was an officer.
Mr. BALL. A police officer?
Mr. PIPER. Yes; a police officer.
Mr. BALL. Did he have a white helmet on?
Mr. PIPER. No; I don't think so. I didn't pay any attention to it. I
was already excited over the shooting or something when he came
running into the building.
UNQUOTE

Elsewhere he said he didn't know whether Baker was a
policeman or FBI agent, yet Baker was in uniform and wearing a helmet.

> You must remember that Belin was supposed to be
> acting as both prosecutor and defense attorney. Can you imagine a
> defense attorney's allowing a witness to testify to an entirely
> different story than previously told--that was very damaging to his
> client--and not only not use this change to impeach the witness'
> credibility, but blindly accept the brand new story?

The Secret Service report shows that Givens' testimony *wasn't*
an entirely different story. There is also some support for it. The 6th
floor crew had seen/heard Oswald on the 5th floor as they rode the
elevators downstairs around 11:45. Oswald could've gone up one flight as
soon as the flooring crew left in order to be there by the time Givens
came back upstairs. And the clipboard Givens said he saw was found there
near the stairwell.

>
> > (I'm not giving Belin the benefit of the doubt to
> > be kind, but because I don't want to base anything on suspicion alone.)
>
> >             You seem to suspect that Belin persuaded Givens to change his
> > story.
>
> I'm not sure who convinced Givens to change his story, but Belin's
> failure to confront Givens on his change of story while taking his
> testimony suggests to me he knew it was coming.

He had the Secret Service report saying that Givens saw Oswald
on the 6th floor and the FBI report that didn't mention it. Belin didn't
bring up the 6th floor sighting during his testimony, Givens did. I wish
Belin had asked him why he didn't mention it before, but he didn't.

>Compare Belin's
> treatment of Givens to the treatment given Arnold Rowland, who caught
> the WC by surprise when he claimed to see TWO men on the sixth floor
> before the shooting.

Seeing two men with rifles there is a MUCH bigger deal than
seeing Oswald on the sixth floor at 11:50. Oswald might've been up there
filling a book order according to Givens.

QUOTE:

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember whether or not there were any books or book
cartons over in that corner from which he might have been filling
orders?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, yes, sir; it was possible.
Mr. BELIN. It was possible?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.

UNQUOTE

Does that sound like someone following a script?

>
> >I can't imagine how that conversation might've gone, can you?
> > The two were strangers to one another prior to the day he testified,
> > right?
>
> >              It's hard for me to believe that Belin would risk everything
> > to suborn perjury for such a small result.  How could Belin be sure that
> > Givens and anyone Givens confided in would never talk?
> >How many others
> > had to zip their lips for decades -- Revill, Sawyer, Kaiser (the clipboard
> > owner), or was it Belin alone in your view?

I was hoping you'd reply to this.

>
> >              IMO, Givens' testimony doesn't sound as if he were rehearsed
> > or unsure of his story.
>
> Really? It's clear to me he was just winging it, but knew he had to
> put his seeing Oswald on the record.

How is that apparent to you?

Most if not all of the things CTs typically complain about could
easily be thrown out without exonerating Oswald -- Givens, the palm print,
the BY photos, etc. I regret discussing these things over and over,
because they don't really matter very much. The best evidence against
Oswald can't be refuted because it involves events that are set in stone,
like his known movements on 11/22. The Education Forum thread reminded me
of that. How could anyone hope to frame Oswald without controlling his
movements? Suppose he went outside and turned up in the Altgens photo.
And then he told reporters he was inside the building at the time. Makes
no sense.

Would you be interested in providing a frame-up scenario,
Pat? (Just kidding, I know that's not your thing.)

Jean

[claviger]

Anthony,

> Then why do the WC defenders bother to cite him at all?

One of several witnesses who saw LHO that day. Givens was the last
witness to see him prior to the shooting. He saw LHO doing his job in the
area right where he was supposed to be. LHO still had time to go
downstairs and back before shots were fired.

> Silly. The police had sealed off the building and Truly told the workers
> there would be no more work done that. Was everyone paid for a full day
> of work? Was Oswald?

Truly called a company meeting of all employees in his department. He
could have required them to stay on the job so police could question them
or for their own safety. Doesn't matter, employees must have permission
from management to leave before their designated workday is over. Only
one employee left without permission or checking in, LHO.

> > LHO did not make a phone call from his house to inform his supervisor of
> > where he was and why he left early without checking with Mr Truly.
>
> Nor did Givens. So Givens must be the assassin! You've solved the case.

Givens did check in with his employer. He was then asked to make a
statement to police which he did.

> After all, Truly cleared Oswald when Baker was about to arrest him.

He didn't "clear" him. Truly simply identified him as an employee of
TSBD. Baker could have held him for further questioning but was in too
big a hurry to get to the roof.

> > Instead he grabbed a pistol and shot a police officer on the way to see a
> > movie.  Do you consider this reasonable behavior by an innocent man?
>
> Why do you assume that he was on his way way to see a movie? You sound
> like a conspiracy theorist. The ONLY reason to duck into the theater was
> to hide from the police when he heard all the sirens.

CTs seem to think LHO was innocent of any wrong doing. He simply played
hooky from work to go see a movie. You know, like Ferris Bueller's Day
Off. He mistook Tippit for a truant officer.

[claviger]

That leaves only two choices: the shots came from an all the way closed
window or all the way open window. Were there any 1/3 open windows or 3/4
open windows?

[claviger]

Anthony,

> >> An FBI memo from November 23, 1963 states:
>
> >>            Oswald was observed on the fifth floor of the building in
> >> which he was employed at approximately 11:50 a.m., November 22,
> >> 1963.
>
> > Yes, so what's your point?
>
> That Givens did not suddenly make this up for the WC.
> That Givens was telling different storied to different investigators.

Givens is one of several witnesses to see LHO that day. He was pulling
books from the 5th and 6th floors. Givens saw him on the 6th floor a few
minutes before lunch break. So far nothing out of the ordinary. Givens
is a witness LHO was doing his job. LHO also had time to move around
before the motorcade arrived. If Givens, Norman, Williams, Jarman had
decided to watch the parade from the 6th floor LHO might have gone to the
5th floor to shoot at the Presidential Limousine.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "You can can the kook baiting. Only a couple of pieces of evidence are
contaminated or destroyed." <<<

Good. Then Oswald's definitely guilty.

Good to know we agree on that fact anyway.

[bigdog]

I'm not sure if the paycheck would go into the estate or whether it was
just considered community property. Either way, in lieu of a will, Marina
would get the money. Before I retired, I was in charge of the computer
system that handled the payroll for the State of Ohio. Employees dying in
the middle of a pay period was not an uncommon occurance. There would
usually be a few every pay period. Those warrants(checks) required special
handling.

We had an incident in which the estranged spouse of a state employee came
into her office and shot her and her boss dead. This happened at about
10:00 in the morning. I had a morbid curiosity about how the state would
handle the situtation from a payroll standpoint. I checked the payroll
file and saw that both victims were docked a half a day's pay for the day
they were killed and were not paid for the remainder of the pay period.
I'm sure this was not the first time an employee had died on the job so
it's probable that the state had a policy for such occurances and they
were simply following the letter of the law.

We had another odd situation that came up in this regard. Typically the
employee earning statements would contain public service messages. Some of
these were automatically generated, such as reminders to check driver's
license renewal dates when the employees birthday rolled around. Others
could be manually entered by the payroll officers. While running a test
for a program change we were making, I noticed a message on a deceased
persons earning statement that read "FOR BETTER HEALTH, EAT FIVE SERVINGS
OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES EVERY DAY". I brought that to the attention of
the payroll officers and suggested it might be a good idea if we made a
program change to bypass the optional messages for deceased warrants. They
didn't have to ponder that one too long before agreeing to the change.

[charles wallace]

On Feb 9, 8:47 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 2/9/2012 7:43 PM, charles wallace wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 11:45 am, Jean Davison<jean.davis...@gmail.com>  wrote:

> >> the Secret Service, and since he had contradictory statements, Belin took

> >> his testimony without ever talking to him beforehand (to avoid appearing
> >> to sway him, I suppose).  And in fact, at the end of Givens' testimony,
> >> there's this exchange.
>
> >> QUOTE:
> >> Mr. BELIN. You walked into the room and you raised your right hand and
> >> we started taking your testimony. Is that correct?
> >> Mr. GIVENS. Yes, sir.
> >> Mr. BELIN. Have I ever met you before?
> >> Mr. GIVENS. I don't believe so. I don't believe I have.
> >> UNQUOTE
>
> >>           I think I'd agree with you that Belin should've confronted him on
> >> this contradiction.  On the other hand, there was other evidence that
> >> Givens initially said he saw Oswald on the sixth floor. Both Sawyer and
> >> Revill testified that the police went looking for Givens for this reason.
> >> (Two more lying witnesses?)
>

> >>           I've never seen that SS document, but it might be on the Ferrell
> >> site -- or not (a lot of SS docs went missing, apparently). I found one at
> >> the NA site dated 12/07/63.
>
> >>http://www.nara.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/9339/jfksnew.txt
>
> >>> 4. The claim Givens was the last to see Oswald allowed the commission to
> >>> claim Oswald never came down for lunch. This helped them paint him as the
> >>> assassin. They did this even though the far more consistent Eddie Piper
> >>> repeatedly claimed to see Oswald on the ground floor at 12, well after
> >>> Givens claimed to see him.
>
> >>> 5.  When interviewed by CBS in 1967, Givens had changed his story yet
> >>> again, so that he was now claiming to have seen Oswald after Piper had
> >>> seen him.
>
> >>             Can we be sure that he gave a different time earlier? (Don't
> >> recall what this is from.)
>

> >> Jean
> >> [snip]
>
> > Givens testimony about seeing Oswald about noon when he went to get his
> > cigarettes is entirely truthful.  This testimony taken with DPD Sawyer
> > testimony, DPD Fritz testimony, Arnold Rowland testimony, Lillian
> > Mooneyham FBI statement and the photographic facial image shown in Dillard
> > prove it was a DPD officer that fired Oswald's rifle.  It explains why
> > Oswald shot and killed DPD Tippit.  It explains why Oswald blamed the DPD
> > for the assassination according to DPD Fritz.  Did not Fritz say, he
> > (Oswald) accused me of being to blame for the assassination?
>
> There is no facial image of the sixth floor showing anyone in the
> Dillard photo.

You mean there is no facial image in the Dillard original negative because
it was utterly destroyed !!! THE SMALL AREA OF THE NEGATIVE THAT IS
COMPLETELY DESTROYED JUST HAPPENS TO BE WHERE THE FACE WAS !!!! The face
is there in the good photos of Dillard that are still left.

[Sean Smiley]

Funny story.... Jackson's first choice for window shots came from was
the all the way closed second window from the end on the 6th floor.
dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

Then show me where you think the face is.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/12/2012 7:20 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "You can can the kook baiting. Only a couple of pieces of evidence are
> contaminated or destroyed."<<<
>
> Good. Then Oswald's definitely guilty.
>

The evidence does not prove Oswald guilty. Only the WC lies.
The evidence proves it was a conspiracy. I doubt that Oswald would be
part of a conspiracy.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Show me the memo or footnote in which Belin offered us a reason to
doubt Piper's consistent statements, and accept Givens' inconsistent
statements over them. Absent such a memo or footnote, it's pretty
clear he lied, IMO. Let's create an analogy. Say Belin is Mark Lane.
Mark Lane writes a book, years after Brennan ID'ed Oswald, in which he
claims no one EVER identified Oswald as the shooter, and NEVER
mentions Brennan in the book, even to say he was not a credible
witness. You'd call him a liar, wouldn't you? I know I would.

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946...

>
> > It
> > carefully avoided ANY mention of Piper's consistent and repeated claim
> > he saw Oswald at noon. As the only reason offered for describing Piper
> > as "confused," moreover, was that Piper failed to mention seeing
> > Dougherty in his testimony, it seems clear that this was a deliberate
> > deception. You see, Belin's partner Ball questioned Piper and NEVER
> > asked him a single question about Dougherty.
>
>            I think that passage is talking about Dougherty's
> credibility, more than Piper's.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Dougherty was certainly confused.
> > > Piper I'm not sure about, but if Belin really thought so, it might explain
> > > why he ignored Piper.
>
> > You've got it all backwards. He had reason to doubt Givens' veracity
> > and honesty. He admitted as much in his memo. He had no reason to
> > doubt Piper. So if he accepted Givens' statement, but rejected Piper's
> > due to Piper's being "confused," it
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Anthony Marsh]

Why is Oswald routinely doing his job if you think he should be
preparing to kill the President?

[Anthony Marsh]

What is this open window nonsense about? The acoustical evidence proves
that three shots came from the sniper's nest and that window was open
only 13 inches.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't know of any one who is kooky enough to say that the reason why
Oswald left work was to go to a movie.

[claviger]

I suppose that's possible if a window was open slightly, then closed
quickly after making the shot.

[claviger]

On Feb 13, 5:47 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 2/12/2012 7:20 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>> "You can can the kook baiting. Only a couple of pieces of evidence are
> > contaminated or destroyed."<<<
>
> > Good. Then Oswald's definitely guilty.
>
> The evidence does not prove Oswald guilty.

Are you saying the rifle and empty shells do not indicate Oswald is
guilty? And the shots came from one of the floors where LHO was scheduled
to work that day. Then there are the actions of LHO going AWOL after the
crime, leading to the murder of a police officer! How does all this add
up to an innocent bystander?

> Only the WC lies.

What lies?

> The evidence proves it was a conspiracy.

What evidence?

> I doubt that Oswald would be part of a conspiracy.

Perhaps you're right. LHO had a Lone Assassin type mindset. He wanted
the all the notoriety for this shocking crime. Then he played the poor
little patsy to manipulate public sympathy, his way of showing how stupid
the public can be. LHO was finally the center of attention and loving it,
until Ruby rained on his parade. So one self appointed assassin got cut
off by another. Ruby decided two can play this game.

[claviger]

What do you want him to do, go through dry firing exercises with his mail
order rifle until the motorcade arrives? How about remain in normal work
mode so as to not cause suspicion?

[claviger]

On Feb 13, 5:48 am, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

Anthony,

If LHO was innocent then explain his bizarre behavior that day. He
decided to use all the confusion caused by the assassination to skip out
on work and spend the day browsing stores in downtown Oakcliff? If true
why take a pistol? Was he going to rob one of the store cash registers?

[Sean Smiley]

Yes, in fact Jackson indicated, as his first choice, the second window

[Sean Smiley]

Like which floor the rifle was on. At least, that would seem to be an
*easier* mistake. But all witnesses (but one) who were asked, in
testimony, how far open the window was said all the way.
dcw

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why do you need Oswald to be on the sixth floor at noon if it is not
a necessary element to frame him? You could have him go up at the last
possible second after establishing his alibi on the first floor. Is it
possible that someone realized that the limo should have gone past the
TSBD earlier than it actually did and they'd want Oswald in place in
plenty of time in case the limo was earlier than expected? It was due at
the Trade Mart by 12:30.

[Anthony Marsh]

The Dillard and Powell photos show the windows were not closed after the
shots. Guess again.

[burgundy]

> why take a pistol?  Was he going to rob one of the store cash registers?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No he was going to meet his CIA "contact" in an afternoon movie
theatre (where such meetings were often held due to sparse audiences)
to try and find out why he was set up. Explains everything he did post-
assassination.

Burgundy

[claviger]

Anthony,

> Then why do you need Oswald to be on the sixth floor at noon if it is not
> a necessary element to frame him? You could have him go up at the last
> possible second after establishing his alibi on the first floor. Is it
> possible that someone realized that the limo should have gone past the
> TSBD earlier than it actually did and they'd want Oswald in place in
> plenty of time in case the limo was earlier than expected? It was due at
> the Trade Mart by 12:30.

That was my point. At 11:50 LHO had time to go down and establish an
alibi of being seen on the first floor and return to the 6th floor
window. However, I believe he stayed on the 6th floor and was seen by
the Rowlands at 12:15 on the west end of the 6th floor, perhaps for
more privacy to put his rifle together and why Williams did not see
him on his visit to the 6th floor at 12:20. Carolyn Arnold was
mistaken about seeing LHO down on the first floor at 12:25. It was
probably Billy Lovelady she saw standing in the doorway.

[Anthony Marsh]

Except that she knew them both and could tell the difference and spoke
to Oswald.
But thanks for trying to make excuses when none are needed.

[claviger]

With all the focus on Givens we seem to forget the following affidavit
by Jack Dougherty:

AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, Patsy Collins, a Notary Public in and for said County,
State of Texas, on this day personally appeared Jack E. Dougherty w/m/
40, 1827 So.Marsalis WH-6-7170 who, after being by me duly sworn, on
oath deposes and says:

I am employed at the Texas School Book Depository at 411 Elm and have been
since 1952. I was working on the sixth floor today. There was [sic] six of
us working on the floor. The others were Bill Lovelady, William Shelby,
Danny Arce, Bonnie Williams, and Charles Givens. I went back to work at
12:45 p.m. I had already gone back to work and I gone down on the fifth
[sic] to get some stock when I heard a shot. It sounded like it was coming
from inside the building, but I couldn't tell from where. I went down on
the first floor, and asked a man named Eddie Piper if he had heard
anything and he said yes, that he had heard three shots. I then went back
on the sixth floor. I didn't see anyone on the floor except the people I
named. There was another employee that is named Lee Oswald that I saw on
the sixth floor. He works all over the building, but I saw him on the
sixth floor shortly before noon. I didn't see Oswald in the building after
lunch.

/s/ Jack E. Dougherty

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME THIS 22 DAY OF November A.D. 1963

/s/ Patsy Collins
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas

Again witnesses can be confusing in the way they talk. If he went back to
work at 12:45 that is 15 minutes after the shooting. Evidently he was on
the 5th floor at the time shots were fired. He too places LHO on the 6th
floor "shortly before noon" thus corroborating Givens seeing LHO up there.
LHO had time for one trip downstairs and still be in position to fire on
the motorcade. I think it more likely he stayed on the 6th floor to
prepare his rifle and make a final decision on where to take his shot.

[claviger]

NOVEMBER 22, 1963 (Friday)
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono2.pdf

Bonnie Ray Williams and Billy Lovelady testify that they see Oswald on
the fifth floor, waiting impatiently for them to send one of the
elevators back up so he can come down. The scenario is that the
employees race the elevators to the first floor. Charles Givens sees
LHO standing at the gate on the fifth floor as the elevator goes by.

11:45 AM (Nov. 22, 1963) Charles Givens, an employee at The Texas Book
Depository Building and a known narcotics user with a police record,
later testifies that he works on the sixth floor until this time, then
goes downstairs. As his elevator passes the fifth floor, he sees Lee
Harvey Oswald. Givens, according to his testimony, then realizes he
has left his cigarettes on the sixth floor and takes the elevator back
upstairs to get his jacket with the cigarettes in it. He sees Oswald,
clipboard in hand, walking from the southeast corner of the sixth
floor toward the elevator.
(It is physically impossible for Givens to see Oswald, as he testifies
he did, unless without any reason for doing so he walked far to the
east of the elevator. It has been suggested that Givens, a black man
with a drug record, was pressured into his story by the Dallas police.
Givens, like Oswald, was missing from the Book Depository Building
after the assassination.)

11:50 AM (Nov. 22, 1963) Charles Givens now observes LHO reading a
newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch. This room
is on the first floor of the Book Depository Building. (He will later
deny testifying to this fact.) William Shelley will testify that he
sees Oswald on the first floor when he [Shelly] “came down to eat
lunch about ten to twelve.” AATF / H&L

12:15 PM (Nov. 22, 1963) Arnold Rowland, a bystander in the Plaza,
asks his wife if she would like to see a Secret Service agent. He
points to a window on the sixth floor where he has noticed “a man back
from the window -- he was standing and holding a rifle ... we thought
momentarily that maybe we should tell someone, but then the thought
came to us that it is a security agent.” The man Rowland sees in NOT
stationed in the now famous sixth floor window, but in the far left-
hand window. Rowland also spots a second figure at the famous right-
hand window. This second man is dark complexioned, and Rowland thinks
he is a Negro.

12:20 PM (Nov. 22, 1963) Bonnie Ray Williams testifies that, at this
time, the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building is apparently
vacant as he leaves it to go downstairs. Williams has gone to the
sixth floor to eat his lunch. (The Warren Commission will later say
that Oswald is on the sixth floor from 11:55 AM until 12:30 P.M.)

12:25 PM (Nov. 22, 1963) Depository employee Carolyn Arnold sees
Oswald on the first floor near the front door of the building.

On Houston Street, waiting to see the president are two county clerks,
Ronald Fischer and Robert Edwards. According to their affidavits, they
see a man through the window on the fifth floor of the School Book
Depository Building at this time. Two men who work for the city and
county see a man in the sixth-floor window, only he’s staring
“transfixed” at the area of the grassy knoll, and not at the
motorcade. One of the men remarks to the other that the man in the
window looks “uncomfortable,” like he “must be hiding or something.”
The man in the window is wearing an “open neck...sport shirt or a T-
shirt...light in color, probably white” and they mention
a “sport shirt...yellow.”

Of the sixty-nine people who work in the TSBD, only thirty-three are
employees of the company who owns the building. Prior to this past
summer, the building has been occupied by a wholesale grocery company
engaged in supplying restaurants and institutions. Since the year it
was built in 1903, this building located at 411 Elm Street has
primarily functioned as a warehouse. In order to make it more suitable
as an office building, extensive and very costly modifications are now
underway inside. Though the building is seven stories tall, the inside
passenger elevator, recently installed, only goes as high as the
fourth floor. The machinery for lifting it is on the fifth floor. When
the passenger elevator became operational, the stairway in the
northwest corner was closed off in lieu of “repairs.” No one is
allowed to use it. The nature of the repairs on the stairway remains
unknown, although they are not the kind that will prevent heavy use of
the stairs later this day. The installation of an elevator which only
goes up to the fourth floor, followed by the closure of the northwest
stairway, creates a situation which makes the upper floors effectively
off-limits to everyone except those who are assigned warehouse
duties.

Several witnesses will see a gunman on the fifth floor of this
building; also on the fifth floor at the time of the shooting are four
warehouse men. Six warehouse workers have spent the entire morning on
the sixth floor covering the old floor with new sheets of plywood.
Unlike the office workers of the Book Depository, these warehouse men
do not receive standard payroll checks; instead they are paid in cash.
There will also be eventual evidence that three employee time charts
for this day, later printed in the Warren Commission Exhibits, show
signs of fraudulent fabrication. Because of the construction of new
flooring on this date, the sixth floor has the most employees assigned
to it of any of the upper three floors.

Bonnie Ray Williams, James Jarman, Harold Norman and Jack Dougherty
are on the 5th floor of the TSBD.

Positioned in the front doorway of the Texas School Book Depository,
watching the motorcade are: Wesley Buell Frazier, Danny Arce, Billy
Lovelady and -- fifteen feet away, near a lone v-shaped oak tree --
Mr. Roy Truly and Mr. Ochus Campbell.

[claviger]

[PDF] NOVEMBER 22, 1963 (Friday)
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono2.pdf - similar
pages22, 1963)

Harold Norman, Junior Jarman and B.R. Williams are watching to
motorcade from a fifth floor window in the Texas Book Depository
building. This window is directly under the “sniper’s nest” window on
the sixth floor. Norman will later testify that he can hear: “Boom,
Click-Click, Boom, Click-Click, Boom.” (Norman will continue to work
at the TSBD for over 30 more years and will disavow some of the
reports in his Warren Commission testimony.)
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono2.pdf
...................

Anyone know what Norman later disavowed in his WC testimony?

[claviger]

> No he was going to meet his CIA "contact" in an afternoon movie
> theatre (where such meetings were often held due to sparse audiences)
> to try and find out why he was set up. Explains everything he did post-
> assassination.
>
> Burgundy

Here you go:
______________________________________________________

1:45 PM, (Nov. 22, 1963) Police cars are immediately dispatched to the
Texas Theater. Police broadcasts report “Have information a suspect
just went into the Texas Theater ... Supposed to be hiding in the
balcony” (17H418). When the police arrive, they are told by a “young
female,” probably Julia Postal, that the man is in the balcony. The
police who enter the front of the theater go to the balcony. They are
questioning a young man when Officers Walker, McDonald and Hutson
enter the rear of the theater. Hutson counts seven theater patrons on
the main level. From the record, these seven break down as follows:
•2 Two boys (half way down center section searched by Walker &
McDonald while Hutson look on)
•1 Oswald (3rd row from back-center section)
•1 Jack Davis (right rear section-Oswald first sat next to him)
•1 Unknown person (across the aisle from Davis-Oswald left his seat
next to Davis and moved to a seat next to this person; Oswald then got
up and walked into the theater lobby)
•1 George Applin (6 rows from back-center section)
George Applin was a patron in the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963,
when Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested there
for the murder of Police Officer J. D. Tippit. Applin told the Warren
Commission that during Oswald’s arrest, he observed a man sitting in
the rear of the theater who not only appeared uninterested in the film
but also quietly watched over the arrest while other patrons were
ducking for cover. In 1979, Applin admitted to the Dallas Morning News
that he later recognized Jack Ruby as the man he had seen in the movie
house. He said he was afraid to tell the police or the Commission what
he knew in 1964 because he had read an article about the deaths of
people who were witnesses to the assassination or connected in some
way to the incident. Crossfire
•1 John Gibson (1st seat from the back on the far right side)
______________________________________________________
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono2.pdf

Obviously the CIA contact is the unknown person with Ruby keeping an
eye on both of them.

[burgundy]

> ______________________________________________________http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono2.pdf

>
> Obviously the CIA contact is the unknown person with Ruby keeping an
> eye on both of them.

No you don't get it. The CIA contact told him to go there..... where the
contact (say Joaniddes or "Maurice Bishop") knew he would be arrested and
a wallet would be dropped at the Tippit murder scene with a Hidell ID and
they'd find a Hidell id on him and it's case closed. He's a patsy, clear
and simple.

[claviger]

Danny Arce corroborates Givens:

AFFIDAVIT IN ANY FACT
THE STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS

BEFORE ME, Mary Rattan, a Notary Public in and for said County, State of
Texas, on this day personally appeared Danny Garcia Arce w/m/18 of 1502
Bennett, TA1 3289 who, after being by me duly sworn, on oath deposes and
says:

I am employed at Texas School Book Depository at 411 Elm. I work all over
the building. I was working on the sixth floor all morning. At lunch time
at 12:00 noon I went down on the street to see the parade, and get a look
at the President. I was standing on the corner of Elm and Houston, and I
heard three shots ring out. I didn't know what had happened until I heard
a woman scream that the President had been shot. While working on the
sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository the only people I saw all
morning was [sic] Bill Shelly [sic], Bonnie Ray Williams, Charles Douglas
Givens, Billy Lovelady and Jack E. Dougherty. The only person I saw was a
real old man, and he had on an old brown suit and a western type hat. I
saw this man leave the building and drive off in an old black Buick. This
man was not carrying anything in his hands when I saw him. This man was in
the building after lunch. This man left in the car before the President
was shot. I didn't see any other people in the building but this old man,
other than the people that I named that worked there. There was another
employee that I saw named Lee Oswald. He was on the first floor of the
building when I saw him at 8:00 am. He is the same man I saw the police
bring into the Homicide Bureau about 2:00 pm. I also saw him on the 5th
floor as we were leaving for lunch at 11:50 am.

/s/ Danny Garcia Arce

[claviger]

On Feb 14, 1:08 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:

BILLY LOVELADY TESTIMONY

Mr. BALL - Did Oswald ever eat lunch with you?
Mr. LOVELADY - He ate two or three times in that little domino room,
but not by himself, with the rest of the boys.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him come to Work that morning?
Mr. LOVELADY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see him carry a sack or anything in his hand?
Mr. LOVELADY - No, sir; just lunch.
Mr. BALL - Did he usually carry his lunch or did he buy his lunch?
Mr. LOVELADY - Most of the time he had fruit and stuff like that,
grapes and raisins, stuff like that I noticed a few times he had.
Mr. BALL - What time did you quit work that day or knock off for lunch
that day?
Mr. LOVELADY - Same time, 12.
Mr. BALL - A little before 12?
Mr. LOVELADY - Well, we came down at 10 minutes til to wash up and get
ready for it.
Mr. BALL - Did you come down the elevator?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Who did you go down with?
Mr. LOVELADY - Let me see, I think it was Bonnie Ray Williams on the
side I was; I believe so.
Mr. BALL - Were you having a race with the other boys?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes, sir; sure was.
Mr. BALL - Did you see anything or hear anything of Oswald on the way
down?
Mr. LOVELADY - Yes; he was on the opposite side of the elevator I was
on. I heard him holler to one of the boys to stop, he wanted the
elevator. They said, "No; we're going down to lunch," and closed the
gate I was on and come down and got ready to watch the President come
by or got ready to go to lunch, and that's the last I heard of him.
Mr. BALL - You were on the west elevator?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Oswald was standing in front of the east elevator?
Mr. LOVELADY - East, on back, the elevator back.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him?
Mr. LOVELADY - No; I didn't; I just heard his voice because---where
those slats are in back of the elevator.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see him again that day?
Mr. LOVELADY - No.

The last answer confirms LHO was not standing in the doorway on the
first floor watching the parade.

[claviger]

On Feb 14, 1:08 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:

More corroboration:

WILLIAM SHELLY TESTIMONY

Mr. BALL - Did you know Lee Oswald?
Mr. SHELLEY - He worked for me.
Mr. BALL - What kind of work did he do for you?
Mr. SHELLEY - He did good work.
Mr. BALL - What?
Mr. SHELLEY - He did good work.
Mr. BALL - What was it?
Mr. SHELLEY - Order filling.
Mr. BALL - As an order filler did he have access to any more than one
floor?
Mr. SHELLEY - Oh, yes.
Mr. BALL - How many floors?
Mr. SHELLEY - Just about any of them outside the offices.
Mr. BALL - Were there certain floors that he worked more upon which he
worked more frequently than other floors?
Mr. SHELLEY - The first floor is where all the order filling is done;
the 5th, 6th, 7th floor are used for storage and when they need stock
on the first floor anybody goes up and gets it.
Mr. BALL - So he would work mostly on the first floor and sometimes on
5, 6, and 7, is that what you mean?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever talk to him?
Mr. SHELLEY - Not too much; he wasn't too talkative. If I had
something I wanted him to do, I would tell him and he usually did it.
Mr. BALL - His work was satisfactory?
Mr. SHELLEY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - On the 22d of November 1963, did you see him come to work
that morning?
Mr. SHELLEY - No, he was at work when I got there already filling
orders.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him from time to time during that day?
Mr. SHELLEY - I am sure I did. I do remember seeing him when I came
down to. eat lunch about 10 to 12.
Mr. BALL - Where had you been working?
Mr. SHELLEY - I had been on the sixth floor with the boys laying that
floor that morning.
Mr. BALL - What time did you go down and eat lunch?
Mr. SHELLEY - It was around 10 'til.

[claviger]

An initial search of the garage of the Paine home in Irving, Texas --
where Oswald has stored belongings -- reveals no backyard photographs.
The Dallas Police list of property that is seized contains the
following item: “four 3 x 5 cards bearing respectively names G. Hall;
A. J. Hidell; B. Davis; and V.T. Lee.” Hall, Davis and Lee are real
persons of some prominence in political movements of the Left.

In Oswald’s personal effects found in his room at 1026 North Beckley
Avenue in Dallas is a purported international certificate of
vaccination signed by “Dr. A. J. Hidell,” Post Office Box 30016, New
Orleans. It certifies that Lee Harvey Oswald has been vaccinated for
smallpox on June 8, 1963. This, too, is a forgery. The signature of
“A. J. Hidell" is in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald. There is no
“Dr. Hidell” licensed to practice medicine in Louisiana. W.C.
There is immediate publicity on November 22, 1963 about the alias
“O.H. Lee,” which becomes known after investigation, but NOT about
Hidell, supposedly discovered at once in a search of Oswald’s person.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n1/chrono2.pdf

[claviger]

burgundy,

> No you don't get it. The CIA contact told him to go there..... where the
> contact (say Joaniddes or "Maurice Bishop") knew he would be arrested and
> a wallet would be dropped at the Tippit murder scene with a Hidell ID and
> they'd find a Hidell id on him and it's case closed. He's a patsy, clear
> and simple.

Or a minimal low tech sniper who managed to hit a target 2/3 times and was
lucky enough to escape with no getaway strategy other than hang out in a
local Movie Theater until he can plan his next move. Had he paid for his
ticket he may not have attracted so much notice and still be on the run
the next day. Penny wise, pound foolish got him arrested.

[Anthony Marsh]

Wow, thanks for clearing that up for us after so many years.
Oh, and BTW never rely on witnesses, especially the ones you cherry pick
because they support your pet theories.

[Sean Smiley]

He's the patsy, but the wallet at the Tippit scene was I believe WW
Scoggins'....
dcw

[claviger]

Based on your comments in this discussion I can only assume you believe
Givens was the sniper and LHO was standing in the doorway on the first
floor watching the parade go by. He then ran to the lunchroom to get a
Coke before making a dash for the bus stop. Thinking Givens must be hot on
his trail he grabs his pistol as soon as he gets home and heads for the
nearest Movie Theater to hide out. On the way LHO shot a policeman fearing
he would tell Givens that he was on foot in the neighborhood. Does that
about sum it up?

[burgundy]

> dcw- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

No the name Oswad and Hidel were in that walet per Hosty's book and
the query made by the cop who found it, asking if anyone there knew
those names.