info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Ray Marcus And Darrell Tomlinson
75 views
Skip to first unread message
David Von Pein
Dec 1, 2011, 12:20:30 PM12/1/11
to
Robert Harris
Dec 3, 2011, 12:15:24 AM12/3/11
to
In article
<5a3a9596-9bd2-438c...@ca1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453
Ok, so "Ray Marcus" claimed that in 1966, Tomlinson contradicted his own
testimony before the Warren Commission and his own denial to the FBI, that
he could verify that CE399 was the stretcher bullet.
I guess his memory must have improved over those three years, eh:-)
And why is it that you, who have made a career out of calling witnesses
and researchers, "liars", are so eager to accept this guy's uncorroborated
claim without a recorded interview or even a transcript of his alleged
conversation?
In fact, we aren't even given a verbatim quote by Tomlinson, which would
at least give us a chance to make our own call on what he meant.
I thought you were a fan of Posner's edict that we must take the earliest
statements of a witness to be the most accurate. I guess that's only true
when you like the early statements better, eh David?
The FBI's own documentation proves that in 1963, both Tomlinson and Wright
refused to verify CE399.
And Tomlinson's earliest statement to the WC confirmed that he believed
the bullet fell from the stretcher that was already present when he
brought the other one down on the elevator. He diagrammed the positions of
the two stretchers and labelled them "A" and "B", which made this
recollections crystal clear.
True, he said he couldn't be certain. But he was gone from the area for
some time and could not be sure that the stretchers weren't switched - a
somewhat unlikely possibility.
Interested readers can go to this article and scroll down just a couple of
paragraphs to see his own drawing and earliest WC testimony on the
subject.
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Please read the rest of the article as well. Tomlinson's testimony and
denial to the FBI constitutes at best, 2% of the case against CE399.
Isn' it amazing that out of all the witnesses which include not just
Tomlinson, but Wright, SS agents Rowley and Johnson, Gov Connally,
District attorney Henry Wade, Connally aide Bill Stinson, officer Bobby
Nolan, and Parkland nursing supervisor Audrey Bell, he ONLY wants to talk
about the one witness who admitted uncertainty about an issue that was
already resolved by the unanimous refusal of all four of the original
witnesses to verify the bullet and the lie by FBI agent Todd, that his
initials were on CE399.
http://jfkhistory.com/initials.png
David's tactic is to look at an article with a large quantity of solid
evidence and testimony and seek out something which he thinks, give the
appearance of uncertainty or doubt, and then dwell on only that issue.
His tactics are hardly unique. It is SOP for the nutters to seek out only
the weakest arguments for conspiracy and evade the ones that cannot be
refuted.
Robert
<5a3a9596-9bd2-438c...@ca1g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453
Ok, so "Ray Marcus" claimed that in 1966, Tomlinson contradicted his own
testimony before the Warren Commission and his own denial to the FBI, that
he could verify that CE399 was the stretcher bullet.
I guess his memory must have improved over those three years, eh:-)
And why is it that you, who have made a career out of calling witnesses
and researchers, "liars", are so eager to accept this guy's uncorroborated
claim without a recorded interview or even a transcript of his alleged
conversation?
In fact, we aren't even given a verbatim quote by Tomlinson, which would
at least give us a chance to make our own call on what he meant.
I thought you were a fan of Posner's edict that we must take the earliest
statements of a witness to be the most accurate. I guess that's only true
when you like the early statements better, eh David?
The FBI's own documentation proves that in 1963, both Tomlinson and Wright
refused to verify CE399.
And Tomlinson's earliest statement to the WC confirmed that he believed
the bullet fell from the stretcher that was already present when he
brought the other one down on the elevator. He diagrammed the positions of
the two stretchers and labelled them "A" and "B", which made this
recollections crystal clear.
True, he said he couldn't be certain. But he was gone from the area for
some time and could not be sure that the stretchers weren't switched - a
somewhat unlikely possibility.
Interested readers can go to this article and scroll down just a couple of
paragraphs to see his own drawing and earliest WC testimony on the
subject.
http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html
Please read the rest of the article as well. Tomlinson's testimony and
denial to the FBI constitutes at best, 2% of the case against CE399.
Isn' it amazing that out of all the witnesses which include not just
Tomlinson, but Wright, SS agents Rowley and Johnson, Gov Connally,
District attorney Henry Wade, Connally aide Bill Stinson, officer Bobby
Nolan, and Parkland nursing supervisor Audrey Bell, he ONLY wants to talk
about the one witness who admitted uncertainty about an issue that was
already resolved by the unanimous refusal of all four of the original
witnesses to verify the bullet and the lie by FBI agent Todd, that his
initials were on CE399.
http://jfkhistory.com/initials.png
David's tactic is to look at an article with a large quantity of solid
evidence and testimony and seek out something which he thinks, give the
appearance of uncertainty or doubt, and then dwell on only that issue.
His tactics are hardly unique. It is SOP for the nutters to seek out only
the weakest arguments for conspiracy and evade the ones that cannot be
refuted.
Robert
David Von Pein
Dec 3, 2011, 9:47:25 AM12/3/11
to
ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>>> "You...have made a career out of calling witnesses and researchers
"liars"." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bob, please point me to any post I have made in the past where I've
called any witnesses "liars" (other than Jean Hill and Roger Craig,
who I have, indeed, called liars, because they were).
>>> "Why is it that you...are so eager to accept this guy's uncorroborated
claim without a recorded interview or even a transcript of his alleged
conversation [referring to Ray Marcus' 7/25/66 telephone interview with
Darrell Tomlinson]?" <<<
For one very good reason -- Jean Davison -- which I alluded to at the top
of my original post regarding this matter at the Education Forum, when I
said this:
"And, yes, I certainly trust Ms. Davison and her research. In fact,
I'm more inclined to accept anything that Jean says as the absolute truth
regarding pretty much anything concerning the JFK murder case than I am to
accept any other researcher's information." -- DVP; 11/30/2011
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=0&p=239689&#entry239689
Along these same lines, I talked to Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor
Museum via e-mail on December 1, 2011, and I said this to him:
"Have you seen the Marcus HSCA document that I've been
discussing at the Edu. Forum? [In a return e-mail, Gary told me that
he does not remember ever seeing the document in question.] I have not
seen it myself, but as I said in my Edu. post, I trust Jean Davison
immensely, and I am absolutely 100% confident that Jean would never
have said the things she said on the Internet about the contents of
that 1966 Marcus/Tomlinson interview if she had not confirmed them
beforehand. And that's why I was confident enough to start that Edu.
Forum discussion in the first place. I'm sure there are some people
who would say that I'm not being forthright regarding this matter--
i.e., I should have viewed the Marcus transcript MYSELF before
shooting off my mouth on the Internet. And normally, yes, I would
agree with such an opinion. But since I have a source to fall back on
whom I deem to be first-rate and honest and one of the best
researchers in the history of JFK research (Jean Davison), I almost
feel as if I have, indeed, read that transcript myself. That's how
much I respect Jean. Plus, of course, I wanted to drive Jim DiEugenio
a little nuts too. That's always worth doing (as you probably know)."
-- DVP; 12/1/2011
>>> "I thought you were a fan of Posner's edict that we must take the
earliest statements of a witness to be the most accurate. I guess that's
only true when you like the early statements better, eh David?" <<<
Tomlinson WAS talking his earliest statement concerning CE399 looking the
same as the stretcher bullet. Jean Davison made that fairly clear in her
post of November 22nd, 2011, here:
"Tomlinson told researcher Ray Marcus that the FBI showed him the
bullet and that it looked like the one he found. Marcus provided a
transcript to the HSCA that can be ordered from the National Archives.
Marcus is a conspiracy theorist, not a 'WC defender'. Do you think he just
made that up?" -- Jean Davison
Jean also said this in her post of July 16, 2011:
"[Darrell] Tomlinson told WC critic Raymond Marcus that he and
[O.P.] Wright were shown the bullet by [Gordon] Shanklin and that it
looked like the same one to him. Whether it was really Shanklin or not, I
don't know, but you might want to order a transcript of his 7/25/66
interview from the Archives, because Tomlinson also told Marcus that he
believed the bullet came off the elevator stretcher. (IMO, Tomlinson never
was sure which stretcher it was, and he wavered back and forth.) The
transcript is HSCA document 180-10088-10206. I don't know the RIF but it
can be found with the NA's JFK search engine. It's not online anywhere
that I know of." -- Jean Davison
http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/search.html
Bob, do you think that Tomlinson was talking about some OTHER time that we
was shown CE399 by an "FBI agent" (other than June 12, 1964, that is,
which is the date we find for the FBI's visit to Parkland in CE2011)?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm
And even though Jean doesn't mention the specific date of the FBI agent's
visit to see Tomlinson, it's pretty clear that Tomlinson certainly DID
make a statement to Raymond Marcus on July 25th, 1966, that CE399 looked
the same as the bullet he found on a stretcher. And Tomlinson was talking
about what he had ALREADY TOLD the FBI at some earlier time (i.e., earlier
than the July 1966 interview with Marcus).
And the whole point of my bringing this issue up at the Education Forum
was to re-emphasize Jean Davison's earlier points about Tomlinson's
remarks. Because many CTers don't think ANY agent from the FBI visited
Tomlinson to show him CE399 at all in 1964. And the 1966 Marcus interview
verifies that that just is not correct.
Now, I'm not suggesting that Tomlinson didn't change his story over the
years. He most certainly did change his story about the stretchers. And I
have talked about his flip-flopping in my forum posts, such as in this
post from July of this year:
"Darrell Tomlinson has gone through various changes in his
story--from 1964 to 1988:
1964 --- He told the Warren Commission (no less than six
separate times) that he was "not sure" which of the two stretchers he
had taken off of the elevator.
1967 --- He told CBS News that he was absolutely positive that
the stretcher on which he found the bullet was the stretcher that had
come off of the elevator.
1988 --- Tomlinson now completely contradicts his 1967 statement by
telling PBS-TV that he is certain that the bullet he found came off of a
stretcher that definitely HAD NOT been taken by him off of the elevator.
IMO, Tomlinson's first (1964) statements are the best and carry
the most weight. In other words, he simply was "not sure" at all which
of those two stretchers had come off of that elevator on Nov. 22." --
DVP; July 19, 2011
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fe48e9e5812ead12
===================
But the main point, again, isn't Tomlinson's flip-flopping (and nobody can
possibly deny that Tomlinson changed his story about the stretchers more
than once; we have his 1967 and 1988 television appearances to verify his
flip-flopping), but the main point is that Tomlinson DID tell the FBI
prior to 1966 that he took the bullet off of the ELEVATOR stretcher. And
most CTers around these parts just don't want to believe that Tomlinson
told the FBI anything concerning the bullet. But the Marcus interview
shatters that belief, and also destroys the theory that the FBI lied
through their teeth in CE2011.
>>> "David's tactic is to look at an article with a large quantity of
the appearance of uncertainty or doubt, and then dwell on only that
issue." <<<
No, but you've just described the tactics of conspiracy theorists to a
issue." <<<
tee.
The CTers of the world never concentrate on the "whole" or the "sum
total". Take Robert Harris' "Z285" theory for example. The "sum total" of
the evidence (when taking into account the varied witness statements AND
the ballistics evidence in the case and WHERE that evidence was located)
indicates that only THREE shots were fired at JFK's limousine, with those
three shots all coming from the SE corner of the TSBD's 6th floor.
But if a person (like Robert Harris) wanted to isolate only certain
"bunched shots" witnesses, then he, of course, can build himself a pretty
nice-looking theory around those witnesses. Who couldn't?
But I will then counter with a few witnesses who disagree with Bob Harris'
theory about "bunched up" shots. Am I then engaging in "witness
selectivity"? Well, yes, of course I am. But it's to illustrate that there
ARE other witnesses who don't think that some of the shots were "bunched"
together. Here's that list (and there are probably a few more I could add
to this list of witnesses who thought that the gunshots were evenly
spaced):
James Romack:
Mr. BELIN. How many did you hear?
Mr. ROMACK. Three.
Mr. BELIN. How close did the shots sound like they came together?
Mr. ROMACK. Oh, they happened pretty fast. I would say maybe 3 or 4
seconds apart.
Mr. BELIN. Were they equally spaced, or did one sound like it was
closer than another one in time?
Mr. ROMACK. It sounded like to me that they were evenly spaced. They
rang out pretty fast.
-------------------
Officer Marrion L. Baker:
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; I heard--now before I revved up this motorcycle,
I heard the, you know, the two extra shots, the three shots.
Mr. BELIN - Do you have any time estimate as to the spacing of any of
these shots?
Mr. BAKER - It seemed to me like they just went bang, bang, bang; they
were pretty well even to me.
Mr. BELIN - They were pretty well even.
-------------------
Tom Dillard:
Mr. BALL - How many explosions did you hear?
Mr. DILLARD - I heard three - the three approximately equally spaced.
-------------------
Mal Couch:
Mr. BELIN - And what's your best recollection now as to the amount of
time between shots?
Mr. COUCH - Well, I would say the longest time would be 5 seconds, but
it could be from 3 to 5.
Mr. BELIN - And would this be true between the first and the second shots
as well as between the second and the third - or would there have been a
difference?
Mr. COUCH - As I recall, the time sequence between the three were
relatively the same.
-------------------
Pierce Allman (via WFAA-Radio interview, linked below):
"I heard three well-spaced reverberating shots."
http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/pierce-allman.html
------------------
Nellie Connally:
Mr. DULLES. I just have one question. Mrs. Connally, on one point your
testimony differs from a good many others as to the timing of the
shots. I think you said that there seemed to be more time between the
second and third than between the first and the second; is that your
recollection?
Mrs. CONNALLY. Yes.
Mr. DULLES. That is, the space between the first and the second was
less than between the second and the third? You realize I just wanted
to get whether I had heard you correctly on that.
Mrs. CONNALLY. You did.
-------------------
Emmett Hudson:
Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?
Mr. HUDSON - Three.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did the shots seem evenly spaced or were some of them
closer together?
Mr. HUDSON - They seemed pretty well evenly spaced.
Mr. LIEBELER - Evenly spaced; is that it?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
-------------------
Harold Norman:
"Boom...(click-click)...Boom...(click-click)...Boom."
Norman always "re-created" his "booms" and "clicks" in a perfectly
even distribution of the gunshots.
http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com
Jean Davison
Dec 3, 2011, 11:11:29 AM12/3/11
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
Hi David,
If you'll send me your snail address I will mail you a copy.
Would it be possible for you (or anyone else here) to put the whole
thing online? I'm not able to do that myself. The document is
apparently Marcus's own typewritten transcript, 8 1/2 pages double-
spaced. If you can't put it online I could still mail you a copy.
Jean
On Dec 3, 8:47 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> >>> "You...have made a career out of calling witnesses and researchers
>
> "liars"." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Bob, please point me to any post I have made in the past where I've
> called any witnesses "liars" (other than Jean Hill and Roger Craig,
> who I have, indeed, called liars, because they were).
>
> >>> "Why is it that you...are so eager to accept this guy's uncorroborated
>
> claim without a recorded interview or even a transcript of his alleged
> conversation [referring to Ray Marcus' 7/25/66 telephone interview with
> Darrell Tomlinson]?" <<<
>
> For one very good reason -- Jean Davison -- which I alluded to at the top
> of my original post regarding this matter at the Education Forum, when I
> said this:
>
> "And, yes, I certainly trust Ms. Davison and her research. In fact,
> I'm more inclined to accept anything that Jean says as the absolute truth
> regarding pretty much anything concerning the JFK murder case than I am to
> accept any other researcher's information." -- DVP; 11/30/2011
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=0&p=23...
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/fe48e9e5812e...
> ...
>
> read more »
If you'll send me your snail address I will mail you a copy.
Would it be possible for you (or anyone else here) to put the whole
thing online? I'm not able to do that myself. The document is
apparently Marcus's own typewritten transcript, 8 1/2 pages double-
spaced. If you can't put it online I could still mail you a copy.
Jean
On Dec 3, 8:47 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> >>> "You...have made a career out of calling witnesses and researchers
>
> "liars"." <<<
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Bob, please point me to any post I have made in the past where I've
> called any witnesses "liars" (other than Jean Hill and Roger Craig,
> who I have, indeed, called liars, because they were).
>
> >>> "Why is it that you...are so eager to accept this guy's uncorroborated
>
> claim without a recorded interview or even a transcript of his alleged
> conversation [referring to Ray Marcus' 7/25/66 telephone interview with
> Darrell Tomlinson]?" <<<
>
> For one very good reason -- Jean Davison -- which I alluded to at the top
> of my original post regarding this matter at the Education Forum, when I
> said this:
>
> "And, yes, I certainly trust Ms. Davison and her research. In fact,
> I'm more inclined to accept anything that Jean says as the absolute truth
> regarding pretty much anything concerning the JFK murder case than I am to
> accept any other researcher's information." -- DVP; 11/30/2011
>
>
> read more »
David Von Pein
Dec 3, 2011, 4:21:02 PM12/3/11
to
Thanks, Jean. I've e-mailed you my address.
I'll try to put it online after you send it to me.
Robert Harris
Dec 3, 2011, 4:25:22 PM12/3/11
to
In article
<1c96cbcd-0853-4fea...@y6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
First of all, Jean is light years from being infallible. I have confirmed
that myself in numerous exchanges with her. David, your ONLY test for
whether someone is honest and reliable is whether or not they support the
LN theory. Do you think anyone here doesn't realize that?
And even if she was this paragon of infallibility, it wasn't her who
talked to Tomlinson. It was some guy you've apparently never met or heard
of before. You and Jean just like what he said.
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=0&p=239689&#ent
David, you ONLY talk to LN fanatics, don't you:-)
>
> "Have you seen the Marcus HSCA document that I've been
> discussing at the Edu. Forum? [In a return e-mail, Gary told me that
> he does not remember ever seeing the document in question.] I have not
> seen it myself, but as I said in my Edu. post, I trust Jean Davison
> immensely, and I am absolutely 100% confident that Jean would never
> have said the things she said on the Internet about the contents of
> that 1966 Marcus/Tomlinson interview if she had not confirmed them
> beforehand. And that's why I was confident enough to start that Edu.
> Forum discussion in the first place. I'm sure there are some people
> who would say that I'm not being forthright regarding this matter--
> i.e., I should have viewed the Marcus transcript MYSELF before
> shooting off my mouth on the Internet. And normally, yes, I would
> agree with such an opinion. But since I have a source to fall back on
> whom I deem to be first-rate and honest and one of the best
> researchers in the history of JFK research (Jean Davison), I almost
> feel as if I have, indeed, read that transcript myself. That's how
> much I respect Jean. Plus, of course, I wanted to drive Jim DiEugenio
> a little nuts too. That's always worth doing (as you probably know)."
> -- DVP; 12/1/2011
Ok, so Mack wouldn't verify anything.
David, you don't need Jean or Gary to vouch for anything or anyone. Just
email the archives and have them look up the FD302 for that FBI interview.
Do you need the address?
>
>
> >>> "I thought you were a fan of Posner's edict that we must take the
> earliest statements of a witness to be the most accurate. I guess that's
> only true when you like the early statements better, eh David?" <<<
>
> But, Robert, in the 1966 Marcus interview, it would certainly appear as if
> Tomlinson WAS talking his earliest statement concerning CE399 looking the
> same as the stretcher bullet.
No sir, that is absolutely untrue.
An FBI airtel from 1964 stated,
"WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON, who
found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel
Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to
Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet."
At about this same time, the FBI lied to the WC, telling them that SA
Odums interviewed Tomlinson and Wright and they said that CE399 was
similar to the stretcher bullet.
But that was a lie. There was no FD-302 filed for such an interview and
Odum himself, denied interviewing them or even seeing CE399.
> Jean Davison made that fairly clear in her
> post of November 22nd, 2011, here:
>
> "Tomlinson told researcher Ray Marcus that the FBI showed him the
> bullet and that it looked like the one he found. Marcus provided a
> transcript to the HSCA that can be ordered from the National Archives.
What a wonderful idea!
All of your readers need to write to the archives, requesting the same
document. That'll keep em off their lazy butts for awhile, eh:-)
Or better yet, why can't you and Jean do your own research, rather than
demand that everyone else do it for you?
And David, if I had a dollar for every time I've demanded a verbatim
cite from a nutter who kept telling us that such and such said
"that...", and then learning that what they really said was much
different, I would be a great deal wealthier than I am now.
It's just silly to expect anyone to buy this third hand claim about an
interview that you can't even prove, took place.
> Marcus is a conspiracy theorist, not a 'WC defender'.
Oh, like Gary Mack, and Mike Williams were "conspiracy theorists":-)
And since when did someone who you normally label as a "kook", become so
trustworthy?
> Do you think he just
> made that up?" -- Jean Davison
Well first of all, you need to show us the transcript, and then the FD-302
report for the interview.
And if it actually says what you and Jean claim, you need to explain why
both Wright and Tomlinson originally refused to verify CE399, and then you
need to tell us why there was no FD302 report filed for that interview.
And then you can explain why Tomlinson totally reversed his story from
1964, when he testified before the W.C.
And then you can explain why the FBI said Odum conducted that interview
rather than Shanklin.
And David, even if Tomlinson had changed his story, that doesn't matter,
because we know what his ORIGINAL, uncontaminated recollection was, don't
we? He was very, very specific about that and drew a diagram, showing
exactly where each of the stretchers were.
And Tomlinson is only a tiny part of your problem in defending CE399. The
statements by District Attorney Wade, Gov. Connally, officer Bobby Nolan,
Connally aide Stinson, and nursing supervisor Bell, are much more
important and totally fatal to the notion that CE399 was the bullet that
came from Connally's thigh.
Why don't you want to talk about them?
Oh, and as for your shooting pattern witnesses, yes, there were a few who
said the shots were evenly spaced, but the vast majority said otherwise.
This is from the WC report,
"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not
evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots
were bunched together."
But the clincher is the shot at 285, 1.5 seconds prior to the headshot at
312. If you deny this shot, then you need to have a better explanation for
these reactions, which were totally different from any other reactions,
except those after 313.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
Each of them began in the range of 290-292 - all within the same 1/6th of
a second.
Watch Kellerman in slow motion, ducking as he simultaneously twists his
head to the right and raises left hand to his ear.
http://jfkhistory.com/royducks.gif
In that same animation, watch Greer spinning to the front and then back,
at the rate of almost 180 degrees in three frames, as he accidentally
slows the limo and feels the "concussion" of the second shot that he
heard.
David it is just not sane to deny what is going on here. That was almost
certainly, the missed shot that went on to cause Tague's minor wound and
the lead smear on the Main St. curbing.
This crime was not carried out by a cast of thousands, but it was also,
not carried out by a solitary sniper.
And if you stop and think about it, there is really not that much
difference between a lone nut killing JFK, and a mafia kingpin doing it.
What has hurt our country and undermined our confidence in government, is
the belief that the government did it, or that this was some kind of coup.
THAT is what needs to be debunked. And that can be done much more
effectively, if it is presented from a foundation of real, defensible
truth.
Robert Harris
<1c96cbcd-0853-4fea...@y6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> >>> "You...have made a career out of calling witnesses and researchers
> "liars"." <<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Bob, please point me to any post I have made in the past where I've
> called any witnesses "liars" (other than Jean Hill and Roger Craig,
> who I have, indeed, called liars, because they were).
>
>
> >>> "Why is it that you...are so eager to accept this guy's uncorroborated
> claim without a recorded interview or even a transcript of his alleged
> conversation [referring to Ray Marcus' 7/25/66 telephone interview with
> Darrell Tomlinson]?" <<<
>
>
> For one very good reason -- Jean Davison -- which I alluded to at the top
> of my original post regarding this matter at the Education Forum, when I
> said this:
>
> "And, yes, I certainly trust Ms. Davison and her research. In fact,
> I'm more inclined to accept anything that Jean says as the absolute truth
> regarding pretty much anything concerning the JFK murder case than I am to
> accept any other researcher's information." -- DVP; 11/30/2011
And why in holy hell would you make such an assertion?
>
> >>> "You...have made a career out of calling witnesses and researchers
> "liars"." <<<
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Bob, please point me to any post I have made in the past where I've
> called any witnesses "liars" (other than Jean Hill and Roger Craig,
> who I have, indeed, called liars, because they were).
>
>
> >>> "Why is it that you...are so eager to accept this guy's uncorroborated
> claim without a recorded interview or even a transcript of his alleged
> conversation [referring to Ray Marcus' 7/25/66 telephone interview with
> Darrell Tomlinson]?" <<<
>
>
> For one very good reason -- Jean Davison -- which I alluded to at the top
> of my original post regarding this matter at the Education Forum, when I
> said this:
>
> "And, yes, I certainly trust Ms. Davison and her research. In fact,
> I'm more inclined to accept anything that Jean says as the absolute truth
> regarding pretty much anything concerning the JFK murder case than I am to
> accept any other researcher's information." -- DVP; 11/30/2011
First of all, Jean is light years from being infallible. I have confirmed
that myself in numerous exchanges with her. David, your ONLY test for
whether someone is honest and reliable is whether or not they support the
LN theory. Do you think anyone here doesn't realize that?
And even if she was this paragon of infallibility, it wasn't her who
talked to Tomlinson. It was some guy you've apparently never met or heard
of before. You and Jean just like what he said.
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=0&p=239689&#ent
> ry239689
>
> Along these same lines, I talked to Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor
> Museum via e-mail on December 1, 2011, and I said this to him:
LOL!!
>
> Along these same lines, I talked to Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor
> Museum via e-mail on December 1, 2011, and I said this to him:
David, you ONLY talk to LN fanatics, don't you:-)
>
> "Have you seen the Marcus HSCA document that I've been
> discussing at the Edu. Forum? [In a return e-mail, Gary told me that
> he does not remember ever seeing the document in question.] I have not
> seen it myself, but as I said in my Edu. post, I trust Jean Davison
> immensely, and I am absolutely 100% confident that Jean would never
> have said the things she said on the Internet about the contents of
> that 1966 Marcus/Tomlinson interview if she had not confirmed them
> beforehand. And that's why I was confident enough to start that Edu.
> Forum discussion in the first place. I'm sure there are some people
> who would say that I'm not being forthright regarding this matter--
> i.e., I should have viewed the Marcus transcript MYSELF before
> shooting off my mouth on the Internet. And normally, yes, I would
> agree with such an opinion. But since I have a source to fall back on
> whom I deem to be first-rate and honest and one of the best
> researchers in the history of JFK research (Jean Davison), I almost
> feel as if I have, indeed, read that transcript myself. That's how
> much I respect Jean. Plus, of course, I wanted to drive Jim DiEugenio
> a little nuts too. That's always worth doing (as you probably know)."
> -- DVP; 12/1/2011
David, you don't need Jean or Gary to vouch for anything or anyone. Just
email the archives and have them look up the FD302 for that FBI interview.
Do you need the address?
>
>
> >>> "I thought you were a fan of Posner's edict that we must take the
> earliest statements of a witness to be the most accurate. I guess that's
> only true when you like the early statements better, eh David?" <<<
>
> But, Robert, in the 1966 Marcus interview, it would certainly appear as if
> Tomlinson WAS talking his earliest statement concerning CE399 looking the
> same as the stretcher bullet.
An FBI airtel from 1964 stated,
"WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON, who
found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel
Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to
Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet."
At about this same time, the FBI lied to the WC, telling them that SA
Odums interviewed Tomlinson and Wright and they said that CE399 was
similar to the stretcher bullet.
But that was a lie. There was no FD-302 filed for such an interview and
Odum himself, denied interviewing them or even seeing CE399.
> Jean Davison made that fairly clear in her
> post of November 22nd, 2011, here:
>
> "Tomlinson told researcher Ray Marcus that the FBI showed him the
> bullet and that it looked like the one he found. Marcus provided a
> transcript to the HSCA that can be ordered from the National Archives.
All of your readers need to write to the archives, requesting the same
document. That'll keep em off their lazy butts for awhile, eh:-)
Or better yet, why can't you and Jean do your own research, rather than
demand that everyone else do it for you?
And David, if I had a dollar for every time I've demanded a verbatim
cite from a nutter who kept telling us that such and such said
"that...", and then learning that what they really said was much
different, I would be a great deal wealthier than I am now.
It's just silly to expect anyone to buy this third hand claim about an
interview that you can't even prove, took place.
> Marcus is a conspiracy theorist, not a 'WC defender'.
And since when did someone who you normally label as a "kook", become so
trustworthy?
> Do you think he just
> made that up?" -- Jean Davison
report for the interview.
And if it actually says what you and Jean claim, you need to explain why
both Wright and Tomlinson originally refused to verify CE399, and then you
need to tell us why there was no FD302 report filed for that interview.
And then you can explain why Tomlinson totally reversed his story from
1964, when he testified before the W.C.
And then you can explain why the FBI said Odum conducted that interview
rather than Shanklin.
And David, even if Tomlinson had changed his story, that doesn't matter,
because we know what his ORIGINAL, uncontaminated recollection was, don't
we? He was very, very specific about that and drew a diagram, showing
exactly where each of the stretchers were.
And Tomlinson is only a tiny part of your problem in defending CE399. The
statements by District Attorney Wade, Gov. Connally, officer Bobby Nolan,
Connally aide Stinson, and nursing supervisor Bell, are much more
important and totally fatal to the notion that CE399 was the bullet that
came from Connally's thigh.
Why don't you want to talk about them?
Oh, and as for your shooting pattern witnesses, yes, there were a few who
said the shots were evenly spaced, but the vast majority said otherwise.
This is from the WC report,
"..a substantial majority of the witnesses stated that the shots were not
evenly spaced. Most witnesses recalled that the second and third shots
were bunched together."
But the clincher is the shot at 285, 1.5 seconds prior to the headshot at
312. If you deny this shot, then you need to have a better explanation for
these reactions, which were totally different from any other reactions,
except those after 313.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GH5pGQy6yI
Each of them began in the range of 290-292 - all within the same 1/6th of
a second.
Watch Kellerman in slow motion, ducking as he simultaneously twists his
head to the right and raises left hand to his ear.
http://jfkhistory.com/royducks.gif
In that same animation, watch Greer spinning to the front and then back,
at the rate of almost 180 degrees in three frames, as he accidentally
slows the limo and feels the "concussion" of the second shot that he
heard.
David it is just not sane to deny what is going on here. That was almost
certainly, the missed shot that went on to cause Tague's minor wound and
the lead smear on the Main St. curbing.
This crime was not carried out by a cast of thousands, but it was also,
not carried out by a solitary sniper.
And if you stop and think about it, there is really not that much
difference between a lone nut killing JFK, and a mafia kingpin doing it.
What has hurt our country and undermined our confidence in government, is
the belief that the government did it, or that this was some kind of coup.
THAT is what needs to be debunked. And that can be done much more
effectively, if it is presented from a foundation of real, defensible
truth.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Dec 3, 2011, 10:36:57 PM12/3/11
to
believe? What does Loftus say? Should we believe what someone said that
very day or what someone was later paid to say or after the person has
been threatened or tortured by the authorities?
> But if a person (like Robert Harris) wanted to isolate only certain
> "bunched shots" witnesses, then he, of course, can build himself a pretty
> nice-looking theory around those witnesses. Who couldn't?
>
> But I will then counter with a few witnesses who disagree with Bob Harris'
> theory about "bunched up" shots. Am I then engaging in "witness
> selectivity"? Well, yes, of course I am. But it's to illustrate that there
> ARE other witnesses who don't think that some of the shots were "bunched"
> together. Here's that list (and there are probably a few more I could add
> to this list of witnesses who thought that the gunshots were evenly
> spaced):
>
I don't suppose that you ever saw that 48 Hours special about witnesses?
there was still an empty cartridge in the rifle after the last shot, and
only two ejected shells on the floor near the rifle. And maybe some klutz
picked up the rifle and ejected the empty shell and then threw it into the
sniper's nest when he realized his mistake.
> http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com
>
>
Robert Harris
Dec 3, 2011, 10:38:49 PM12/3/11
to
Why are we making such a big deal out of this?
If you don't have a scanner, just snap a picture of it and attach it in an
email - duh.
But we discussed this before and we both know what Tomlinson's ORIGINAL
recollection was. Why does it matter that he later gave in to pressure
from the feds??
And are you still standing by your theory that Connally, Wade, Stinson,
Nolan and Bell were all delusional???
Well, you may not have made much sense Jean, but at least you had the
courage to talk about their statements:-)
Robert Harris
In article
<178305eb-a8ef-451d...@u32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Jean Davison <jean.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> If you'll send me your snail address I will mail you a copy.
> Would it be possible for you (or anyone else here) to put the whole
> thing online? I'm not able to do that myself. The document is
> apparently Marcus's own typewritten transcript, 8 1/2 pages double-
> spaced. If you can't put it online I could still mail you a copy.
>
> Jean
>
>
> On Dec 3, 8:47?am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
> >
> > >>> "You...have made a career out of calling witnesses and researchers
> >
> > "liars"." <<<
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > Bob, please point me to any post I have made in the past where I've
> > called any witnesses "liars" (other than Jean Hill and Roger Craig,
> > who I have, indeed, called liars, because they were).
> >
> > >>> "Why is it that you...are so eager to accept this guy's uncorroborated
> >
> > claim without a recorded interview or even a transcript of his alleged
> > conversation [referring to Ray Marcus' 7/25/66 telephone interview with
> > Darrell Tomlinson]?" <<<
> >
> > For one very good reason -- Jean Davison -- which I alluded to at the top
> > of my original post regarding this matter at the Education Forum, when I
> > said this:
> >
> > ? ? ? "And, yes, I certainly trust Ms. Davison and her research. In fact,
> Hi David,
>
> If you'll send me your snail address I will mail you a copy.
> Would it be possible for you (or anyone else here) to put the whole
> thing online? I'm not able to do that myself. The document is
> apparently Marcus's own typewritten transcript, 8 1/2 pages double-
> spaced. If you can't put it online I could still mail you a copy.
>
> Jean
>
>
> On Dec 3, 8:47?am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
> >
> > >>> "You...have made a career out of calling witnesses and researchers
> >
> > "liars"." <<<
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > Bob, please point me to any post I have made in the past where I've
> > called any witnesses "liars" (other than Jean Hill and Roger Craig,
> > who I have, indeed, called liars, because they were).
> >
> > >>> "Why is it that you...are so eager to accept this guy's uncorroborated
> >
> > claim without a recorded interview or even a transcript of his alleged
> > conversation [referring to Ray Marcus' 7/25/66 telephone interview with
> > Darrell Tomlinson]?" <<<
> >
> > For one very good reason -- Jean Davison -- which I alluded to at the top
> > of my original post regarding this matter at the Education Forum, when I
> > said this:
> >
> > I'm more inclined to accept anything that Jean says as the absolute truth
> > regarding pretty much anything concerning the JFK murder case than I am to
> > accept any other researcher's information." -- DVP; 11/30/2011
> >
> > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=0&p=23...
> >
> > Along these same lines, I talked to Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor
> > Museum via e-mail on December 1, 2011, and I said this to him:
> >
> > ? ? ? "Have you seen the Marcus HSCA document that I've been
> > regarding pretty much anything concerning the JFK murder case than I am to
> > accept any other researcher's information." -- DVP; 11/30/2011
> >
> > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=0&p=23...
> >
> > Along these same lines, I talked to Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor
> > Museum via e-mail on December 1, 2011, and I said this to him:
> >
> > bullet and that it looked like the one he found. Marcus provided a
> > transcript to the HSCA that can be ordered from the National Archives.
> > Marcus is a conspiracy theorist, not a 'WC defender'. Do you think he just
> > made that up?" -- Jean Davison
> >
> > Jean also said this in her post of July 16, 2011:
> >
> > ? ? ? "[Darrell] Tomlinson told WC critic Raymond Marcus that he and
> > transcript to the HSCA that can be ordered from the National Archives.
> > Marcus is a conspiracy theorist, not a 'WC defender'. Do you think he just
> > made that up?" -- Jean Davison
> >
> > Jean also said this in her post of July 16, 2011:
> >
> > story--from 1964 to 1988:
> >
> > ? ? ? ?1964 --- He told the Warren Commission (no less than six
> > separate times) that he was "not sure" which of the two stretchers he
> > had taken off of the elevator.
> >
> > ? ? ? ?1967 --- He told CBS News that he was absolutely positive that
> > had taken off of the elevator.
> >
> > the stretcher on which he found the bullet was the stretcher that had
> > come off of the elevator.
> >
> > ? ? ? ?1988 --- Tomlinson now completely contradicts his 1967 statement by
> > come off of the elevator.
> >
> > telling PBS-TV that he is certain that the bullet he found came off of a
> > stretcher that definitely HAD NOT been taken by him off of the elevator.
> >
> > ? ? ? ?IMO, Tomlinson's first (1964) statements are the best and carry
> > stretcher that definitely HAD NOT been taken by him off of the elevator.
> >
Anthony Marsh
Dec 3, 2011, 10:39:22 PM12/3/11
to
Jean Davison
Dec 4, 2011, 9:03:52 AM12/4/11
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Dec 3, 3:25 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1c96cbcd-0853-4fea-840e-5202424e5...@y6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
you've confirmed that "in numerous exhanges"? Give me examples,
please, because I don't know what you're referring to..
> And even if she was this paragon of infallibility, it wasn't her who
> talked to Tomlinson. It was some guy you've apparently never met or heard
> of before. You and Jean just like what he said.
>
Raymond Marcus was an early WC critic who wrote "The
Bastard Bullet," praised here by Jim DiEugenio:
http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html
And here:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11879
IOW, he's "one of yours".
>
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=0&p=23...
You don't get it, Robert. Wright and Tomlinson couldn't
positively ID a bullet that they hadn't initialed, unless it had some
obvious distinguishing marks. They could only say whether it looked
like it or not. The two statements aren't contradictory at all.
To put it another way, since neither marked the bullet, how
do you suppose they COULD have IDed it? Essentially they were saying,
"Well, it looks like it, but I can't be certain it's the same one."
>
> But that was a lie. There was no FD-302 filed for such an interview and
> Odum himself, denied interviewing them or even seeing CE399.
But what if he was interviewed by a different agent, and
the FBI made an error?
>
> > Jean Davison made that fairly clear in her
> > post of November 22nd, 2011, here:
>
> > "Tomlinson told researcher Ray Marcus that the FBI showed him the
> > bullet and that it looked like the one he found. Marcus provided a
> > transcript to the HSCA that can be ordered from the National Archives.
>
> What a wonderful idea!
>
> All of your readers need to write to the archives, requesting the same
> document. That'll keep em off their lazy butts for awhile, eh:-)
>
> Or better yet, why can't you and Jean do your own research, rather than
> demand that everyone else do it for you?
>
> And David, if I had a dollar for every time I've demanded a verbatim
> cite from a nutter who kept telling us that such and such said
> "that...", and then learning that what they really said was much
> different, I would be a great deal wealthier than I am now.
What verbatim cite would you like from me?
>
> It's just silly to expect anyone to buy this third hand claim about an
> interview that you can't even prove, took place.
>
> > Marcus is a conspiracy theorist, not a 'WC defender'.
>
> Oh, like Gary Mack, and Mike Williams were "conspiracy theorists":-)
>
> And since when did someone who you normally label as a "kook", become so
> trustworthy?
>
> > Do you think he just
> > made that up?" -- Jean Davison
>
> Well first of all, you need to show us the transcript, and then the FD-302
> report for the interview.
I'm trying to provide the transcript (and you haven't
asked for a copy, I notice). Have you provided an FD-302 report for
all the FBI interviews you've ever cited?
>
> And if it actually says what you and Jean claim, you need to explain why
> both Wright and Tomlinson originally refused to verify CE399, and then you
> need to tell us why there was no FD302 report filed for that interview.
Done and done.
>
> And then you can explain why Tomlinson totally reversed his story from
> 1964, when he testified before the W.C.
Tomlinson reversed his story about which stretcher it
was on several times.
>
> And then you can explain why the FBI said Odum conducted that interview
> rather than Shanklin.
Because the FBI isn't infallible like me?<g>
Jean
> In article
> <1c96cbcd-0853-4fea-840e-5202424e5...@y6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> > >>> "You...have made a career out of calling witnesses and researchers
> > "liars"." <<<
>
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> > Bob, please point me to any post I have made in the past where I've
> > called any witnesses "liars" (other than Jean Hill and Roger Craig,
> > who I have, indeed, called liars, because they were).
>
> > >>> "Why is it that you...are so eager to accept this guy's uncorroborated
> > claim without a recorded interview or even a transcript of his alleged
> > conversation [referring to Ray Marcus' 7/25/66 telephone interview with
> > Darrell Tomlinson]?" <<<
>
> > For one very good reason -- Jean Davison -- which I alluded to at the top
> > of my original post regarding this matter at the Education Forum, when I
> > said this:
>
> > "And, yes, I certainly trust Ms. Davison and her research. In fact,
> > I'm more inclined to accept anything that Jean says as the absolute truth
> > regarding pretty much anything concerning the JFK murder case than I am to
> > accept any other researcher's information." -- DVP; 11/30/2011
>
> And why in holy hell would you make such an assertion?
>
> First of all, Jean is light years from being infallible. I have confirmed
> that myself in numerous exchanges with her. David, your ONLY test for
> whether someone is honest and reliable is whether or not they support the
> LN theory. Do you think anyone here doesn't realize that?
>
Of course I'm not infallible, but could you remind me how
>
>
>
>
>
> > ROBERT HARRIS SAID:
>
> > >>> "You...have made a career out of calling witnesses and researchers
> > "liars"." <<<
>
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> > Bob, please point me to any post I have made in the past where I've
> > called any witnesses "liars" (other than Jean Hill and Roger Craig,
> > who I have, indeed, called liars, because they were).
>
> > >>> "Why is it that you...are so eager to accept this guy's uncorroborated
> > claim without a recorded interview or even a transcript of his alleged
> > conversation [referring to Ray Marcus' 7/25/66 telephone interview with
> > Darrell Tomlinson]?" <<<
>
> > For one very good reason -- Jean Davison -- which I alluded to at the top
> > of my original post regarding this matter at the Education Forum, when I
> > said this:
>
> > "And, yes, I certainly trust Ms. Davison and her research. In fact,
> > I'm more inclined to accept anything that Jean says as the absolute truth
> > regarding pretty much anything concerning the JFK murder case than I am to
> > accept any other researcher's information." -- DVP; 11/30/2011
>
> And why in holy hell would you make such an assertion?
>
> First of all, Jean is light years from being infallible. I have confirmed
> that myself in numerous exchanges with her. David, your ONLY test for
> whether someone is honest and reliable is whether or not they support the
> LN theory. Do you think anyone here doesn't realize that?
>
you've confirmed that "in numerous exhanges"? Give me examples,
please, because I don't know what you're referring to..
> And even if she was this paragon of infallibility, it wasn't her who
> talked to Tomlinson. It was some guy you've apparently never met or heard
> of before. You and Jean just like what he said.
>
Bastard Bullet," praised here by Jim DiEugenio:
http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html
And here:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11879
IOW, he's "one of yours".
>
> >http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18453&st=0&p=23...
positively ID a bullet that they hadn't initialed, unless it had some
obvious distinguishing marks. They could only say whether it looked
like it or not. The two statements aren't contradictory at all.
To put it another way, since neither marked the bullet, how
do you suppose they COULD have IDed it? Essentially they were saying,
"Well, it looks like it, but I can't be certain it's the same one."
>
> But that was a lie. There was no FD-302 filed for such an interview and
> Odum himself, denied interviewing them or even seeing CE399.
the FBI made an error?
>
> > Jean Davison made that fairly clear in her
> > post of November 22nd, 2011, here:
>
> > "Tomlinson told researcher Ray Marcus that the FBI showed him the
> > bullet and that it looked like the one he found. Marcus provided a
> > transcript to the HSCA that can be ordered from the National Archives.
>
> What a wonderful idea!
>
> All of your readers need to write to the archives, requesting the same
> document. That'll keep em off their lazy butts for awhile, eh:-)
>
> Or better yet, why can't you and Jean do your own research, rather than
> demand that everyone else do it for you?
>
> And David, if I had a dollar for every time I've demanded a verbatim
> cite from a nutter who kept telling us that such and such said
> "that...", and then learning that what they really said was much
> different, I would be a great deal wealthier than I am now.
>
> It's just silly to expect anyone to buy this third hand claim about an
> interview that you can't even prove, took place.
>
> > Marcus is a conspiracy theorist, not a 'WC defender'.
>
> Oh, like Gary Mack, and Mike Williams were "conspiracy theorists":-)
>
> And since when did someone who you normally label as a "kook", become so
> trustworthy?
>
> > Do you think he just
> > made that up?" -- Jean Davison
>
> Well first of all, you need to show us the transcript, and then the FD-302
> report for the interview.
asked for a copy, I notice). Have you provided an FD-302 report for
all the FBI interviews you've ever cited?
>
> And if it actually says what you and Jean claim, you need to explain why
> both Wright and Tomlinson originally refused to verify CE399, and then you
> need to tell us why there was no FD302 report filed for that interview.
>
> And then you can explain why Tomlinson totally reversed his story from
> 1964, when he testified before the W.C.
was on several times.
>
> And then you can explain why the FBI said Odum conducted that interview
> rather than Shanklin.
Jean
Jean Davison
Dec 4, 2011, 9:04:42 AM12/4/11
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Dec 3, 9:38 pm, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why are we making such a big deal out of this?
>
> If you don't have a scanner, just snap a picture of it and attach it in an
> email - duh.
Nine pages with faded typing? I don't think so.
> Why are we making such a big deal out of this?
>
> If you don't have a scanner, just snap a picture of it and attach it in an
> email - duh.
>
> But we discussed this before and we both know what Tomlinson's ORIGINAL
> recollection was. Why does it matter that he later gave in to pressure
> from the feds??
Service. I've never read them, have you?
The first time he's on record saying he wasn't sure was in response to
Specter's question,
"Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher "A" that you
took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?"
Is that the "pressure from the feds" you're talking
about?
>
> And are you still standing by your theory that Connally, Wade, Stinson,
> Nolan and Bell were all delusional???
don't have a statement from Connally, Robert. You have a statement
from a ghostwriter who isn't a reliable source (unless you think
Secret Service agents left the motorcade to rush to the TSBD, etc.).
On the other hand, Connally himself said.....
QUOTE:
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet
fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were
placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
Governor CONNALLY. No.
UNQUOTE
Yes, I know you think he lied -- because it doesn't fit
your theory.
> Well, you may not have made much sense Jean, but at least you had the
> courage to talk about their statements:-)
>
> Robert Harris
Jean
David Von Pein
Dec 4, 2011, 10:03:25 AM12/4/11
to
>>> "It's just silly to expect anyone to buy this third hand claim about an interview that you can't even prove took place." <<<
Jean's going to mail me the transcript. (But maybe she "faked" all 9
pages of the interview just to have something to do, huh Bob?)
Plus: The page from the National Archives pictured below proves the
interview took place. Or maybe Bob thinks the NARA is part of the plot
too.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Cv7VrNkX7KQ/TtnaKeI_BcI/AAAAAAAAki8/vltdVdt-Fk4/s1600/National-Archives-Search-Page-For-Marcus-Tomlinson-Interview-Of-7-25-66.png
Robert Harris
Dec 4, 2011, 6:20:36 PM12/4/11
to
In article
<701a8183-0f27-468d...@h42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
I was referring to your demand that your readers are supposed to contact
the archives themselves in order to see the transcript, and to your
expectation that everyone would buy a third hand, undocumented assertion,
without even being permitted to read the actual statements at issue.
I'm sorry if you're offended at being asked to support your claims, but
you don't seem too offended when you are demanding the same, from
researchers you don't agree with.
And I'm still waiting for you to explain why you would put more weight on
a 1966 statement than Tomlinson's original, sworn testimony, especially
since he was pressured by the feds to change his story.
And when do you intend to talk about the other 10 witnesses I cite in my
article? Why do you cherry pick the one witness who expressed uncertainty,
over others who were very explicit about the actual Connally bullet and
who fully corroborated one another?
Robert Harris
<701a8183-0f27-468d...@h42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> "It's just silly to expect anyone to buy this third hand claim about an
> >>> interview that you can't even prove took place." <<<
>
> Jean's going to mail me the transcript. (But maybe she "faked" all 9
> pages of the interview just to have something to do, huh Bob?)
I didn't say that, and you need to stop distorting my statements.
> >>> interview that you can't even prove took place." <<<
>
> Jean's going to mail me the transcript. (But maybe she "faked" all 9
> pages of the interview just to have something to do, huh Bob?)
I was referring to your demand that your readers are supposed to contact
the archives themselves in order to see the transcript, and to your
expectation that everyone would buy a third hand, undocumented assertion,
without even being permitted to read the actual statements at issue.
I'm sorry if you're offended at being asked to support your claims, but
you don't seem too offended when you are demanding the same, from
researchers you don't agree with.
And I'm still waiting for you to explain why you would put more weight on
a 1966 statement than Tomlinson's original, sworn testimony, especially
since he was pressured by the feds to change his story.
And when do you intend to talk about the other 10 witnesses I cite in my
article? Why do you cherry pick the one witness who expressed uncertainty,
over others who were very explicit about the actual Connally bullet and
who fully corroborated one another?
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
Dec 4, 2011, 9:24:59 PM12/4/11
to
On 12/4/2011 9:04 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On Dec 3, 9:38 pm, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Why are we making such a big deal out of this?
>>
>> If you don't have a scanner, just snap a picture of it and attach it in an
>> email - duh.
>
> Nine pages with faded typing? I don't think so.
>
>>
>> But we discussed this before and we both know what Tomlinson's ORIGINAL
>> recollection was. Why does it matter that he later gave in to pressure
>> from the feds??
>
> Tomlinson's ORIGINAL statements were to the FBI and Secret
> Service. I've never read them, have you?
Surely this could not have been written by you. You claim to have seen ALL
> On Dec 3, 9:38 pm, Robert Harris<bobharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Why are we making such a big deal out of this?
>>
>> If you don't have a scanner, just snap a picture of it and attach it in an
>> email - duh.
>
> Nine pages with faded typing? I don't think so.
>
>>
>> But we discussed this before and we both know what Tomlinson's ORIGINAL
>> recollection was. Why does it matter that he later gave in to pressure
>> from the feds??
>
> Tomlinson's ORIGINAL statements were to the FBI and Secret
> Service. I've never read them, have you?
the evidence in this case.
Are you alleging that the government has covered up some evidence?
> The first time he's on record saying he wasn't sure was in response to
> Specter's question,
> "Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher "A" that you
> took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?"
>
> Is that the "pressure from the feds" you're talking
> about?
>
>>
>> And are you still standing by your theory that Connally, Wade, Stinson,
>> Nolan and Bell were all delusional???
>
> As you know, I've never called anyone delusional. You
> don't have a statement from Connally, Robert. You have a statement
> from a ghostwriter who isn't a reliable source (unless you think
> Secret Service agents left the motorcade to rush to the TSBD, etc.).
>
> On the other hand, Connally himself said.....
>
> QUOTE:
>
> Mr. SPECTER. Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet
> fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were
> placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?
> Governor CONNALLY. No.
>
> UNQUOTE
>
> Yes, I know you think he lied -- because it doesn't fit
> your theory.
>
operation proof that he lied or just that he was no aware of them when he
got to the hospital? He also said he was not aware that something hit his
thigh.
Now, when Dr. Shaw gave his press conference he said the bullet was still
in Connally's thigh and would be removed later. So was Shaw lying?
David Von Pein
Dec 4, 2011, 11:52:55 PM12/4/11
to
>>> "I'm sorry if you're offended at being asked to support your
I did support my claims, Bob. And the support was in the form of the three
posts made by Jean Davison below:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fdc82db29eafccdf
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/7ca7ad3df4d03a08/4fbf7aa95fa160c2?#4fbf7aa95fa160c2
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e7dcb0edb275c573/f87e719204dc4fa0?#f87e719204dc4fa0
Jean didn't provide a verbatim quote from the Marcus transcript (which is
something I definitely intend to do once I get the copy of the transcript
from Jean in the mail), but she provided enough information (to my
satisfaction at least) to allow me to determine the following three things
(which are three things that many conspiracy theorists on the Internet
think never happened at all):
1.) Darrell Tomlinson did talk to an FBI agent who showed Tomlinson CE399.
(And the FBI's visit to see Tomlinson AND O.P. Wright was almost certainly
the same one mentioned in CE2011, which occurred on 6/12/64. Only the
agent's name is different. Everything else fits perfectly.)
2.) Tomlinson told the FBI agent that CE399 looked the same as the bullet
he had found on a Parkland stretcher on Nov. 22.
3.) Tomlinson told Raymond Marcus that the stretcher that had the bullet
on it was a stretcher that he had taken off of an elevator.
And my source for all of the above three items is Jean Davison -- the best
damn source anyone could ever hope to have when it comes to JFK
assassination research.
So, as I said, my claims HAVE been supported -- via Jean's research.
Footnote ---
I have a suspicion that this "Marcus/Tomlinson" thing is just eating up
Robert Harris and James DiEugenio (et al). Because they certainly don't
relish the idea that a document (written by one of their fellow conspiracy
advocates, no less) exists in the Archives that destroys a whole series of
their conspiracy-tinged arguments concerning the stretchers and Bullet
399.
Or , at the very least, the Marcus transcript certainly puts a substantial
dent in the CTers' crackpot idea that the FBI was lying through its teeth
about showing Tomlinson and Wright the bullet in June of '64.
But I'm loving it. And I thank Jean Davison for writing those three posts
I linked above. I'm glad I decided to dig them up again, since the ones
from July 2011 were virtually ignored by everyone.
And I hope to post some verbatim quotes from Ray Marcus' transcript
shortly. Stay tuned.
David Von Pein
December 4, 2011
Jean Davison
Dec 5, 2011, 9:00:27 AM12/5/11
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Dec 4, 10:52 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I'm sorry if you're offended at being asked to support your
>
> claims..." <<<
>
> I did support my claims, Bob. And the support was in the form of the three
> posts made by Jean Davison below:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fdc82db29eafccdf
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
> >>> "I'm sorry if you're offended at being asked to support your
>
> claims..." <<<
>
> I did support my claims, Bob. And the support was in the form of the three
> posts made by Jean Davison below:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fdc82db29eafccdf
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>
> Jean didn't provide a verbatim quote from the Marcus transcript (which is
> something I definitely intend to do once I get the copy of the transcript
> from Jean in the mail), but she provided enough information (to my
> satisfaction at least) to allow me to determine the following three things
> (which are three things that many conspiracy theorists on the Internet
> think never happened at all):
I found an old thread in which I quoted parts verbatim, so
> Jean didn't provide a verbatim quote from the Marcus transcript (which is
> something I definitely intend to do once I get the copy of the transcript
> from Jean in the mail), but she provided enough information (to my
> satisfaction at least) to allow me to determine the following three things
> (which are three things that many conspiracy theorists on the Internet
> think never happened at all):
here it is. I'll still send you the whole thing.
QUOTE:
Transcript of Marcus telephone interview with Tomlinson, July 25, 1966; 8
pm L.A. time.
T: Tomlinson
M: Marcus
***
T ...no I don't believe so. No, the one that was rolled off the elevator
had some surgical instruments stethoscope and sheets rolled up.
M: Were they bloody sheets? Do you remember?
T: I don't remember, to tell you the truth.
M: OK, I don't want to, I appreciate that, and if you don't remember, I
just want your best recollection. But your recollection is that's the one
that came off the elevator? That had some surgical instruments?
T: Yes. Uh, huh.
M: Now I know they questioned you over and over again in the volumes
there, about which stretcher the bullet came off of, and you seemed to
think it was not off the one that came off of the elevator?
T: No, it (pause) that *was* the one that it came off of.
M: You think it was off the one that came off the elevator?
T: I know it was.
M: OK, all right.
T: It come out from under the little rubber mat or pad that they have on
it, and it was the one that had the instruments on it. That was the one
that I pulled off the elevator whenever I took over to run the elevator
manually for 'em.
M: I got it. OK. So now when you bumped it against the wall, your
testimony says that some guy went in to use the men's room.
T: Thats right.
M: A doctor or intern or something, and he moved that to get in.
T: He moved both of them.
M: He ... to get into the door into the men's room?
T: (continuing) one was against the wall, and I don't remember which was
up against the restroom door, but one of the was, and he pulled them away
from the wall, and then when he came out of the restroom, he just walked
off and left them; so I just went over and give them a kick and they
bumped the wall, and that's when I noticed the bullet rolled out from
under the pad.
M: Now, when it rolled out from under the pad, it rolled out onto the
stretcher itself?
T: Right there, there's a little dip in the stretcher there.
M: Right.
T: And that bullet, it must have been lodged right under the pad
there.
M: I got it. I got it. And your best recollection is that was from the
stretcher that came off the elevator?
T: Yes, thats right.
M: OK; now when you noticed the bullet there --- this wasn't clear --
then it never fell on the floor? The bullet didn't actually fall to the
floor, did it?
T: No, uh uh (as in shaking one's head to indicate negative)
M: It was right there on the stretcher?
T: That's right (unintellig. words -- about 2 or 3)
M: Now, who did you-- did you pick the bullet up yourself at that
time?
T: Right. I picked the bullet up and put it in my pocket.
M: OK, did you-- as far as you can tell, I know you just picked it up
like that, but did you notice, was it bloody, did the bullet show any
evidence of blood on it itself?
T: I didn't notice it.
M: It would have been too slight to notice, I imagine.
T: Right. I just glanced at the (? ---damned, says RM) bullet so I put
it in my pocket and the first time that the security chief stopped by, Mr.
Wright, I turned it over to him-- first time by.
M: OK. Now do you recall when you saw that bullet, was there anything
about it that struck you, was it, uh, was it, uh, banged up, or was it
neat and clean, or do you recall that, was it mangled at all?
T: No, it wasn't mangled., it was a pretty clean bullet.
M: Pretty clean shape.
T: Yep.
[......]
M: Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it, and after
the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?
T: I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI
had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when
they called me in.
M: When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that time, did they show
you the bullet?
T: Yes.
M: Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?
T: Yes, I believe they did.
M: And as far as you could tell--- of course, you weren't making a
ballistics test of it--- but as far as you could tell, did it look like
the same one to you?
T: Yes, it appeared to be the same one.
[....]
UNQUOTE
<SNIP for space>
Jean
Robert Harris
Dec 5, 2011, 11:45:19 AM12/5/11
to
In article
<d802b8ca-a3d2-4021...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
"support"??
I already knew what Jean said, and referred to it. By "support", I meant
documentation.
But all of this is much ado about absolutely nothing, because we already
have Tomlinson's original, sworn testimony. If he changed his mind, years
later, than give an award to the people who talked him into it, but don't
try to pass it off as anything of value.
And why do you continue to evade the statements of all the other
witnesses? This is the fourth time I have asked you about that, but you
continue to evade it.
David, there is NOTHING you can ask me about my analysis and conclusions,
that I will not answer. And nothing you can ask me about these issues that
I will not immediately reply to.
WHY DO YOU EVADE ISSUES AND QUESTIONS?
What do you get out of dodging the most important issues?
And David, we already know that he and Wright both refused to identify
CE399. That's the bottom line here. And we know that Wright was very
specific that CE399 was shaped much differently than the stretcher bullet.
Robert Harris
<d802b8ca-a3d2-4021...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> "I'm sorry if you're offended at being asked to support your
> claims..." <<<
>
> I did support my claims, Bob. And the support was in the form of the three
> posts made by Jean Davison below:
David, why are you pretending that you don't know what I mean by
> claims..." <<<
>
> I did support my claims, Bob. And the support was in the form of the three
> posts made by Jean Davison below:
"support"??
I already knew what Jean said, and referred to it. By "support", I meant
documentation.
But all of this is much ado about absolutely nothing, because we already
have Tomlinson's original, sworn testimony. If he changed his mind, years
later, than give an award to the people who talked him into it, but don't
try to pass it off as anything of value.
And why do you continue to evade the statements of all the other
witnesses? This is the fourth time I have asked you about that, but you
continue to evade it.
David, there is NOTHING you can ask me about my analysis and conclusions,
that I will not answer. And nothing you can ask me about these issues that
I will not immediately reply to.
WHY DO YOU EVADE ISSUES AND QUESTIONS?
What do you get out of dodging the most important issues?
And David, we already know that he and Wright both refused to identify
CE399. That's the bottom line here. And we know that Wright was very
specific that CE399 was shaped much differently than the stretcher bullet.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
Dec 5, 2011, 11:46:17 AM12/5/11
to
Thank you, Jean. That saves me a lot of typing. And you really don't
need to go to the trouble of mailing the transcript to me now. You've
posted the relevant portions of the interview I was interested in.
And I also had a feeling that this topic had probably come up before
on these forums (or some other forum somewhere). You've probably had
that transcript for years, but things tend to get buried in a sea of
thousands of other posts over time.
Thanks again for posting those verbatim parts of the Marcus/Tomlinson
interview.
Anthony Marsh
Dec 5, 2011, 6:57:52 PM12/5/11
to
On 12/5/2011 11:45 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> In article
> <d802b8ca-a3d2-4021...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> "I'm sorry if you're offended at being asked to support your
>> claims..."<<<
>>
>> I did support my claims, Bob. And the support was in the form of the three
>> posts made by Jean Davison below:
>
>
>
> David, why are you pretending that you don't know what I mean by
> "support"??
>
> I already knew what Jean said, and referred to it. By "support", I meant
> documentation.
>
> But all of this is much ado about absolutely nothing, because we already
> have Tomlinson's original, sworn testimony. If he changed his mind, years
> later, than give an award to the people who talked him into it, but don't
> try to pass it off as anything of value.
>
Not good enough. Why do you guys keep ignoring THE expert, Loftus, who
> In article
> <d802b8ca-a3d2-4021...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> "I'm sorry if you're offended at being asked to support your
>> claims..."<<<
>>
>> I did support my claims, Bob. And the support was in the form of the three
>> posts made by Jean Davison below:
>
>
>
> David, why are you pretending that you don't know what I mean by
> "support"??
>
> I already knew what Jean said, and referred to it. By "support", I meant
> documentation.
>
> But all of this is much ado about absolutely nothing, because we already
> have Tomlinson's original, sworn testimony. If he changed his mind, years
> later, than give an award to the people who talked him into it, but don't
> try to pass it off as anything of value.
>
says you should go to the earliest statements before anyone has had a
chance to influence the witness?
You've seen how quickly they changed Euins' black shooter into a white
man. You've seen in the Mark Lane recorded interviews how a grassy knoll
witness says that all the shots came from the TSBD because that's what the
WC said.
Jean Davison
Dec 5, 2011, 7:02:30 PM12/5/11
to
On Dec 5, 10:46 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Jean. That saves me a lot of typing. And you really don't
> need to go to the trouble of mailing the transcript to me now. You've
> posted the relevant portions of the interview I was interested in.
>
Oops, too late. I mailed it this afternoon. But that's
> Thank you, Jean. That saves me a lot of typing. And you really don't
> need to go to the trouble of mailing the transcript to me now. You've
> posted the relevant portions of the interview I was interested in.
>
okay, there are other things you may find interesting, who knows?
> And I also had a feeling that this topic had probably come up before
> on these forums (or some other forum somewhere). You've probably had
> that transcript for years, but things tend to get buried in a sea of
> thousands of other posts over time.
>
> Thanks again for posting those verbatim parts of the Marcus/Tomlinson
> interview.
Jean
Anthony Marsh
Dec 5, 2011, 7:36:16 PM12/5/11
to
On 12/5/2011 9:00 AM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On Dec 4, 10:52 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "I'm sorry if you're offended at being asked to support your
>>
>> claims..."<<<
>>
>> I did support my claims, Bob. And the support was in the form of the three
>> posts made by Jean Davison below:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fdc82db29eafccdf
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>>
>> Jean didn't provide a verbatim quote from the Marcus transcript (which is
>> something I definitely intend to do once I get the copy of the transcript
>> from Jean in the mail), but she provided enough information (to my
>> satisfaction at least) to allow me to determine the following three things
>> (which are three things that many conspiracy theorists on the Internet
>> think never happened at all):
>
>
> I found an old thread in which I quoted parts verbatim, so
> here it is. I'll still send you the whole thing.
>
That's amazing. How in the world did you do that all by yourself? Did you
> On Dec 4, 10:52 pm, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "I'm sorry if you're offended at being asked to support your
>>
>> claims..."<<<
>>
>> I did support my claims, Bob. And the support was in the form of the three
>> posts made by Jean Davison below:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fdc82db29eafccdf
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...
>>
>> Jean didn't provide a verbatim quote from the Marcus transcript (which is
>> something I definitely intend to do once I get the copy of the transcript
>> from Jean in the mail), but she provided enough information (to my
>> satisfaction at least) to allow me to determine the following three things
>> (which are three things that many conspiracy theorists on the Internet
>> think never happened at all):
>
>
> I found an old thread in which I quoted parts verbatim, so
> here it is. I'll still send you the whole thing.
>
learn how to SEARCH the InterNet? Did someone show you how to use Google
Groups? Or the Wayback Machine? Or Freak?
> QUOTE:
>
> Transcript of Marcus telephone interview with Tomlinson, July 25, 1966; 8
> pm L.A. time.
>
so why are YOU citing him as a reliable source? Why don't you have an
interview by a WC defender? Oh, you say that WC defenders never bother
to interview witnesses?
Shanklin took out CE399 and to whom he showed it. Can upload Shanklin's
302 report of this incident?
Or maybe it wasn't really CE399 but just some test bullet that LOOKED
like CE399.
Maybe the FBI had to test fire 1,000 M-C bullets before they could
duplicate the condition of CE399.
>
> M: When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that time, did they show
> you the bullet?
>
>
> T: Yes.
>
>
> M: Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?
>
>
> T: Yes, I believe they did.
>
>
> M: And as far as you could tell--- of course, you weren't making a
> ballistics test of it--- but as far as you could tell, did it look like
> the same one to you?
>
>
> T: Yes, it appeared to be the same one.
>
David Von Pein
Dec 11, 2011, 12:14:30 PM12/11/11
to
Thanks for the Marcus transcript, Jean. I received it in the mail on
Sat., Dec. 10th.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html#Marcus-Transcript
David Von Pein
Dec 13, 2011, 9:20:18 AM12/13/11
to
Complete Marcus/Tomlinson transcript:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/marcus-tomlinson-interview-7-25-66.html
Jean Davison
Dec 13, 2011, 1:45:30 PM12/13/11
to jjdavi...@yahoo.com
On Dec 11, 11:14 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the Marcus transcript, Jean. I received it in the mail on
> Sat., Dec. 10th.
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.htm...
> Thanks for the Marcus transcript, Jean. I received it in the mail on
> Sat., Dec. 10th.
>
Thanks for putting a scanned copy online, David.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/marcus-tomlinson-interview-7-25-66.html
Jean
0 new messages