THE TESTIMONY OF JACK DOUGHERTY
David Von Pein
EXAMINING THE TESTIMONY OF JACK E. DOUGHERTY:
=========================================
If anyone wants several good-sized laughs, I'd like to recommend
reading the official April 8, 1964, Warren Commission testimony of 40-
year-old Jack Edwin Dougherty, who was one of the employees who was
working at the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/doughert.htm
In addition to the many laughs, Mr. Dougherty's above-linked testimony
is bound to give anyone reading it a bit of a headache as well (anyone
who is trying to use Dougherty's testimony as a vehicle to prop up
anything "definitive" or "conspiratorial" in nature when it comes to
the events that occurred inside the Book Depository Building on
11/22/63, that is).
Dougherty's WC session is just one great-big mess. I can only imagine
the thoughts that were going through the mind of WC questioner Joe
Ball after he took Dougherty's testimony that spring day in 1964. Joe
probably felt like rolling his eyes every few seconds while listening
to Dougherty's hither-and-yon answers to the questions he was being
asked.
But, in Dougherty's defense, I'll have to add this -- Jack was
probably very nervous when he gave his WC testimony; and possibly his
answers didn't always come out just exactly as he meant them to come
out. This same thing probably happened with a lot of the 552 witnesses
who were questioned by the Warren Commission in relation to the JFK
case.
If it were me, I'd certainly have been scared to death. And when
you're scared to death, your words might have a tendency to become
unclear and maybe even incoherent at times. I think this occurred with
several of the witnesses who appeared in front of the WC in '64.
Let's examine a few of Mr. Dougherty's hilarious and semi-hilarious
statements made to the WC:
=====================
JOSEPH BALL - Did you ever leave the United States during the War?
JACK E. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes.
Mr. BALL - Where did you go?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I was stationed, oh, for about a year up in
Indiana up there--Seymour, Indiana.
[DVP: This is the first "LOL" moment in Jack's testimony. As a native
of the great state of Indiana, I had no idea I was living outside the
United States.]
=====================
Mr. BALL - And how long do you take for lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, from 12 to 12:45.
Mr. BALL - Forty-five minutes?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Do you always take a full hour?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, I usually do.
[DVP: The above testimony had me doing TWO double-takes (due to the
fact that the above words spoken by BOTH Dougherty and Joseph Ball are
seemingly so incredibly silly).
First, Dougherty confirms he takes only 45 minutes for his regular
lunch break each day at the Depository. But then Ball feels compelled
to ask the odd follow-up question, "Do you always take a full
hour?" (even though Dougherty just one second earlier confirmed his
lunch break was only 45 minutes long).
And then Dougherty goes with the flow (evidently) and completely
changes his lunch-break time to a "full hour" by answering "Yes, I
usually do" to Ball's follow-up question.
Perhaps the two men, when talking about a "full hour", were referring
to the time it took to physically eat lunch plus some added time
milling around the TSBD after lunch, playing dominoes, etc. ~shrug~
Anyway, the above exchange struck me as humorous (and not just
Dougherty's part). ;)]
=====================
Mr. BALL - Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him
{LHO} that morning when he came to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to
you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when
he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---
that's the reason why I said it that way. ....
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in
his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
[DVP: So, we have JD admitting to the WC that he only saw Oswald "out
of the corner of my eye" as LHO entered the back door of the TSBD on
November 22nd....and yet we also have Dougherty being certain that
Oswald had nothing in his hands at all (even though he admitted just
seconds earlier that he only saw LHO "out of the corner of my eye";
i.e., he saw LHO via his peripheral vision as Lee came in the back
door).
I'll leave it up to the individual readers of JD's testimony to decide
whether or not Mr. Dougherty is entirely believable when he said he
was not "guessing" when he claimed that Lee Oswald entered the Book
Depository empty-handed on the morning of the assassination.]
=====================
Mr. BALL - Did you know that the President was going to pass in a
motorcade that noon?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, they said something about it.
Mr. BALL - Did you intend to go out and watch him?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I would have loved to have went out and watched
him, but the steps were so crowded---there was no way in the world I
could get out there.
[DVP: <large chuckle here> So, per Jack, there were so many people
clogging the entrance of the TSBD around 12:30, he was physically
prohibited from exiting the Depository VIA ANY OF THE OTHER DOORS IN
THE BUILDING at approximately the time when the President was driving
by the building.
Maybe I shouldn't be laughing at JD's above silly-sounding testimony
after all, huh? Because by doing so, perhaps I'm playing right into
the hands of the conspiracy-happy kooks who probably have a desire to
paint Mr. Dougherty as one of the conspirators in the plot to kill
JFK.
After all, the above testimony about JD definitely WANTING to go
outside to see the President, but not being able to do so because of
the people blocking the entrance to the building is certainly
testimony that could be looked at sideways and with a wary eye by the
CT-Kooks of the world (if it hasn't been looked at in that fashion
heretofore).
Evidently, it never occurred to Dougherty to go out the back door and
then walk around the building in order to catch a glimpse of President
Kennedy driving by.
And apparently it also never occurred to Jack to simply go upstairs to
the fifth or sixth floor (the warehouse floors) in order to get
himself a great bird's-eye view of the President passing by from one
of the many windows that he could have had all to himself on the upper
floors of the building at 12:30 PM, just as some of his fellow
employees did that day.
Mr. Dougherty doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier,
I must say. (Sorry, Jack, just an honest observation.) ~wink~]
=====================
Mr. BALL - When you left your lunch, did you go to the fifth floor or
the sixth floor to go back to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I went on the fifth floor when I was getting ready to
go down to eat lunch.
Mr. BALL - Yes; and then what happened?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, at that time--I was about 10 feet away---
Mr. BALL - Wait a minute---did you hear the shots before or after you
had your lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Before---before I ate my lunch.
Mr. BALL - You heard shots before you ate your lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Let's see---yes, I believe I did.
[DVP: So, via the above testimony, Mr. Dougherty is, in effect, saying
this:
I HEARD THE SHOOTING BEFORE I ATE MY LUNCH, BUT THEN AFTER HEARING THE
SHOOTING AND THE COMMOTION I WENT AHEAD AND ATE MY LUNCH ANYWAY AND
THEN WENT *BACK* TO WORK AFTER FINISHING MY LUNCH, WHICH, AS
MENTIONED, WAS EATEN *AFTER* THE SHOOTING TOOK PLACE AND *AFTER* THE
BUILDING WAS BEING INUNDATED BY THE POLICE.
I think only one other comment is really in order here, which is ---
Huh???]
=====================
Mr. BALL - And while you were on the fifth floor, you heard a loud
noise?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right---it sounded like a car backfiring.
Mr. BALL - And did you hear more than one loud explosion or noise?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No; that was the only one I heard.
Mr. BALL - You only heard one?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And where did it sound like it came from?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - It sounded like it came from overhead somewhere.
Mr. BALL - From overhead?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - How did you get to the fifth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Elevator.
Mr. BALL - You were on the fifth floor when you heard this, were you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Which elevator did you take?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, you see, there's one on this side and one on
this side the one on this side is the one I took.
Mr. BALL - Well, now, "The one on this side and the one on this side,"
doesn't mean much when it's written down.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I know it.
[DVP: Oh, my bladder! I wonder how Mr. Ball kept his own laughter in
check during this session with Mr. Dougherty? It must have been a
chore.]
=====================
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, when I got through getting stock off of the
sixth floor, I came back down to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL - What did you do on the fifth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I got some stock.
Mr. BALL - Then what happened then?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, then immediately I heard a loud noise---it
sounded like a car backfiring, and I came back down to the first
floor, and I asked Eddie Piper, I said, "Piper, what was that?" I
says, "Has the President been shot?". He said, "Yes."
Mr. BALL - You didn't say--did you say, "Has the President been
shot?"---you told the FBI agent that you went down to the first floor
and you saw a man named Eddie Piper and asked him if he heard a loud
noise.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I asked him that too.
Mr. BALL - And Piper said he had heard three loud noises and told you
that somebody had just shot the President; is that right?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - Who mentioned the fact that the President had been shot
first -- you or Eddie Piper?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Eddie Piper.
Mr. BALL - Did you say anything to Piper about the President being
shot?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir.
[DVP: I can just see Joe Ball's eyes moving northward as I read the
above JD mish-mash.]
=====================
Mr. BALL - On the day that this happened, on the 22nd of November, you
told the FBI agents Ellington and Anderson that you heard "a loud
explosion which sounded like a rifle shot coming from the next floor
above me." Now, did you tell them that it sounded like a rifle shot,
coming from the next floor above you, or didn't you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I told them it sounded like a car
backfiring.
Mr. BALL - Well, did you tell them it sounded like it was from the
floor above you, or didn't you tell them that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - You did not tell them that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - Did it sound like it came from the floor above you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, at the time it did--yes.
[DVP: I guess Dougherty must have thought there was a '62 Chevy Impala
"backfiring" up on the sixth floor, huh? <another LOL>
At this point in this incoherent mess, Joe Ball is probably
desperately wanting to ask Dougherty how many hits off of that
marijuana joint he had taken just prior to testifying on April 8th.]
=====================
Mr. BALL - When you went up to the sixth floor, it was after they
found the shotgun and shells?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
[DVP: So, Dougherty is now saying he was on the sixth floor AFTER 1:22
PM CST on November 22nd. Mr. Ball is now probably getting ready to put
in a call for Nurse Ratched and the white-coated technicians from the
nearest loony-bin.]
=====================
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large
package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw
him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.
[DVP: Although Dougherty, via the above testimony, didn't specifically
claim that Shelley said he (Shelley) saw LHO carrying a "fairly good-
sized package" ON NOVEMBER 22ND, I think that such an inference could
be implied by Dougherty's above words. Which, of course, is total
nonsense. Shelley didn't see any such thing.
Perhaps Dougherty meant to say "Wes Frazier" instead of "Bill Shelley"
above. If so, it would make much more sense...except for the fact that
"the day after it happened" was a Saturday, i.e., a day when the
regular stock workers of the TSBD didn't report to work. So, once
again, it's a jumbled-up mess that JD's providing us here. ~shrug~]
=====================
Mr. BALL - Are you sure you were on the fifth floor when you heard the
shots?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, I'm positive.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any other employee on the fifth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir; I didn't see nobody. There wasn't nobody on
the fifth floor at all. It was just myself.
[DVP: The above quote isn't so much hilarious as it is just plain
wrong. Norman, Jarman, and Williams, of course, were all on the south
side of the 5th Floor at the time of the shooting.
But, to be totally fair to Dougherty in this instance, it's quite
possible (what with the obstructions of boxes and other things that
might have blocked his view) that JD just simply couldn't see the
south side of the building (by the windows) during the time he might
have been on the fifth floor on November 22nd.]
=====================
Mr. BALL - Now, did you hear this shot either before or after lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - It was before lunch; it was before lunch.
Mr. BALL - You think it was before lunch you heard the shot?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I believe it was--yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And you were alone, were you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
[DVP: Here we have a replay of the previous "LOL" moment re. JD's
"before lunch" declaration. How could anyone POSSIBLY believe
Dougherty's "Before Lunch" testimony above? Especially when we also
find this exchange within the very same day's WC testimony:
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I went back downstairs to eat lunch.
Mr. BALL - What time?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, it was 12 o'clock.
I guess the assassination must have really taken place prior to 12:00
Noon then (per JD's morass of distorted lunch-eating timelines).
So, in order for JD's "I heard a shot before lunch" testimony to be
true (in conjunction with all of his other testimony, if we're to
believe portions of it as well), Dougherty would have had to have
heard the gunshot or "backfire" many minutes prior to 12:30 (unless JD
waited a half-hour after his 45-minute lunch break started to begin
eating his lunch that day)....and then after hearing the shot, he
descends to the first floor to talk with Eddie Piper.
And then, per JD, after being told by Piper that the President had
just been shot right in front of the building, Dougherty went ahead
and ate his lunch, as if it was an ordinary lunch break and as if
nothing unusual had just occurred in front of the building on Elm
Street.
And then, sometime after eating his lunch and while searching for Roy
Truly, Dougherty was allowed back up on the sixth floor at a time (per
JD) which was AFTER the police had already discovered Oswald's rifle
(which would have been 52 minutes after the shooting itself).
Do you think maybe that marijuana reference I made earlier just might
have some credence after all?]
=====================
Mr. BALL - That's all I have to ask you, and this will be written up
and if you would like to come down and read it and sign it, you can,
or you can waive your signature. What do you want to do?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, whatever you want to do---it doesn't make any
difference.
Mr. BALL - Would you like to come down and read it over and sign it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, if you've got time, I'll sign it now.
[DVP: Yep. It must've been the grass he was smoking before giving his
testimony. Don't you think?]
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/doughert.htm
=====================
For some additional confusion, contradictions, and laughs, have a look
at Jack Dougherty's November 22, 1963, affidavit (linked below).
In that affidavit, JD claims to have seen several TSBD employees on
the sixth floor AFTER the assassination took place (at least that's
how it comes out via his affidavit; but he undoubtedly was actually
talking about seeing the TSBD workers, including Oswald, on the sixth
floor sometime BEFORE the actual shooting took place; but that's not
how it appears on JD's very strangely-written affidavit). ~shrug
time~ .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/dougher1.htm
=====================
Gil Jesus
From the Testimony of Jack E, Dougherty, WC Volume 6, page 377
Mr. BALL. Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY. Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL. Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you
would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY. Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this
way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL. In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in
his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY. I would say that---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY. I don't think so.
Mr. BALL You saw him come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY. Yes.
(6H377)
Now, does that testimony sound confused ?
In spite of Dougherty's assertion that "I didn't see anything in his
hands at the time", that his assertion that he wasn't "guessing" and
his agreement that his memory was "definite" on that point, the Warren
Commission concluded that:
"One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed that he saw Oswald coming to
work, but he does not remember that Oswald had anything in his hands
as he entered the door."
(WCR Ch 4, pg.134)
A TOTAL AND COMPLETE LIE.
justm...@gmail.com
The following question and answer are enough to agree that JD was a
redneck (from previous answers) who wasn't sure what he saw. He
doesn't think he was guessing????? Nice try again Chico....wrong!!
David Von Pein
>>> " "One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed that he saw Oswald coming to work, but he does not remember that Oswald had anything in his hands as he entered the door." " <<<
This is hysterical!
Gil-Kook, incredibly, thinks that by the WC ADMITTING that Dougherty
said that Oswald was empty-handed, this constitutes a "total and
complete lie" by the WC.
In essence, of course, the WC is telling us just exactly what Gil-Kook
SHOULD want to hear -- i.e., Dougherty said that Oswald had nothing in
his hands at all.
The WC could easily have been much harsher on Mr. "I HEARD THE SHOT
BEFORE I ATE MY LUNCH" Dougherty....and anyone who examines my thread-
starting post above can easily see that the WC had ample material to
work with in order to stamp the label of "TOTALLY UNRELIABLE WITNESS"
all over the forehead of one Jack E. Dougherty.
But, the WC (via the passage cited by Gil-Kook) didn't drag Dougherty
through the "unreliable" mud that he most certainly could have been
dragged through in that example Gil-Kook provided.
But, to a kook like Gil, I'm sure that a witness like Jack "I ONLY SAW
LHO OUT OF THE CORNER OF MY EYE" Dougherty should be relied upon 100%.
Right Mr. Kook?
David Von Pein
Dougherty Addendum:
BTW, Gil-Kook doesn't do a very good job of accurately citing source
material either. The passage in the WCR re. Dougherty seeing Oswald
isn't on Page 134 of the WR (as Gil-Kook said); it's on Page 133.
That's just a very small error, yes. But it seems typical for Gil "I
GET EVERYTHING WRONG" Jesus.
WCR; Page 133:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0079a.htm
Walt
> EXAMINING THE TESTIMONY OF JACK E. DOUGHERTY:
>
> =========================================
I believe that Jack Dougherty was a simpleton with a low IQ.
I remember reading that he was scared to death at being questioned by
the authorities. His father accompanied him either when he was
questioned by the police or when he appeared before the Warren
Commission.
I strongly suspect that Dougherty was a man who could easily be
tricked and made the laughing stock. He may have been used as the
decoy shooter who was dressed in light colored work clothes, who had
dark hair, was in his "early thirties", and weighed about 165 to 175
pounds, that Howard Brennan saw aiming a rifle out of the west end
window.
> Mr. ...
>
> read more »
aeffects
LMFAO -- the actual testimony is too much for ya, eh? Can't spin it,
son... Nice try anyway... you old MEGA Lone-Nut Kookster, you
David Von Pein
>>> "Maybe I shouldn't be laughing at JD's above silly-sounding testimony after all, huh? Because by doing so, perhaps I'm playing right into the hands of the conspiracy-happy kooks who probably have a desire to paint Mr. Dougherty as one of the conspirators in the plot to kill JFK. After all, the above testimony about JD definitely WANTING to go outside to see the President, but not being able to do so because of the people blocking the entrance to the building is certainly testimony that could be looked at sideways and with a wary eye by the CT-Kooks of the world (if it hasn't been looked at in that fashion heretofore)." <<<
WALT THE SUPER-IDIOT THEN SAID:
>>> "I strongly suspect that Dougherty was a man who could easily be tricked and made the laughing stock. He may have been used as the decoy shooter who was dressed in light colored work clothes, who had dark hair, was in his "early thirties", and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds, that Howard Brennan saw aiming a rifle out of the west end window." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
Right on cue, Walt. Thanks for making me prophetic.
Still clinging to the imaginary West-End shooter, eh Walt?
And now Dougherty's a suspect. Nice. Better get together with Don
Willis....he's got Arce and/or Williams as the shooters. Next week,
it'll no doubt be Earlene Roberts and Gladys Johnson from the
roominghouse as the assassins.
You kooks can't get anything right....not even the CIRCLED WINDOW from
where Oswald was seen shooting a rifle:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0112a.htm
Why on Earth are you kooks looking into this case? Do you truly enjoy
being embarrassed every single day? Truly?
Walt
> DVP SAID:
>
> >>> "Maybe I shouldn't be laughing at JD's above silly-sounding testimony after all, huh? Because by doing so, perhaps I'm playing right into the hands of the conspiracy-happy kooks who probably have a desire to paint Mr. Dougherty as one of the conspirators in the plot to kill JFK. After all, the above testimony about JD definitely WANTING to go outside to see the President, but not being able to do so because of the people blocking the entrance to the building is certainly testimony that could be looked at sideways and with a wary eye by the CT-Kooks of the world (if it hasn't been looked at in that fashion heretofore)." <<<
>
> WALT THE SUPER-IDIOT THEN SAID:
>
> >>> "I strongly suspect that Dougherty was a man who could easily be tricked and made the laughing stock. He may have been used as the decoy shooter who was dressed in light colored work clothes, who had dark hair, was in his "early thirties", and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds, that Howard Brennan saw aiming a rifle out of the west end window." <<<
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Right on cue, Walt. Thanks for making me prophetic.
Well I'll be dipped.... Now the Pea Brain thinks he's a prophet....
Hey Pea Brain..... Who was the man closest to the sixth floor after
the shooting?
>
> Still clinging to the imaginary West-End shooter, eh Walt?
>
> And now Dougherty's a suspect. Nice. Better get together with Don
> Willis....he's got Arce and/or Williams as the shooters. Next week,
> it'll no doubt be Earlene Roberts and Gladys Johnson from the
> roominghouse as the assassins.
>
> You kooks can't get anything right....not even the CIRCLED WINDOW from
> where Oswald was seen shooting a rifle:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
Gil Jesus
>
> BTW, Gil-Kook doesn't do a very good job of accurately citing source
> material either. The passage in the WCR re. Dougherty seeing Oswald
> isn't on Page 134 of the WR (as Gil-Kook said); it's on Page 133.
Gee, it must have taken you HOURS to find the right page, huh ?
Wow, you REALLY got me on that one, what a booboo !!!
I noticed that you refer to an on-line version of the WC report. I use
a CD version of the 26 volumes and the report.
Don't you own your own set ?
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:239e809e-ab7e-4d52...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
Dale Myers read it to him once.... he doesn't need the real deal....
LMFAO!
Walt
> DVP SAID:
>
> >>> "Maybe I shouldn't be laughing at JD's above silly-sounding testimony after all, huh? Because by doing so, perhaps I'm playing right into the hands of the conspiracy-happy kooks who probably have a desire to paint Mr. Dougherty as one of the conspirators in the plot to kill JFK. After all, the above testimony about JD definitely WANTING to go outside to see the President, but not being able to do so because of the people blocking the entrance to the building is certainly testimony that could be looked at sideways and with a wary eye by the CT-Kooks of the world (if it hasn't been looked at in that fashion heretofore)." <<<
>
> WALT THE SUPER-IDIOT THEN SAID:
>
> >>> "I strongly suspect that Dougherty was a man who could easily be tricked and made the laughing stock. He may have been used as the decoy shooter who was dressed in light colored work clothes, who had dark hair, was in his "early thirties", and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds, that Howard Brennan saw aiming a rifle out of the west end window." <<<
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Right on cue, Walt. Thanks for making me prophetic.
>
> Still clinging to the imaginary West-End shooter, eh Walt?
>
> And now Dougherty's a suspect. Nice. Better get together with Don
> Willis....he's got Arce and/or Williams as the shooters. Next week,
> it'll no doubt be Earlene Roberts and Gladys Johnson from the
> roominghouse as the assassins.
>
> You kooks can't get anything right....not even the CIRCLED WINDOW from
> where Oswald was seen shooting a rifle:
Duh....I'll type this real slow so you can understand.....
Howard Brennan went to the police station to view a line-up of
suspects, about six hours after he'd seen the 30 to 35 year old, 165
to 175 pound, man with dark hair aiming a HUNTING rifle ( "possibly a
30-30 Winchester" ) out of the west end window on the sixth floor of
the TSBD. He knew the man he'd seen with that hunting rifle was
dressed in a "dingy white" shirt and trousers, possibly khaki. When
the police brought out Oswald as one out the "suspects" in the line
up, Brennan said the man he saw wearing the light colored clothing was
NOT in that line up.
When he'd written his affidavit immediately after the shooting he said
that he felt he would be able to identify the man wearing the white
clothing, with the hunting rifle, if he ever saw him again......Then
just a few hours later he saw Oswald in the line-up and told the cops
the man he'd seen was NOT in that line-up. They attempted tp coerce
Brennan into indentifying Oswald but Brennan steadfastly refused. The
cops asked him how he could be certain that Oswald was NOT the man and
Brennan replied:.... "Well, for one thing he's got on different
clothes". The cops were insistant that Brennan put the finger on
Oswald and told him that Oswald had changed his clothes in his rooming
house after the assassination..... Which was true.....HOWEVER...The
cops knew damned well that the none clothes they had found in Oswald's
room matched the white shirt and trousers that Brennan said the man
was wearing.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
Walt
Don't you own your own set ?...... Are you kidding, Gil..... Of
course Pea brain doesn't own a "set". If he did he'd be man enough
to admit that the Warren Report is a farse.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Who let the 4th Stooge out of the toilet?
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 22 Mar, 10:07, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > DVP SAID:
> >
> > >>> "Maybe I shouldn't be laughing at JD's above silly-sounding testimony after all, huh? Because by doing so, perhaps I'm playing right into the hands of the conspiracy-happy kooks who probably have a desire to paint Mr. Dougherty as one of the conspirators in the plot to kill JFK. After all, the above testimony about JD definitely WANTING to go outside to see the President, but not being able to do so because of the people blocking the entrance to the building is certainly testimony that could be looked at sideways and with a wary eye by the CT-Kooks of the world (if it hasn't been looked at in that fashion heretofore)." <<<
> >
> > WALT THE SUPER-IDIOT THEN SAID:
> >
> > >>> "I strongly suspect that Dougherty was a man who could easily be tricked and made the laughing stock. He may have been used as the decoy shooter who was dressed in light colored work clothes, who had dark hair, was in his "early thirties", and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds, that Howard Brennan saw aiming a rifle out of the west end window." <<<
> >
> > DVP NOW SAYS:
> >
> > Right on cue, Walt. Thanks for making me prophetic.
> >
> > Still clinging to the imaginary West-End shooter, eh Walt?
> >
> > And now Dougherty's a suspect. Nice. Better get together with Don
> > Willis....he's got Arce and/or Williams as the shooters. Next week,
> > it'll no doubt be Earlene Roberts and Gladys Johnson from the
> > roominghouse as the assassins.
> >
> > You kooks can't get anything right....not even the CIRCLED WINDOW from
> > where Oswald was seen shooting a rifle:
>
> Duh....I'll type this real slow so you can understand.....
Lets count the lies Walt tells...
> Howard Brennan went to the police station to view a line-up of
> suspects,
Heres one. There was only one suspect in the line-ups.
> about six hours after he'd seen the 30 to 35 year old,
Heres another. Brennan never gave the range Walt is offering here.
>165
> to 175 pound, man with dark hair
Heres another. When Brennan was asked if he noted the shooters hair
color, he replied "No".
> aiming a HUNTING rifle ( "possibly a
> 30-30 Winchester" )
Heres another. Brennan did not say what Walt put in quotes. He said
about the rifle... "..."some kind of high-powered rifle".
> out of the west end window on the sixth floor of
> the TSBD.
Still another. Here is an affidavit by Brennan where he places the
shoits as coming from the SE window.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan4.htm
> He knew the man he'd seen with that hunting rifle
Another. Brennan never said the rifle he saw was a hunting rifle.
> was
> dressed in a "dingy white" shirt and trousers, possibly khaki. When
> the police brought out Oswald as one out the "suspects" in the line
> up, Brennan said the man he saw wearing the light colored clothing was
> NOT in that line up.
Yah, he explained why he didn`t select Oswald as the shooter.
Concern for his and his family`s safety.
> When he'd written his affidavit immediately after the shooting he said
> that he felt he would be able to identify the man wearing the white
> clothing, with the hunting rifle, if he ever saw him again......
He later said he did recognize Oz as the shooter he saw. He just
didn`t make an identification for the reasons he gave.
>Then
> just a few hours later he saw Oswald in the line-up and told the cops
> the man he'd seen was NOT in that line-up. They attempted tp coerce
> Brennan into indentifying Oswald but Brennan steadfastly refused.
The cops tried to get him to tell the truth, but he declined for
reasons of his own.
> The
> cops asked him how he could be certain that Oswald was NOT the man and
> Brennan replied:.... "Well, for one thing he's got on different
> clothes".
He tried to use the clothing as an excuse to wiggle out of making
an identification.
> The cops were insistant that Brennan put the finger on
> Oswald and told him that Oswald had changed his clothes in his rooming
> house after the assassination..... Which was true.....
Doubtful. In any case, the shirt he wore was the one he wore to
work that morning.
>HOWEVER...The
> cops knew damned well that the none clothes they had found in Oswald's
> room matched the white shirt and trousers that Brennan said the man
> was wearing.
Not surprising, clothing is probably something witnesses do the
worst at identifying. I rarely take notice of what people wear,
doubtful I would during a shooting.
aeffects
wrote:
isn't your husband calling you....
Gil Jesus
>
> Duh....I'll type this real slow so you can understand.....
ROFLMAO... ...I don't think that you could type slow enough to match
the speed of THAT brain, Walt.
Gil Jesus
Are you kidding, Gil..... Of
> course Pea brain doesn't own a "set". � �If he did he'd be man enough
> to admit that the Warren Report is a farse
This knucklehead doesn't even own a set of the report that he
vehemently defends ? You're telling me this brain-dead piece
of.........who calls everyone "kook" never felt strongly enough about
the Commission's findings to even buy a set in order to find out what
they said ?
This is as phony as a baloney as one can get...... DEFENDING A REPORT
THAT HE WOULDN'T EVEN BUY !!!!
How does one defend that which he wouldn't even purchase ?
Well, there goes what little credibility that IDIOT had.
Todd W. Vaughan
> DVP SAID:
>
> >>> "Maybe I shouldn't be laughing at JD's above silly-sounding testimony after all, huh? Because by doing so, perhaps I'm playing right into the hands of the conspiracy-happy kooks who probably have a desire to paint Mr. Dougherty as one of the conspirators in the plot to kill JFK. After all, the above testimony about JD definitely WANTING to go outside to see the President, but not being able to do so because of the people blocking the entrance to the building is certainly testimony that could be looked at sideways and with a wary eye by the CT-Kooks of the world (if it hasn't been looked at in that fashion heretofore)." <<<
>
> WALT THE SUPER-IDIOT THEN SAID:
>
> >>> "I strongly suspect that Dougherty was a man who could easily be tricked and made the laughing stock. He may have been used as the decoy shooter who was dressed in light colored work clothes, who had dark hair, was in his "early thirties", and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds, that Howard Brennan saw aiming a rifle out of the west end window." <<<
>
> DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> Right on cue, Walt. Thanks for making me prophetic.
>
> Still clinging to the imaginary West-End shooter, eh Walt?
>
> And now Dougherty's a suspect. Nice. Better get together with Don
> Willis....he's got Arce and/or Williams as the shooters. Next week,
> it'll no doubt be Earlene Roberts and Gladys Johnson from the
> roominghouse as the assassins.
My understaning is that it may alwo be a crossfire with Johnny Calivnm
Brewer firing from the shoe store entrance and Julia Postal firing
from the Texas Theater ticket booth on the sidewalk.
>
> You kooks can't get anything right....not even the CIRCLED WINDOW from
> where Oswald was seen shooting a rifle:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
Todd W. Vaughan
He covered the "actual testimony" quite thoroughly earlier in the
thread, David.
No YOU look like the idiot that you are.
Todd W. Vaughan
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why bring Myers into this, David?
And do you have a set of the 26 volumes?
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > On 22 Mar, 10:07, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > DVP SAID:
>
> > > >>> "Maybe I shouldn't be laughing at JD's above silly-sounding testimony after all, huh? Because by doing so, perhaps I'm playing right into the hands of the conspiracy-happy kooks who probably have a desire to paint Mr. Dougherty as one of the conspirators in the plot to kill JFK. After all, the above testimony about JD definitely WANTING to go outside to see the President, but not being able to do so because of the people blocking the entrance to the building is certainly testimony that could be looked at sideways and with a wary eye by the CT-Kooks of the world (if it hasn't been looked at in that fashion heretofore)." <<<
>
> > > WALT THE SUPER-IDIOT THEN SAID:
>
> > > >>> "I strongly suspect that Dougherty was a man who could easily be tricked and made the laughing stock. He may have been used as the decoy shooter who was dressed in light colored work clothes, who had dark hair, was in his "early thirties", and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds, that Howard Brennan saw aiming a rifle out of the west end window." <<<
>
> > > DVP NOW SAYS:
>
> > > Right on cue, Walt. Thanks for making me prophetic.
>
> > > Still clinging to the imaginary West-End shooter, eh Walt?
>
> > > And now Dougherty's a suspect. Nice. Better get together with Don
> > > Willis....he's got Arce and/or Williams as the shooters. Next week,
> > > it'll no doubt be Earlene Roberts and Gladys Johnson from the
> > > roominghouse as the assassins.
>
> > > You kooks can't get anything right....not even the CIRCLED WINDOW from
> > > where Oswald was seen shooting a rifle:
>
> > Duh....I'll type this real slow so you can understand.....
>
> Lets count the lies Walt tells...
>
> > Howard Brennan went to the police station to view a line-up of
> > suspects,
>
> Heres one. There was only one suspect in the line-ups.
Good point..... The DPD had already concluded that Oswald was the
designated patsy...so yer right there was only one "suspect". Now can
you tell me if the other people in the line up looked anything like
LHO as far as height, weight, age, and etc, or was Oswald the ONLY one
that vaguely resembled the man brennan had seen??
>
> > about six hours after he'd seen the 30 to 35 year old,
>
> Heres another. Brennan never gave the range Walt is offering here.
>
> >165
> > to 175 pound,
Do I have to go get Brennan's statements and make you look like a
bigger fool??
man with dark hair
>
> Heres another. When Brennan was asked if he noted the shooters hair
> color, he replied "No".
>
> > aiming a HUNTING rifle ( "possibly a
> > 30-30 Winchester" )
>
> Heres another. Brennan did not say what Walt put in quotes. He said
> about the rifle... "..."some kind of high-powered rifle".
It's obvious that Howard Brennan was the ONLY man to step forward in
the first fifteen minutes after the shooting with a description of the
man he's seen with a "HIGH POWERED RIFLE" in the sixth floor window.
He later said that he didn't know much about guns.... But at about
12:45 the police dispatcher gave a description of the gunman that fit
most white men in Dallas who were less than 40 years old, and said
that the gunman was believed to be armed with a 30 -30 Winchester.
That description of a high powered rifle as a 30 -30 could only have
came from Brennan.
>
> > out of the west end window on the sixth floor of
> > the TSBD.
>
> Still another. Here is an affidavit by Brennan where he places the
> shoits as coming from the SE window.
Wrong Dumbass.... Brennan circled the window where he had seen the
White clothing clad gunman that was at least ten years older than Lee
Oswald BEFORE the motorcade arrived. Brennan DESCRIBED the WEST end
window as the window the gunman was in AT THE TIME of the shooting.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan4.htm
>
> > He knew the man he'd seen with that hunting rifle
>
> Another. Brennan never said the rifle he saw was a hunting rifle.
The terms "high powered rifle", "deer rifle", "big game rifle",
"hunting rifle" and. sporting rifle, all are used interchangably, to
describe a sporting arm like a 30 -30 Winchester.
>
> > was
> > dressed in a "dingy white" shirt and trousers, possibly khaki. When
> > the police brought out Oswald as one out the "suspects" in the line
> > up, Brennan said the man he saw wearing the light colored clothing was
> > NOT in that line up.
>
> Yah, he explained why he didn`t select Oswald as the shooter.
> Concern for his and his family`s safety.
Oh Bullshit..... If that would have been the reason for Brennan's
refusal to put the finger on Oswald, he would have been increasing the
danger to his family.... Because if Oswald had been guilty and had
been the leader of a band of Commies as was being broadcast at that
time, if the cops had turned him loose on Brennan's statement that LHO
wasn't the man he's seen Oswald would then have been free to tell the
real killer that they needed to snuff Brennan because he could
Identify the real killer.
Yer not the brighest bulb on the tree are you??
>
> > When he'd written his affidavit immediately after the shooting he said
> > that he felt he would be able to identify the man wearing the white
> > clothing, with the hunting rifle, if he ever saw him again......
>
> He later said he did recognize Oz as the shooter he saw. He just
> didn`t make an identification for the reasons he gave.
Yes after the FBI had a chance to scare him into saying whatever they
wanted him to say. He knew Lee Oswald wasn't guilty but he saw what
happened to Oswald while in the hands of the authorities...and
Oswald's gasp as Ruby shot him made a true believer out of Howard
Brennan.
>
> >Then
> > just a few hours later he saw Oswald in the line-up and told the cops
> > the man he'd seen was NOT in that line-up. They attempted tp coerce
> > Brennan into indentifying Oswald but Brennan steadfastly refused.
>
> The cops tried to get him to tell the truth, but he declined for
> reasons of his own.
>
> > The
> > cops asked him how he could be certain that Oswald was NOT the man and
> > Brennan replied:.... "Well, for one thing he's got on different
> > clothes".
>
> He tried to use the clothing as an excuse to wiggle out of making
> an identification.
How utterly stupid.....
>
> > The cops were insistant that Brennan put the finger on
> > Oswald and told him that Oswald had changed his clothes in his rooming
> > house after the assassination..... Which was true.....
>
> Doubtful. In any case, the shirt he wore was the one he wore to
> work that morning.
>
> >HOWEVER...The
> > cops knew damned well that the none clothes they had found in Oswald's
> > room matched the white shirt and trousers that Brennan said the man
> > was wearing.
>
> Not surprising, clothing is probably something witnesses do the
> worst at identifying. I rarely take notice of what people wear,
> doubtful I would during a shooting.
>
>
>
>
>
> > >http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> > > Why on Earth are you kooks looking into this case? Do you truly enjoy
> > > being embarrassed every single day? Truly?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
Von Pein and Tim haven't covered a damn thing, you fruitcake... Von
Pein copys & pastes whatever DaBugliosi tells him to to copy &
paste.... Now sit down, you look the fool that everyone knows you
are.... Give us a rest... LMFAO!
tomnln
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0ba0995e-bb37-45eb...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
I wasn't the fool over on JFK Research last week when I answered your
question on the reversed Zapruder film frames in volume 18, was I?
Damn, that stuff is JFK Assassination 101, and you had NO CLUE.
Come on Pops, I thought you forgot more than I ever knew on the DP
photo evidence.
When you gonna take me up on my offer and come visit? Did you ever
finally admitt to youself that Chaney is in McIntyre?
Todd W. Vaughan
> WHO is toad vaughan?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
Ellen.
Whore.
.25c hour.
Daily Rates
>
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:0ba0995e-bb37-45eb...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 22, 12:00 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 5:48 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Dougherty Addendum:
>
> > > BTW, Gil-Kook doesn't do a very good job of accurately citing source
> > > material either. The passage in the WCR re. Dougherty seeing Oswald
> > > isn't on Page 134 of the WR (as Gil-Kook said); it's on Page 133.
>
> > > That's just a very small error, yes. But it seems typical for Gil "I
> > > GET EVERYTHING WRONG" Jesus.
>
> > > WCR; Page
> > > 133:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0079a.htm
>
> > LMFAO -- the actual testimony is too much for ya, eh? Can't spin it,
> > son... Nice try anyway... you old MEGA Lone-Nut Kookster, you
>
> He covered the "actual testimony" quite thoroughly earlier in the
> thread, David.
>
> No YOU look like the idiot that you are.- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
On Mar 22, 7:13 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> WHO is toad vaughan?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
Ellen.
Whore.
.25c hour.
Daily Rates
Typical Heroism of a LN'r (Attack Women)
RUN from evidence/testimony
SEE how toad LIED his teeth out on the suvbject of Lee J. Bowers>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
SEE what toad RUNS From>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 22 Mar, 14:06, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > On 22 Mar, 10:07, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > DVP SAID:
> >
> > > > >>> "Maybe I shouldn't be laughing at JD's above silly-sounding testimony after all, huh? Because by doing so, perhaps I'm playing right into the hands of the conspiracy-happy kooks who probably have a desire to paint Mr. Dougherty as one of the conspirators in the plot to kill JFK. After all, the above testimony about JD definitely WANTING to go outside to see the President, but not being able to do so because of the people blocking the entrance to the building is certainly testimony that could be looked at sideways and with a wary eye by the CT-Kooks of the world (if it hasn't been looked at in that fashion heretofore)." <<<
> >
> > > > WALT THE SUPER-IDIOT THEN SAID:
> >
> > > > >>> "I strongly suspect that Dougherty was a man who could easily be tricked and made the laughing stock. He may have been used as the decoy shooter who was dressed in light colored work clothes, who had dark hair, was in his "early thirties", and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds, that Howard Brennan saw aiming a rifle out of the west end window." <<<
> >
> > > > DVP NOW SAYS:
> >
> > > > Right on cue, Walt. Thanks for making me prophetic.
> >
> > > > Still clinging to the imaginary West-End shooter, eh Walt?
> >
> > > > And now Dougherty's a suspect. Nice. Better get together with Don
> > > > Willis....he's got Arce and/or Williams as the shooters. Next week,
> > > > it'll no doubt be Earlene Roberts and Gladys Johnson from the
> > > > roominghouse as the assassins.
> >
> > > > You kooks can't get anything right....not even the CIRCLED WINDOW from
> > > > where Oswald was seen shooting a rifle:
> >
> > > Duh....I'll type this real slow so you can understand.....
> >
> > � Lets count the lies Walt tells...
> >
> > > Howard Brennan went to the police station to view a line-up of
> > > suspects,
> >
> > � �Heres one. There was only one suspect in the line-ups.
>
> Good point..... The DPD had already concluded that Oswald was the
> designated patsy...
Yah, they wanted the real murderer of one of their own to get away
scot free... idiot.
>so yer right there was only one "suspect".
It`s the same today as it was then.
> Now can
> you tell me if the other people in the line up looked anything like
> LHO as far as height, weight, age, and etc, or was Oswald the ONLY one
> that vaguely resembled the man brennan had seen??
Has what to do with what? He wasn`t there to select the person who
looked most different than the others, he was there to select the
person he saw.
> > > about six hours after he'd seen the 30 to 35 year old,
> >
> > � Heres another. Brennan never gave the range Walt is offering here.
> >
> > >165
> > > to 175 pound,
>
> Do I have to go get Brennan's statements and make you look like a
> bigger fool??
Did I contest the weight, idiot?
> man with dark hair
> >
> > � �Heres another. When Brennan was asked if he noted the shooters hair
> > color, he replied "No".
> >
> > > aiming a HUNTING rifle ( "possibly a
> > > 30-30 Winchester" )
> >
> > � Heres another. Brennan did not say what Walt put in quotes. He said
> > about the rifle... "..."some kind of high-powered rifle".
>
> It's obvious that Howard Brennan was the ONLY man to step forward in
> the first fifteen minutes after the shooting with a description of the
> man he's seen with a "HIGH POWERED RIFLE" in the sixth floor window.
> He later said that he didn't know much about guns.... But at about
> 12:45 the police dispatcher gave a description of the gunman that fit
> most white men in Dallas who were less than 40 years old, and said
> that the gunman was believed to be armed with a 30 -30 Winchester.
> That description of a high powered rifle as a 30 -30 could only have
> came from Brennan.
You can`t establish that as fact.
> > > out of the west end window on the sixth floor of
> > > the TSBD.
> >
> > � �Still another. Here is an affidavit by Brennan where he places the
> > shoits as coming from the SE window.
>
> Wrong Dumbass....
I produced the document, his affidavit, in which he clearly names
the southeast window as the window he saw the shots being fired from.
Check and mate.
> Brennan circled the window where he had seen the
> White clothing clad gunman that was at least ten years older than Lee
> Oswald BEFORE the motorcade arrived. Brennan DESCRIBED the WEST end
> window as the window the gunman was in AT THE TIME of the shooting.
>
>
> >
> > � �http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan4.htm
> >
> > > �He knew the man he'd seen with that hunting rifle
> >
> > � �Another. Brennan never said the rifle he saw was a hunting rifle.
>
> The terms "high powered rifle", "deer rifle", "big game rifle",
> "hunting rifle" and. sporting rifle, all are used interchangably, to
> describe a sporting arm like a 30 -30 Winchester.
You`re full of shit. A 30-30 winchester is not a high-powered
rifle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-30
> > > was
> > > dressed in a "dingy white" shirt and trousers, possibly �khaki. � When
> > > the police brought out Oswald as one out the "suspects" in the line
> > > up, Brennan said the man he saw wearing the light colored clothing was
> > > NOT in that line up.
> >
> > � �Yah, he explained why he didn`t select Oswald as the shooter.
> > Concern for his and his family`s safety.
>
> Oh Bullshit..... If that would have been the reason for Brennan's
> refusal to put the finger on Oswald, he would have been increasing the
> danger to his family.... Because if Oswald had been guilty and had
> been the leader of a band of Commies as was being broadcast at that
> time, if the cops had turned him loose on Brennan's statement that LHO
> wasn't the man he's seen Oswald would then have been free to tell the
> real killer that they needed to snuff Brennan because he could
> Identify the real killer.
<snicker> In what way do you think you addressed Brennan concerns?
It only matters what Brennan thought, not some random internet idiot.
> Yer not the brighest bulb on the tree are you??
Brennan gave a reasonable and legitimate excuse for not selected Oz
at the line-up. That kooks don`t accept the explaination he gave is
meaningless. As we can see, kooks disregard all the line-up IDs of Oz
for the murder he committed in Oak Cliff anyway.
> > > When he'd written his affidavit immediately after the shooting he said
> > > that he felt he would be able to identify the man wearing the white
> > > clothing, with the hunting rifle, if he ever saw him again......
> >
> > � He later said he did recognize Oz as the shooter he saw. He just
> > didn`t make an identification for the reasons he gave.
>
> Yes after the FBI had a chance to scare him into saying whatever they
> wanted him to say.
That is what kooks imagine, but can`t substantiate. The fact is, he
said under oath that he recognized Oz at the line-up, but didn`t ID
him for reasons of his own.
> He knew Lee Oswald wasn't guilty but he saw what
> happened to Oswald while in the hands of the authorities...
Unsupported kook blather. You ignore Brennan`s stated motivations,
and insert ones you are more comfortable with. This is always the way
with kooks. Whatever you need to believe for Oz to be innocent, no
matter how stupid or unsupportable, that is what you believe.
>and
> Oswald's gasp as Ruby shot him made a true believer out of Howard
> Brennan.
Brennan thought that with all the evidence against Oz, he could
limit his participation. He misjudged his situation. Not surprising,
it wasn`t one he expected or desired to find himself in.
> > >Then
> > > just a few hours later he saw Oswald in the line-up and told the cops
> > > the man he'd seen was NOT in that line-up. � They attempted tp coerce
> > > Brennan into indentifying Oswald but Brennan steadfastly refused.
> >
> > � �The cops tried to get him to tell the truth, but he declined for
> > reasons of his own.
> >
> > > The
> > > cops asked him how he could be certain that Oswald was NOT the man and
> > > Brennan replied:.... �"Well, for one thing he's got on different
> > > clothes".
> >
> > � �He tried to use the clothing as an excuse to wiggle out of making
> > an identification.
>
> How utterly stupid.....
The truth looks like that to an idiot.
Todd W. Vaughan
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:71b8b611-e576-4fe5...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 22, 7:13 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > WHO is toad vaughan?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> Ellen.
>
> Whore.
>
> .25c hour.
>
> Daily Rates
>
> Typical Heroism of a LN'r (Attack Women)
Don't forget it was you who first started the threats, you worthless
piece of shit, by threatening to put my family into a woodchipper.
Make a claim like that again and your local law enfiorcement agency
will get called, AGAIN.
You then claimed you had visited my neighborhood, claiming you "saw
where (I) lived". Funny though, you didn't knock on the door or
otherwise try and make contact with you, you yellow stinking coward.
Tomorrow's Easter - I'd tell you to choke on an egg, but that throat
of yours can take anything down it, can't it?
>
> RUN from evidence/testimony
>
> SEE how toad LIED his teeth out on the suvbject of Lee J. Bowers>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
>
> SEE what toad RUNS From>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:0ba0995e-bb37-45eb...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 22, 12:00 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 22, 5:48 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Dougherty Addendum:
>
> > > > BTW, Gil-Kook doesn't do a very good job of accurately citing source
> > > > material either. The passage in the WCR re. Dougherty seeing Oswald
> > > > isn't on Page 134 of the WR (as Gil-Kook said); it's on Page 133.
>
> > > > That's just a very small error, yes. But it seems typical for Gil "I
> > > > GET EVERYTHING WRONG" Jesus.
>
> > > > WCR; Page
> > > > 133:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0079a.htm
>
> > > LMFAO -- the actual testimony is too much for ya, eh? Can't spin it,
> > > son... Nice try anyway... you old MEGA Lone-Nut Kookster, you
>
> > He covered the "actual testimony" quite thoroughly earlier in the
> > thread, David.
>
> > No YOU look like the idiot that you are.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
On Mar 22, 8:30 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> messagenews:71b8b611-e576-4fe5...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 22, 7:13 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > WHO is toad vaughan?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> Ellen.
>
> Whore.
>
> .25c hour.
>
> Daily Rates
>
> Typical Heroism of a LN'r (Attack Women)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Da toad wrote;
Don't forget it was you who first started the threats, you worthless
piece of shit, by threatening to put my family into a woodchipper.
Make a claim like that again and your local law enfiorcement agency
will get called, AGAIN.
You then claimed you had visited my neighborhood, claiming you "saw
where (I) lived". Funny though, you didn't knock on the door or
otherwise try and make contact with you, you yellow stinking coward.
Tomorrow's Easter - I'd tell you to choke on an egg, but that throat
of yours can take anything down it, can't it?
***************************
I write;
What went "down" your throat were Cub Scout Troops 6, 12, 18 & 69.
You're a Criminal Lying Asshole.
Who RUNS from evidence/testimony
SEE how toad LIED his teeth out on the suvbject of Lee J. Bowers>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
SEE what toad RUNS From>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
RUN you Dicky-Licker RUN.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd W. Vaughan
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:d27f4589-ad64-43e2...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 22, 8:30 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:71b8b611-e576-4fe5...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 22, 7:13 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > WHO is toad vaughan?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> > Ellen.
>
> > Whore.
>
> > .25c hour.
>
> > Daily Rates
>
> > Typical Heroism of a LN'r (Attack Women)
>
> Da toad wrote;
>
> Don't forget it was you who first started the threats, you worthless
> piece of shit, by threatening to put my family into a woodchipper.
> Make a claim like that again and your local law enfiorcement agency
> will get called, AGAIN.
>
> You then claimed you had visited my neighborhood, claiming you "saw
> where (I) lived". Funny though, you didn't knock on the door or
> otherwise try and make contact with you, you yellow stinking coward.
>
> Tomorrow's Easter - I'd tell you to choke on an egg, but that throat
> of yours can take anything down it, can't it?
> ***************************
>
> I write;
>
> What went "down" your throat were Cub Scout Troops 6, 12, 18 & 69.
You need serious professional help Tomnln.
>
> You're a Criminal Lying Asshole.
>
> Who RUNS from evidence/testimony
>
> SEE how toad LIED his teeth out on the suvbject of Lee J. Bowers>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
>
> SEE what toad RUNS From>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
> RUN you Dicky-Licker RUN.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
Da toad wrote;
You need serious professional help Tomnln.
I write;
You SUCK at evidence/testimony
You SUCK at insults
You SUCK at Cub Scout meetings
You're a Criminal Liar toad;
You need "Imprisonment".
If there's one thing I like as much as Beating the shit outta a Lying Whore
with evidence/testimony;
It's Beating the shit outta a Lying Whore with Insults.
BOTH of which are found HERE>>>
You're a Criminal Lying Asshole.
Who RUNS from evidence/testimony
SEE how toad LIED his teeth out on the subject of what Lee J. Bowers
witnessed>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
SEE what toad RUNS From>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
RUN you Dicky-Licker RUN.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in> > >messagenews:0ba0995e-bb37-45eb...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...> > > On Mar 22, 12:00 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:>> > > > On Mar 22, 5:48 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:>> > > > > Dougherty Addendum:>> > > > > BTW, Gil-Kook doesn't do a very good job of accurately citingsource> > > > > material either. The passage in the WCR re. Dougherty seeingOswald> > > > > isn't on Page 134 of the WR (as Gil-Kook said); it's on Page 133.>> > > > > That's just a very small error, yes. But it seems typical for Gil"I> > > > > GET EVERYTHING WRONG" Jesus.>> > > > > WCR; Page> > > > >133:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0079a.htm>> > > > LMFAO -- the actual testimony is too much for ya, eh? Can't spin it,> > > > son... Nice try anyway... you old MEGA Lone-Nut Kookster, you>> > > He covered the "actual testimony" quite thoroughly earlier in the> > > thread, David.>> > > No YOU look like the idiot that you are.- Hide quoted text ->> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text ->> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text ->> - Show quoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:16977424-bdbc-4712...@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 23, 12:07 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:d27f4589-ad64-43e2...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 22, 8:30 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > messagenews:71b8b611-e576-4fe5...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Mar 22, 7:13 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > WHO is toad vaughan?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> > > Ellen.
>
> > > Whore.
>
> > > .25c hour.
>
> > > Daily Rates
>
> > > Typical Heroism of a LN'r (Attack Women)
>
> > Da toad wrote;
>
> > Don't forget it was you who first started the threats, you worthless
> > piece of shit, by threatening to put my family into a woodchipper.
> > Make a claim like that again and your local law enfiorcement agency
> > will get called, AGAIN.
>
> > You then claimed you had visited my neighborhood, claiming you "saw
> > where (I) lived". Funny though, you didn't knock on the door or
> > otherwise try and make contact with you, you yellow stinking coward.
>
> > Tomorrow's Easter - I'd tell you to choke on an egg, but that throat
> > of yours can take anything down it, can't it?
> > ***************************
>
> > I write;
>
> > What went "down" your throat were Cub Scout Troops 6, 12, 18 & 69.
>
>
> Da toad wrote;
>
> You need serious professional help Tomnln.
>
> I write;
>
> You SUCK at evidence/testimony
> You SUCK at insults
> You SUCK at Cub Scout meetings
You just plain suck, Tom, every Tom, Dick, or Harry that comes along.
Now, bitch, go wake up Elln and put her out to work.
>
> You're a Criminal Liar toad;
>
> You need "Imprisonment".
>
> If there's one thing I like as much as Beating the shit outta a Lying Whore
> with evidence/testimony;
>
> It's Beating the shit outta a Lying Whore with Insults.
>
> BOTH of which are found HERE>>>
>
> You're a Criminal Lying Asshole.
>
> Who RUNS from evidence/testimony
>
> SEE how toad LIED his teeth out on the subject of what Lee J. Bowers
> witnessed>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
>
> SEE what toad RUNS From>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
> RUN you Dicky-Licker RUN.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in> > >messagenews:0ba0995e-bb37-45eb...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...> > > On Mar 22, 12:00 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:>> > > > On Mar 22, 5:48 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:>> > > > > Dougherty Addendum:>> > > > > BTW, Gil-Kook doesn't do a very good job of accurately citingsource> > > > > material either. The passage in the WCR re. Dougherty seeingOswald> > > > > isn't on Page 134 of the WR (as Gil-Kook said); it's on Page 133.>> > > > > That's just a very small error, yes. But it seems typical for Gil"I> > > > > GET EVERYTHING WRONG" Jesus.>> > > > > WCR; Page> > > > >133:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0079a.htm>> > > > LMFAO -- the actual testimony is too much for ya, eh? Can't spin it,> > > > son... Nice try anyway... you old MEGA Lone-Nut Kookster, you>> > > He covered the "actual testimony" quite thoroughly earlier in the> > > thread, David.>> > > No YOU look like the idiot that you are.- Hide quoted text ->> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text ->> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text ->> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Da toad wrote;
You just plain suck, Tom, every Tom, Dick, or Harry that comes along.
Now, bitch, go wake up Elln and put her out to work.
I write;
Does this mean I won't have You "to KICK around" any more with
evidence/testimony????
Like these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
Are we gonna keep talkin about you Eating Cub Scouts by the TROOP???
Are we gonna keep talkin about your wife/kids giving Professional Head???
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd W. Vaughan
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:c6491c88-76f0-4732...@n75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 23, 12:29 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > messagenews:16977424-bdbc-4712...@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...
> > On Mar 23, 12:07 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > messagenews:d27f4589-ad64-43e2...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Mar 22, 8:30 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> > > > messagenews:71b8b611-e576-4fe5...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> > > > On Mar 22, 7:13 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > WHO is toad vaughan?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> > > > Ellen.
>
> > > > Whore.
>
> > > > .25c hour.
>
> > > > Daily Rates
>
> > > > Typical Heroism of a LN'r (Attack Women)
>
> > > Da toad wrote;
>
> > > Don't forget it was you who first started the threats, you worthless
> > > piece of shit, by threatening to put my family into a woodchipper.
> > > Make a claim like that again and your local law enfiorcement agency
> > > will get called, AGAIN.
>
> > > You then claimed you had visited my neighborhood, claiming you "saw
> > > where (I) lived". Funny though, you didn't knock on the door or
> > > otherwise try and make contact with you, you yellow stinking coward.
>
> > > Tomorrow's Easter - I'd tell you to choke on an egg, but that throat
> > > of yours can take anything down it, can't it?
> > > ***************************
>
> > > I write;
>
> > > What went "down" your throat were Cub Scout Troops 6, 12, 18 & 69.
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Da toad wrote;
>
> > You need serious professional help Tomnln.
>
> > I write;
>
> > You SUCK at evidence/testimony
> > You SUCK at insults
> > You SUCK at Cub Scout meetings
>
> Da toad wrote;
>
> You just plain suck, Tom, every Tom, Dick, or Harry that comes along.
>
> Now, bitch, go wake up Elln and put her out to work.
>
> I write;
>
> Does this mean I won't have You "to KICK around" any more with
> evidence/testimony????
What it means is that you're my little bitch.
I say jump, you say how high.
That's what little bitches do.
Now, how are those Easter Baskets coming for all of Ellens John's
upstairs?
>
> Like these>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
>
> Are we gonna keep talkin about you Eating Cub Scouts by the TROOP???
> Are we gonna keep talkin about your wife/kids giving Professional Head???
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> > You're a Criminal Liar toad;
>
> > You need "Imprisonment".
>
> > If there's one thing I like as much as Beating the shit outta a Lying
> > Whore
> > with evidence/testimony;
>
> > It's Beating the shit outta a Lying Whore with Insults.
>
> > BOTH of which are found HERE>>>
>
> > You're a Criminal Lying Asshole.
>
> > Who RUNS from evidence/testimony
>
> > SEE how toad LIED his teeth out on the subject of what Lee J. Bowers
> > witnessed>>>
>
> >http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> >http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
>
> > SEE what toad RUNS From>>>
>
> >http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
>
> >http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
> > RUN you Dicky-Licker RUN.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
>>> "I noticed that you refer to an on-line version of the WC report. I use a CD version of the 26 volumes and the report." <<<
My physical copy of the WCR (identical to the one linked below) is
exactly like the online version I linked to ("page number"-
wise). .....
www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0312082576/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link
tomnln
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What it means is that you're my little bitch.
I say jump, you say how high.
That's what little bitches do.
Now, how are those Easter Baskets coming for all of Ellens John's
upstairs?
Don't get sick tomorrow toady;
You're likely to puke up a whole Cub Scout Troop.
You CUNTS are known to have weak stomachs.
STILL RUNNIN I see>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
David Von Pein
Another in a series of hilarious, idiotic statements made by Gil-Kook.
EVERY SINGLE PAGE OF EVERY SINGLE WC & HSCA VOLUME is available (for
free) on this thing called the World Wide Web.
WHY on Earth would I even NEED to "own a set" of the 26 volumes in
this day & age, when I can more EASILY access and search the very same
WC pages/volumes on the Internet?
Or does Gil-Kook now want to claim that the PHOTOS OF THE ACTUAL PAGES
of the WC volumes have been "altered" by the webmasters at places like
Mary Ferrell's site? Or History-Matters? And a few others too which
have placed every page of each volume on the Web?
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/contents.htm
This is a point I've tried to get across to Vince Bugliosi, too
(through his secretary), over the last several months....that is: I've
been trying to get him to stop saying on his radio interviews (which
he has done a few times since his excellent book came out in May 2007)
that the only way to fully reference every page of the 26 WC volumes
(or the 12 HSCA volumes) is to physically own a copy of each volume.
We who access the History-Matters or Mary Ferrell sites regularly
know, of course, that what Vince said there about the WC volumes is
totally incorrect. All of the volumes, every page, can be accessed for
nothing via the Internet.
But since Vince doesn't have a computer and has absolutely no desire
to ever start using one on a daily basis, he is still apparently (to
this day) unaware of the fact that every page of the WC & HSCA volumes
can be accessed through cyberspace.
I've tried my best to get a message through to Vince to get him to
stop saying those things on his interviews about how "only a few
people have access to the WC exhibits and photos", etc. (paraphrasing
VB there)....but I don't think Vince's secretary ever gave him my
message on that.
And another error I've tried in past months to get Vince to correct in
his interviews (which are now pretty much over with, of course, since
his JFK book has been out for almost a year now) is the mistake he has
made when he tells a radio audience that "Reclaiming History" is "the
only book out there to include pictures of both Zapruder frames 312
and 313" (paraphrasing VB again).
When, in fact, several different books contain those exact Z-Frames in
them (Mark Fuhrman's 2006 book "A Simple Act Of Murder" to name just
one recent pre-'RH' example).
In some interviews, Vince qualifies his statement about the Z312-313
frames by saying "at least I don't THINK any other books have these in
them". But in a few other instances, Vince has boldly proclaimed that
his book "RH" is positively "the only" book to include those exact Z-
Frames....which, of course, is just wrong.
Just goes to show....even the man who wrote the JFK Bible isn't
perfect all the time.
David Von Pein
>>> "Von Pein copys [sic] & pastes whatever DaBugliosi [sic] tells him to copy & paste." <<<
<biggest laugh of 2008 commences now>
Thanks very much for this one, Healy-Kook!
I haven't laughed so hard since taking my first look at your "ZAPRUDER
WAS PROBABLY NEVER THERE" post a long time ago! (And believe me, THAT
was an enormous laugh that came out of me that particular day.)
So, per the kook, Vince is behind the ol' curtain telling ol' DVP what
to "copy & paste", eh? (I wonder if LHO has VB's rods for that
curtain, btw? I'll try and find out.)
So, Mr. Healy-Mega-Kook, was it Vince B. who actually wrote everything
under my (DVP's) name in this thread about Dougherty (and I merely
"copied & pasted" it into the NG)? Is that what you mean?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b7f9edba0d3a8fbe
Anyway, please never EVER threaten to "take a break" from us LNers
again, Mr. Healy-Kook.* I couldn't stand it if you ever left us for
even a brief period of time. I would hardly ever get any laughs at all
if you left.
Please promise me, Healy-Crackpipe -- Never leave me.
* = Of course, as we all know, the last time Healy did that, he
lied....because he never "went" anyplace at all.
robcap...@netscape.com
> EXAMINING THE TESTIMONY OF JACK E. DOUGHERTY:
>
> =========================================
"If anyone wants several good-sized laughs, I'd like to recommend
reading the official April 8, 1964, Warren Commission testimony of 40-
year-old Jack Edwin Dougherty, who was one of the employees who was
working at the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963."
It is nice of Dave to make fun of a man who honestly had mental issues
on this Easter weekend. Nice going Dave! How do we know this? Let's
look at the testimony he skipped:
Mr. BALL - Now, did you ever have any difficulty with your speech?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - You never had any?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever have any difficulty in the Army with any
medical treatment or anything of that sort?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - None at all?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
For once the WC's lawyer had the decency DVP lacks by NOT pursuing the
obvious.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/doughert.htm
"In addition to the many laughs, Mr. Dougherty's above-linked
testimony is bound to give anyone reading it a bit of a headache as
well (anyone who is trying to use Dougherty's testimony as a vehicle
to prop up anything "definitive" or "conspiratorial" in nature when it
comes to the events that occurred inside the Book Depository Building
on 11/22/63, that is).
Dougherty's WC session is just one great-big mess. I can only imagine
the thoughts that were going through the mind of WC questioner Joe
Ball after he took Dougherty's testimony that spring day in 1964. Joe
probably felt like rolling his eyes every few seconds while listening
to Dougherty's hither-and-yon answers to the questions he was being
asked.
But, in Dougherty's defense, I'll have to add this -- Jack was
probably very nervous when he gave his WC testimony; and possibly his
answers didn't always come out just exactly as he meant them to come
out. This same thing probably happened with a lot of the 552 witnesses
who were questioned by the Warren Commission in relation to the JFK
case.
If it were me, I'd certainly have been scared to death. And when
you're scared to death, your words might have a tendency to become
unclear and maybe even incoherent at times. I think this occurred with
several of the witnesses who appeared in front of the WC in '64.
Let's examine a few of Mr. Dougherty's hilarious and semi-hilarious
statements made to the WC:"
Blah, blah, blah.
> =====================
"JOSEPH BALL - Did you ever leave the United States during the War?
JACK E. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes.
Mr. BALL - Where did you go?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I was stationed, oh, for about a year up in
Indiana up there--Seymour, Indiana.
[DVP: This is the first "LOL" moment in Jack's testimony. As a native
of the great state of Indiana, I had no idea I was living outside the
United States.]"
I know all of us here wish you were living outside the US. Now back to
the issues poor Mr. Dougherty had:
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Let's see, I have been with them 11 years--that would
be---
Mr. BALL - That would be 1952, wouldn't it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes--that's 1952.
Mr. BALL - 1952?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; that's right, to be exact.
Mr. BALL - What did you do between the time you got out of the service
and 1952?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't do anything to be frank with you.
Mr. BALL - You didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - You didn't work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, no.
Mr. BALL - You stayed at home?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Did you live with your father and mother?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Have you ever been married?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - And you still live with your father and mother?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
It is obvious to all who read this that the poor man had mental
problems as he was still living at home all these years and the WC
attorney mentioned issues in the military. To all but Dave that is.
> =====================
"Mr. BALL - And how long do you take for lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, from 12 to 12:45.
Mr. BALL - Forty-five minutes?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Do you always take a full hour?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, I usually do.
[DVP: The above testimony had me doing TWO double-takes (due to the
fact that the above words spoken by BOTH Dougherty and Joseph Ball are
seemingly so incredibly silly)."
I like how Dave skips the setting up part, like did the witness know
LHO for example? Let's see:
Mr. BALL - Did you know a fellow named Lee Harvey Oswald that worked
at the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I'll be frank with you, Mr. Ball, I don't
believe nobody knew him too well. You might say he wouldn't have too
much to say to anybody. He just stayed all to hisself, and I'll be
frank with you, I just flat didn't know him.
"First, Dougherty confirms he takes only 45 minutes for his regular
lunch break each day at the Depository. But then Ball feels compelled
to ask the odd follow-up question, "Do you always take a full
hour?" (even though Dougherty just one second earlier confirmed his
lunch break was only 45 minutes long)."
More importantly let's look at how Ruth Paine's friend, Roy Truly,
took advantage of this poor man with mental issues on this holiday
weekend, okay?
Mr. BALL - What time did you go to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I got there---it was after 7 o'clock in the
morning.
Mr. BALL - Do you usually get there in the morning at 7 o'clock?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Why do you get there at 7 instead of 8, when the rest of
the men get there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, you might say, I have a little---extra chores to
do.
Mr. BALL - You do that--you get there at 7 all the time, don't you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, I've been doing it for 11 years.
Mr. BALL - That's what Mr. Truly told me, that you get there real
early.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And you did get there about 7 that morning?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Well it is nice to get a free hour of work everyday, right? Now back
to your tripe.
"And then Dougherty goes with the flow (evidently) and completely
changes his lunch-break time to a "full hour" by answering "Yes, I
usually do" to Ball's follow-up question.
Perhaps the two men, when talking about a "full hour", were referring
to the time it took to physically eat lunch plus some added time
milling around the TSBD after lunch, playing dominoes, etc. ~shrug~
Anyway, the above exchange struck me as humorous (and not just
Dougherty's part). ;)]"
While Dave is laughing, shucking and jiving, he fails to mention where
Mr. Dougherty takes his 45 minute lunch each day:
Mr. BALL - What time do you usually go to lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, usually about 12 o'clock or 12 noon.
Mr. BALL - Do you carry your lunch most of the time from home?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And where do you usually eat your lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, they have got what they call a domino room in
there and I usually eat it in there.
Mr. BALL - You usually eat your lunch in the domino room?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Does the domino room sound familar to anyone else? Mr. Dougherty is a
key witness for showing LHO did NOT commit the crime, that is why Dave
is taking delight in finding his testimony funny. He was there at
7:00 am and saw LHO enter the building, sans package, and he was in
the domino lunchroom every day so he could have seen LHO eating in
there on 11/22/63. Here is the testimony prior to the stuff below:
Mr. BALL - What time did you get to the building?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - At a quarter to 7.
Mr. BALL - At a quarter to 7?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - You told the FBI officers that you got there about 7
o'clock.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I mean, inside the building.
Mr. BALL - Inside the building?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes--when I got inside the building it was 7 o'clock.
Mr. BALL - You parked your car?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't have a car---I have to ride ,the bus.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.
Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - **Well, not that I could see of.**
He may be slow, but NOT blind! How could he miss a package the size
the WC was claiming LHO carried?
> =====================
"Mr. BALL - Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him
{LHO} that morning when he came to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to
you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when
he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---
that's the reason why I said it that way. ....
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in
his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
DVP: So, we have JD admitting to the WC that he only saw Oswald "out
of the corner of my eye" as LHO entered the back door of the TSBD on
November 22nd....and yet we also have Dougherty being certain that
Oswald had nothing in his hands at all (even though he admitted just
seconds earlier that he only saw LHO "out of the corner of my eye";
i.e., he saw LHO via his peripheral vision as Lee came in the back
door)."
Again we see the LNer gameplan in practice. Dave is saying that he
could not be sure about the package because Dougherty only got a
"glimpse" of LHO coming in (notice how the "glimpse" is used over and
over again). But this is NOT the full story, here is the part Dave
left out from above:
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you
would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this
way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in
his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
So he saw enough to know LHO came in alone and that he did NOT have
anything in his hands, especially the size of the package the WC said
LHO was carrying, but they don't stop. Let the badgering begin:
Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
Mr. BALL - You saw him come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
With a defense lawyer this would NOT have been allowed. Nor would the
repeating asking in the first part of this exchange.
'I'll leave it up to the individual readers of JD's testimony to
decide whether or not Mr. Dougherty is entirely believable when he
said he was not "guessing" when he claimed that Lee Oswald entered the
Book Depository empty-handed on the morning of the assassination.]"
That is fine Dave, to leave it up to each person to decide, but why do
you NOT paste the ENTIRE exchange? I think we know why.
> =====================
"Mr. BALL - Did you know that the President was going to pass in a
motorcade that noon?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, they said something about it.
Mr. BALL - Did you intend to go out and watch him?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I would have loved to have went out and watched
him, but the steps were so crowded---there was no way in the world I
could get out there.
[DVP: <large chuckle here> So, per Jack, there were so many people
clogging the entrance of the TSBD around 12:30, he was physically
prohibited from exiting the Depository VIA ANY OF THE OTHER DOORS IN
THE BUILDING at approximately the time when the President was driving
by the building."
Where are you going with this? Dave leaves out another sighting of LHO
by Mr. Dougherty:
Mr. BALL - Did you see him again that morning?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; just one more time.
Mr. BALL - Where was that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That was on the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL - On the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - About what time of day?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - It was about 11 o'clock-that was the last time I saw
him.
Mr. BALL - What was he doing up there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, as far as I could tell, he was getting some
stock---as far as I could tell.
Mr. BALL - What were you doing there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I was getting some stock also.
Mr. BALL - And were there some other workmen up there at the time?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Not that I know of.
Mr. BALL - Well, do you remember Shelley, Dan Arce, Bonnie Williams,
Bill Lovelady, and Charlie Givens who were working up there that
morning---laying floor on the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes; they were laying floor---yes, sir.
Couple things here. Firstly, if LHO was planning on shooting the
president at 12:30 or so, why was he worried about doing his job at
11:00? Why wasn't he preparing for the assassination in some way?
Secondly, look at all the others on the sixth floor laying tile. Do
you expect me to believe none of them touched a box that wound up near
the SN? That is what the WC claimed as ONLY LHO prints were found on
two boxes in that area.
"Maybe I shouldn't be laughing at JD's above silly-sounding testimony
after all, huh? Because by doing so, perhaps I'm playing right into
the hands of the conspiracy-happy kooks who probably have a desire to
paint Mr. Dougherty as one of the conspirators in the plot to kill
JFK."
Who is saying this? I think he was important because what he saw
showed LHO was not the shooter.
"After all, the above testimony about JD definitely WANTING to go
outside to see the President, but not being able to do so because of
the people blocking the entrance to the building is certainly
testimony that could be looked at sideways and with a wary eye by the
CT-Kooks of the world (if it hasn't been looked at in that fashion
heretofore)."
Let's finish with the lunch part first Dave. Here is what Mr.
Dougherty said about where he ate lunch:
Mr. BALL - And were they there at the time you were there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes, sir; they were there---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Is that the same time you saw Oswald?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir; just about that time.
Mr. BALL - And how long were you on the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, just long enough to get some stock.
Mr. BALL - Where did you go then?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I went to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL - What did you do then?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I went to the fifth floor to get some stock also
on the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Then, just about that time---I thought I heard---
Mr. BALL - Wait a minute---did you go to lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - **Well, I went back downstairs to eat lunch---yes,
sir.
Mr. BALL - What time?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, it was 12 o'clock.**
Where does he mention seeing LHO on the sixth floor before 12:00 p.m.
here? He last saw LHO on the sixth floor at 11:00 a.m. and then he
went downstairs to eat lunch.
"Evidently, it never occurred to Dougherty to go out the back door and
then walk around the building in order to catch a glimpse of President
Kennedy driving by.
And apparently it also never occurred to Jack to simply go upstairs to
the fifth or sixth floor (the warehouse floors) in order to get
himself a great bird's-eye view of the President passing by from one
of the many windows that he could have had all to himself on the upper
floors of the building at 12:30 PM, just as some of his fellow
employees did that day.
Mr. Dougherty doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier,
I must say. (Sorry, Jack, just an honest observation.) ~wink~]"
Dave wants to distract you with this crap, here is the key stuff
regarding the sixth floor just before 12:00 p.m. (remember the WC
claimed LHO moved into place at 11:55 a.m.):
Mr. BALL - When you talked to the FBI men, I've got a statement here
dated the 19th of December 1963, a statement from Special Agent
William O. Johnson, and he reports that you told him that you saw Lee
Harvey Oswald at approximately 8 a.m. when he, Oswald, arrived.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - That you saw Oswald again at approximately 11 a.m. on the
sixth floor?.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - But you didn't see him again after that, is that your
testimony?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Is that the truth?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - And it also says, this report from Mr. Johnson, states that
you told him that just prior to 12 noon you and five other men were
working on the sixth floor. Were you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; we were working on the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL - What were you doing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I was getting some stock off of the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL - You weren't helping the men lay floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir.
Why did Ball NOT ask if he saw LHO on the sixth floor as he was
supposed to be up there at 11:55 a.m.? We know he doesn't because the
next question he asks is:
Mr. BALL - Did you go down to lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - To what floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - The first floor.
Mr. BALL - How did you get down there?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well---used the elevator.
Mr. BALL - Did you go down alone or with someone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I went down alone.
Mr. BALL - Where did you eat your lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - In the domino room.
> =====================
"Mr. BALL - When you left your lunch, did you go to the fifth floor or
the sixth floor to go back to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I went on the fifth floor when I was getting ready to
go down to eat lunch.
Mr. BALL - Yes; and then what happened?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, at that time--I was about 10 feet away---
Mr. BALL - Wait a minute---did you hear the shots before or after you
had your lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Before---before I ate my lunch.
Mr. BALL - You heard shots before you ate your lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Let's see---yes, I believe I did.
[DVP: So, via the above testimony, Mr. Dougherty is, in effect, saying
this:
I HEARD THE SHOOTING BEFORE I ATE MY LUNCH, BUT THEN AFTER HEARING THE
SHOOTING AND THE COMMOTION I WENT AHEAD AND ATE MY LUNCH ANYWAY AND
THEN WENT *BACK* TO WORK AFTER FINISHING MY LUNCH, WHICH, AS
MENTIONED, WAS EATEN *AFTER* THE SHOOTING TOOK PLACE AND *AFTER* THE
BUILDING WAS BEING INUNDATED BY THE POLICE.
I think only one other comment is really in order here, which is ---
Huh???]"
In Dave's jocular mood he again leaves out key testimony like this:
Mr. BALL - Now, what time did you go back to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, at 12:30.
Mr. BALL - Now, you were on the first floor in the domino room when
you finished your lunch, didn't you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And did you stay there any length of time after you
finished your lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir---just a short length of time.
Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, then, I went back to work.
Mr. BALL - And where did you go to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Let me see---oh, up to the sixth floor.
Mr. BALL - Did you go to the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - About what time?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - At about 12:40---it was about 12:40.
So he headed to the sixth floor at 12:40 p.m. if his times are
correct. I have doubts about that as I think he could have been up
there quicker as he states he did NOT stay long in the lunchroom after
finishing his lunch at 12:30 p.m.
He was very confused about the timing of the shots, but he did state
that the first one sound like a backfire like many others in the Plaza
that day. His importance again is seeing LHO with NO package and in
NOT seeing LHO on the sixth floor just a minute or so before 12:00
p.m.
> =====================
"Mr. BALL - And while you were on the fifth floor, you heard a loud
noise?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right---it sounded like a car backfiring.
Mr. BALL - And did you hear more than one loud explosion or noise?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No; that was the only one I heard.
Mr. BALL - You only heard one?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - And where did it sound like it came from?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - It sounded like it came from overhead somewhere.
Mr. BALL - From overhead?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - How did you get to the fifth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Elevator.
Mr. BALL - You were on the fifth floor when you heard this, were you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Which elevator did you take?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, you see, there's one on this side and one on
this side the one on this side is the one I took.
Mr. BALL - Well, now, "The one on this side and the one on this side,"
doesn't mean much when it's written down.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I know it.
[DVP: Oh, my bladder! I wonder how Mr. Ball kept his own laughter in
check during this session with Mr. Dougherty? It must have been a
chore.]"
Nobody is claiming, at not the major CTers I have read, that Dougherty
is important because of the shots he heard, but rather for what he saw
or didn't see. Like this:
Mr. BALL - And you told him on the 19th day of December, Mr. Johnson,
that you went back to work on the sixth floor, and as soon as you
arrived on the sixth floor, you went down to the fifth floor to get
some stock?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir; that's right.
Again, NO mention of or questioning of LHO, why?
> =====================
"Mr. BALL - Then what did you do?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, when I got through getting stock off of the
sixth floor, I came back down to the fifth floor.
Mr. BALL - What did you do on the fifth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I got some stock.
Mr. BALL - Then what happened then?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, then immediately I heard a loud noise---it
sounded like a car backfiring, and I came back down to the first
floor, and I asked Eddie Piper, I said, "Piper, what was that?" I
says, "Has the President been shot?". He said, "Yes."
Mr. BALL - You didn't say--did you say, "Has the President been
shot?"---you told the FBI agent that you went down to the first floor
and you saw a man named Eddie Piper and asked him if he heard a loud
noise.
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I asked him that too.
Mr. BALL - And Piper said he had heard three loud noises and told you
that somebody had just shot the President; is that right?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - Who mentioned the fact that the President had been shot
first -- you or Eddie Piper?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Eddie Piper.
Mr. BALL - Did you say anything to Piper about the President being
shot?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir.
[DVP: I can just see Joe Ball's eyes moving northward as I read the
above JD mish-mash.]"
None of this is that important beyond the number of shots heard.
> =====================
"Mr. BALL - On the day that this happened, on the 22nd of November,
you told the FBI agents Ellington and Anderson that you heard "a loud
explosion which sounded like a rifle shot coming from the next floor
above me." **Now, did you tell them that it sounded like a rifle shot,
coming from the next floor above you, or didn't you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I told them it sounded like a car
backfiring."**
Nice try bully Ball, but he didn't go for it. Strike one.
"Mr. BALL - Well, did you tell them it sounded like it was from the
floor above you, or didn't you tell them that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No."
Strike two.
Mr. BALL - You did not tell them that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No."
Strike three.
Mr. BALL - Did it sound like it came from the floor above you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, at the time it did--yes.
[DVP: I guess Dougherty must have thought there was a '62 Chevy Impala
"backfiring" up on the sixth floor, huh? <another LOL>"
Nice try Dave but many of the witnesses inside the TSBD said the
backfiring was at street level.
"At this point in this incoherent mess, Joe Ball is probably
desperately wanting to ask Dougherty how many hits off of that
marijuana joint he had taken just prior to testifying on April 8th.]"
I found this extremely interesting:
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, when the FBI men---I imagine it was who it was---
he showed me his credentials, but he asked me who the manager was, and
I told him, "Mr. Truly." He told me to go find him. Well, I didn't
know where he was so I started from the first floor and Just started
looking for him, and .by the time I got to the sixth floor, they had
found a gun and shells.
Mr. BALL - When you went up to the sixth floor, it was after they
found the **shotgun and shells?**
Who mentioned the shotgun?
> =====================
"Mr. BALL - When you went up to the sixth floor, it was after they
found the shotgun and shells?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir."
Again, who said anything about a shotgun?
"[DVP: So, Dougherty is now saying he was on the sixth floor AFTER
1:22 PM CST on November 22nd. Mr. Ball is now probably getting ready
to put in a call for Nurse Ratched and the white-coated technicians
from the nearest loony-bin.]"
Notice Dave makes no attempt to address this either.
> =====================
"Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald carry any sort of large
package?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't, but some of the fellows said they did.
Mr. BALL - Who said that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, Bill Shelley, he told me that he thought he saw
him carrying a fairly good-sized package.
Mr. BALL - When did Shelley tell you that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, it was--the day after it happened.
[DVP: Although Dougherty, via the above testimony, didn't specifically
claim that Shelley said he (Shelley) saw LHO carrying a "fairly good-
sized package"
ON NOVEMBER 22ND, I think that such an inference could be implied by
Dougherty's above words. Which, of course, is total nonsense. Shelley
didn't see any such thing."
Why is Dave and Ball so dissmissive of this idea? Ball didn't even
pursue it. Wouldn't they want a witness that could prove LHO brought
a package in?
"Perhaps Dougherty meant to say "Wes Frazier" instead of "Bill
Shelley" above. If so, it would make much more sense...except for the
fact that "the day after it happened" was a Saturday, i.e., a day when
the regular stock workers of the TSBD didn't report to work. So, once
again, it's a jumbled-up mess that JD's providing us here. ~shrug~]"
Again, what is the issue with Shelley being the one to see the package
instead of Frazier? Dave, you are the one who is jumbled up as
Dougherty said Shelley "told him" the day after the shooting, not saw
the package then. All of our attention has been on Lovelady over the
years, but perhaps some needs to go to Shelley as the counsel saw no
interest in this chance to show LHO had a package. Why? In fact,
Ball's next question after this incredible comment is:
Mr. BALL - Are you sure you were on the fifth floor when you heard the
shots?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, I'm positive.
What was Shelley's role in all of this? Why did the WC see NO value
in it? Remember Shelley was on the sixth floor laying tiles when
Dougherty came up around 11:00 a.m. Does anyone know what type
clothing he was wearing on this day?
> =====================
"Mr. BALL - Are you sure you were on the fifth floor when you heard
the shots?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, I'm positive.
Mr. BALL - Did you see any other employee on the fifth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir; I didn't see nobody. There wasn't nobody on
the fifth floor at all. It was just myself.
[DVP: The above quote isn't so much hilarious as it is just plain
wrong. Norman, Jarman, and Williams, of course, were all on the south
side of the 5th Floor at the time of the shooting."
Perhaps he didn't see them, who knows.
"But, to be totally fair to Dougherty in this instance, it's quite
possible (what with the obstructions of boxes and other things that
might have blocked his view) that JD just simply couldn't see the
south side of the building (by the windows) during the time he might
have been on the fifth floor on November 22nd.]"
Exactly. Finally we get to the some key questions:
Mr. BALL - Did you see anybody on the sixth floor when you were there,
before you went to the fifth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, yes; I did.
Mr. BALL - Who?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, there was **Bill Shelley**, Billy Lovelady---
Mr. BALL - That was in the morning, wasn't it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - That wasn't after lunch, was it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - **After lunch, did you ever see them on the sixth floor?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No, sir; I didn't.**
> =====================
"Mr. BALL - Now, did you hear this shot either before or after lunch?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - It was before lunch; it was before lunch.
Mr. BALL - You think it was before lunch you heard the shot?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I believe it was--yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - And you were alone, were you?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
[DVP: Here we have a replay of the previous "LOL" moment re. JD's
"before lunch" declaration. How could anyone POSSIBLY believe
Dougherty's "Before Lunch" testimony above? Especially when we also
find this exchange within the very same day's WC testimony:
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I went back downstairs to eat lunch.
Mr. BALL - What time?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Oh, it was 12 o'clock.
I guess the assassination must have really taken place prior to 12:00
Noon then (per JD's morass of distorted lunch-eating timelines)."
The guy had mental issues for goodness sakes. Why are you mocking
him? I would guess because what he says has some strong value for the
CT cause.
"So, in order for JD's "I heard a shot before lunch" testimony to be
true (in conjunction with all of his other testimony, if we're to
believe portions of it as well), Dougherty would have had to have
heard the gunshot or "backfire" many minutes prior to 12:30 (unless JD
waited a half-hour after his 45-minute lunch break started to begin
eating his lunch that day)....and then after hearing the shot, he
descends to the first floor to talk with Eddie Piper.
And then, per JD, after being told by Piper that the President had
just been shot right in front of the building, Dougherty went ahead
and ate his lunch, as if it was an ordinary lunch break and as if
nothing unusual had just occurred in front of the building on Elm
Street.
And then, sometime after eating his lunch and while searching for Roy
Truly, Dougherty was allowed back up on the sixth floor at a time (per
JD) which was AFTER the police had already discovered Oswald's rifle
(which would have been 52 minutes after the shooting itself).
Do you think maybe that marijuana reference I made earlier just might
have some credence after all?]"
Why NOT discuss his NOT seeing a package with LHO, seeing LHO and
Shelley on the sixth floor at 11:00 a.m., NOT seeing LHO on the sixth
floor around 12:00 p.m. and Shelley telling him he saw LHO with a
package (which was not investigated in the least - which is odd as it
would support the WC's claim).
> =====================
"Mr. BALL - That's all I have to ask you, and this will be written up
and if you would like to come down and read it and sign it, you can,
or you can waive your signature. What do you want to do?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, whatever you want to do---it doesn't make any
difference.
Mr. BALL - Would you like to come down and read it over and sign it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, if you've got time, I'll sign it now.
[DVP: Yep. It must've been the grass he was smoking before giving his
testimony. Don't you think?]"
Boy you are a sympathetic one, I'm sure if he had backed up you
marijuana inspired SBT mess you wouldn't have so hard on him though,
right?
> =====================
>
> For some additional confusion, contradictions, and laughs, have a look
> at Jack Dougherty's November 22, 1963, affidavit (linked below).
>
> In that affidavit, JD claims to have seen several TSBD employees on
> the sixth floor AFTER the assassination took place (at least that's
> how it comes out via his affidavit; but he undoubtedly was actually
> talking about seeing the TSBD workers, including Oswald, on the sixth
> floor sometime BEFORE the actual shooting took place; but that's not
> how it appears on JD's very strangely-written affidavit). ~shrug
> time~ .....
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/dougher1.htm
>
> =====================
David Von Pein
But he didn't, did he?
Your "could have" argument is about all you've got, Rob-Kook. (I guess
you don't like Carolyn Arnold's "I SAW LHO IN THE 2nd-FLOOR LUNCHROOM
EATING LUNCH" story then, huh, Robby? Or was Lee supposedly bouncing
from one lunch room to the other on Floors 1 and 2 on 11/22?)
>>> "He {JD} may be slow, but NOT blind! How could he miss a package the size the WC was claiming LHO carried?" <<<
By saying what he said to the WC -- i.e., Dougherty only "caught him
out of the corner of my eye".
That's how he could have missed a large package...that's how. (See how
easy it is?)
Maybe you'd like to get together with fellow ABO Kook Walt....he's got
Dougherty possibly being a "decoy shooter" on 11/22. (Talk about
taking advantage of the mentally disabled. Do "pro" assassination
plotters normally employ mentally slow people to insert into their
ultra-important Presidential assassination plots?)
Here's what Walt The Kook said about Mr. Dougherty:
"I strongly suspect that Dougherty was a man who could easily be
tricked and made the laughing stock. He may have been used as the
decoy shooter who was dressed in light colored work clothes, who had
dark hair, was in his "early thirties", and weighed about 165 to 175
pounds, that Howard Brennan saw aiming a rifle out of the west end
window." -- Cakebread
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Dougherty is a key witness for showing LHO did NOT commit the crime, that is why Dave is taking delight in finding his testimony funny. He was there at 7:00 am and saw LHO enter the building, sans package, and he was in the domino lunchroom every day so he could have seen LHO eating in there on 11/22/63." <<<
"But he didn't, did he?"
Yes he did.
"Your "could have" argument is about all you've got, Rob-Kook. (I
guess you don't like Carolyn Arnold's "I SAW LHO IN THE 2nd-FLOOR
LUNCHROOM EATING LUNCH" story then, huh, Robby? Or was Lee supposedly
bouncing from one lunch room to the other on Floors 1 and 2 on
11/22?)"
I'm NOT relying on this, I'm saying he did NOT see any package in
LHO's hands or see him at around 12:00 p.m. on the sixth floor like
the WC contended.
> >>> "He {JD} may be slow, but NOT blind! How could he miss a package the size the WC was claiming LHO carried?" <<<
"By saying what he said to the WC -- i.e., Dougherty only "caught him
out of the corner of my eye"."
Dave, you are bending things again. Here is what he said:
Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.
Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door? (and you say Dougherty is
slow, how about this genius Ball?)
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.
Mr. BALL - About what time of day was that?
Mr. Ball is constantly asking the same question over and over. Here
is the rest:
Mr. BALL - The statement says, "I recall vaguely having seen Lee
Oswald, when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today."
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right.
Mr. BALL - Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him
that morning when he came to work?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to
you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when
he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---
that's the reason why I said it that way.
Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.
Mr. BALL - He was alone?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.
Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.
Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you
would remember whether he did or didn't?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this
way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.
Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in
his hands?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.
He sounds pretty sure to me about NOT seeing any package in LHO's
hands to me.
"That's how he could have missed a large package...that's how. (See
how easy it is?)"
Nice try, but see above.
"Maybe you'd like to get together with fellow ABO Kook Walt....he's
got Dougherty possibly being a "decoy shooter" on 11/22. (Talk about
taking advantage of the mentally disabled. Do "pro" assassination
plotters normally employ mentally slow people to insert into their
ultra-important Presidential assassination plots?)"
I don't know about that, but I do know he did NOT see any package in
LHO's hands or see LHO on the sixth floor around 12:00 p.m.
"Here's what Walt The Kook said about Mr. Dougherty:
"I strongly suspect that Dougherty was a man who could easily
be tricked and made the laughing stock. He may have been used as the
decoy shooter who was dressed in light colored work clothes, who had
dark hair, was in his "early thirties", and weighed about 165 to 175
pounds, that Howard Brennan saw aiming a rifle out of the west end
window." -- Cakebread"
Who knows, Walt is entitled to his opinion. I'm focusing on my
questions which you cannot answer.
David Von Pein
And yet we still have these comments made by JD too. Just ignore
these, Mr. Kook. It'll be better for your ABO purposes:
"I just caught him out of the corner of my eye." .... "I recall
vaguely having seen Lee Oswald, when he came to work at about 8 a.m.
today."
>>> "...But I do know he did NOT see any package in LHO's hands or see LHO on the sixth floor around 12:00 p.m." <<<
Which doesn't mean that Oswald was empty-handed when he came into the
building and doesn't mean Oswald wasn't on the 6th Floor at noontime.
BTW, is Dougherty's "vague" recollection of having seen Oswald out of
the corner of his eye supposed to completely trump Wes Frazier's much-
more-definite recollection of seeing LHO carrying a package into the
back door of the building on 11/22?:
"I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his
arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm
down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started
walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept waking
faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the
back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he
still had the package under his arm." -- Buell Wesley Frazier;
11/22/63 Affidavit
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
>>> "I'm focusing on my questions which you cannot answer." <<<
I've answered them fine. You just don't like the answers. You
disregard Occam and CS&L in favor of pro-conspiracy silliness (and
chaff, of course).
Gee, what a shocker.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "He {Dougherty} sounds pretty sure to me about NOT seeing any package in LHO's hands to me." <<<
"And yet we still have these comments made by JD too. Just ignore
these, Mr. Kook. It'll be better for your ABO purposes:
"I just caught him out of the corner of my eye." .... "I recall
vaguely having seen Lee Oswald, when he came to work at about 8 a.m.
today.""
I'm not ingnoring them, they just don't reflect the true nature of
what was happening. IF he really only saw out the corner of his eye,
how could he know LHO was alone when he came in? Why would Ball NOT
jump on this and switch the questioning? You are overboard on a piece
of wood in the rough seas.
> >>> "...But I do know he did NOT see any package in LHO's hands or see LHO on the sixth floor around 12:00 p.m." <<<
"Which doesn't mean that Oswald was empty-handed when he came into the
building and doesn't mean Oswald wasn't on the 6th Floor at noontime."
Yes it does. His statements are adamant to me and they are right from
your bible, the WC hearings, so you can't refute them. Well, I would
think the counselor should have questioned him about this (seeing
LHO), but he didn't and Dougherty did not mention seeing him after
11:00 a.m. Perhaps, but you would have to prove that LHO was there
and you have NO witness who can do this.
"BTW, is Dougherty's "vague" recollection of having seen Oswald out of
the corner of his eye supposed to completely trump Wes Frazier's much-
more-definite
recollection of seeing LHO carrying a package into the back door of
the building on 11/22?:
"I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his
arm, and the package was straight up and down, and he had his arm
down, and you could not see much of the package. When we started
walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, but he kept waking
faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the
back door at the Loading Dock of the building that we work in, and he
still had the package under his arm." -- Buell Wesley Frazier;
11/22/63 Affidavit"
NOT really when he wasn't really "paying attention" either.
Furthermore, it has been proven it was impossible (Dave's favorite
word) for LHO to carry the long package in the way Frazier described
as his arms were simply NOT long enough.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
> >>> "I'm focusing on my questions which you cannot answer." <<<
"I've answered them fine. You just don't like the answers. You
disregard Occam and CS&L in favor of pro-conspiracy silliness (and
chaff, of course).
Gee, what a shocker."
Dave, you have NOT answered them, you have put forth assertions for
which there is NO proof to show you or the WC are correct. Big
difference.
David Von Pein
>>> "Dave, you have NOT answered them, you have put forth assertions for which there is NO proof to show you or the WC are correct." <<<
Anyone who fits into the "reasonable" class won't have any trouble at
all figuring out this "JFK Mystery":
Oswald's gun.
Oswald's shells.
Oswald's bullets.
Oswald's prints.
Oswald's workplace.
Oswald's provable lies.
Fresh fibers consistent with Oswald's shirt.
Witnesses to Oswald killing 2 men in Dallas.
"This is it."
"It's all over now."
"I've never owned a rifle."
"I didn't shoot anybody, no sir."
"I'm just a patsy."
Per a kook named Rob, incredibly, all of the above adds up to NO
EVIDENCE AT ALL of Oswald's guilt in EITHER murder he so obviously
committed on 11/22/63.
Now, something's wrong here....and it ain't with DVP (or the sharp
Razor held by William of Occam).
Walt
wrote:
Damn Pea brain, yer not much brighter than Jack Dougherty.......
Here's the scenario......
Mr KKK.... Jack, you know you've been with us a long time?
JD.....Yes, sir.
Mr.K.... you know we rely on you here at the TSBD?
JD ... Yes, sir.
Mr K ... In fact Jack, you're one of our best employees
JD... Thank you.
Mr K... Jack, I want to tell you something that you can't tell
anybody, It's got to be secret just between you and I..... Can I have
your word to keep the secret?
JD.... Well of course, er....Yes sir.
Mr K... OK Jack here's the deal ...... You know President Kennedy is
going to be coming to Dallas in a few days?
JD ....Yes, sir.
Mr K .... OK .... The President's Secret Service Body guards have
called me and asked if I had a good reliable man who could be counted
on to keep a secret, and I immediately thought of you, so I told them,
Yes.
They told me they are worried about the President's reckless behavior
like mixing with crowds and riding in that fancy convertible with the
top down.
They're afraid that someone might take a shot at him but they can't
tell the President what to do..... You can understand that can't you
Jack?
JD...Well, yes sir, but whats that got to do with me?
Mr K... Well they want someone to pretend to take a shot at the
President so that he'll realize the danger he places himself in.
They dare not let anybody know what there up to because they'd all get
fired if anybody found out that they were staging a phoney attempt on
the President.
Do you think that you could pretend to fire a rifle out of one of the
windows upstairs when JFK rides by next week?
JD.... Well that would be easy to do, but wouldn't that be dangerous,
I mean.... someone might see me and think that I'm trying to hurt the
President.
Mr K. ... Naw, Ya don't have to worry about that Jack....The Secret
Service are the ones asking us to do them this favor, so they'll know
yer just pretending..... But first, they want me to call them back
and tell them if you are willing to do this, and if you've promised
not to tell a soul. Oh and by the way....They don't expect you to do
it just because you're patriotic, They said they would pay a thousand
dollars, if they could find a man who could be counted on to keep a
secret.
JD.... I think I can do it.....
Mr.K... Ok Jack, I'll call them and let them know..... I'm sure they
will have more details for us..... I'll talk to ya later. Now
remember not a word to anybody...
JD ....Yes Sir
David Von Pein
(Oh, that weak bladder of mine again! Dammit! You kooks should have
some mercy on us.)
Walt's idiocy never fails to exceed conspiracy-happy boundaries
previously thought to be totally unattainable by even the kookiest of
kooks. But, Walt's up to the task.
So....per Walt, the "LET'S FRAME ONLY OSWALD" Patsy Plot on 11/22
required, for some idiotic reason only Walt could possibly explain,
the presence of some goof on the 6th Floor who was just PRETENDING to
fire a rifle out of a window that would NOT BE USED TO FRAME THE PATSY
FROM.
Nothing like complicating an already-ridiculously-complicated Solo-
Patsy Plot (what with placing "real" shooters with real bullets, per
the kooks, in FRONT of JFK within the context of this insane 1-patsy
ruse) by adding a totally-meaningless, needless "DECOY SHOOTER" on the
west end of the TSBD.
Right, Kook?
If you tried to sell this crackpot "decoy shooter" theory to the late
Jim Garrison, I doubt even Jimbo would buy it. (And he was a kook who
believed in a 5-gun, 1-patsy plot that didn't even have the patsy's
rifle used AT ALL during the shooting! Hard to beat that for sheer
idiocy...but Walt's latest brain-dead plot just might rival Jimbo's.)
(That bladder...again!!)
Walt
Just thought I'd make you aware how narrow minded you egotistical
maggots are..... You readily believe in bullets that defy the laws of
physics.... So I thought surely you'd see the possibility of a
scenario like the above. I mean If you'll believe the SBT (simply BS
theory) you'll believe anything...right Pea brain?
David Von Pein
Shooter" theory (which you seemed to fully (and seriously) endorse a
day or two ago when you accused Jack Dougherty of possibly serving as
such a needless "decoy")?
Get together with Mr. Willis, Walt. He, too, likes the "decoy shooter"
angle. He's even got Bonnie Ray waving a useless decoy rifle out a
window to try to attract witnesses' attention. (I'm surprised Don
didn't claim that Williams let out a ear-piercing whistle in order to
get everybody to look up at the "decoy" rifle...with Williams crouched
below window level, out of sight, per Willis-Kook).
I'm going to use another of Bud's always-excellent to-the-point
remarks here ----
When you have to go to such incredible (and stupid-sounding) lengths
in order to get Oswald off the hook, isn't it just time to simply
admit that the bum is guilty?
What about it, Walt? Don't you ever tire of the Musical Assassins game
you continually play (with zero pieces of evidence to back up a single
thing you say--like your crackpot "JFK WAS SHOT FROM THE FRONT, AND
CROFT PHOTO PROVES IT" nightmare of a theory that nobody else on Earth
believes in but you?
Walt
Hey Von Pea Brain....Mack Kilduff held a news briefing at Parkland
Hospital at about 1:30 that afternoon. The newsmen there took photos
of Mack Kilduff pointing to the point where a bullet had struck JFK.
Where is Mack Kilduff pointing in those photos??
Or How about the "grinning passenger" on Cecil Mc Watter's bus who
told Mc Watter's that JFK had been shot in the temple. How did he
know that just minutes after the murder?? Most of the witnesses who
were standing on the sidewalk right along side the Lincoln at the time
of the shooting, never saw JFK's wounds, and yet this laughing man
knew where Mack Kilduff would point to an hour later.
David Von Pein
The kook's (Walter's) mind is wandering. From Dougherty being a "decoy
shooter", to Malcolm Kilduff, to Milton Jones.
Want to talk about rain forests next, Walt?
Walt
> The kook's (Walter's) mind is wandering. FromDoughertybeing a "decoy
> shooter", to Malcolm Kilduff, to Milton Jones.
>
> Want to talk about rain forests next, Walt?
Hey asshole....yer the one who tried to change the subject, when you
wrote.....
" What about it, Walt? Don't you ever tire of the Musical Assassins
game
you continually play (with zero pieces of evidence to back up a
single
thing you say--like your crackpot "JFK WAS SHOT FROM THE FRONT, AND
CROFT PHOTO PROVES IT" nightmare of a theory that nobody else on
Earth believes in but you?"
If you want to talk about evidence that one of the assassins was in
front of JFK ....Then I'll accomodate you. The tactic of changing
the focus of the debate is a common tactic for liars.... But you can
do that if you want, I'll debate any evidence you want to talk about.
David Von Pein
One (small) point for Walt. (But my segue was a better one, i.e.,
emphasizing Walt's "general" type of CT mindset, while providing just
one of many kooky examples via my Croft example.)
But I'm willing to admit when I'm (kinda) wrong. So let's give Walt 1
bonus point. ;)
>>> "If you want to talk about evidence that one of the assassins was in front of JFK, then I'll accomodate you." <<<
Oh, you mean the non-existent bullets and the whopping 4 to 5% of
witnesses who said they heard shots from multiple directions? THAT
kind of "evidence"?
>>> "I'll debate any evidence you want to talk about." <<<
And you'll mangle every last bit of it...as usual. Right, Walt?
Just like the excellent example of evidence-skewing below, as Walt,
himself, decides on what the REAL "evidence" and REAL testimony is:
==============================================================
A CONSPIRACY KOOK ("WALT") SAID --- He {Howard Brennan} DESCRIBED the
location where he saw the gunman aiming the rifle from the window, and
he did NOT describe the window on the EAST end of the sixth floor.
DVP (DAVID ROBERT VON PEIN; NOT A CONSPIRACY KOOK) --- This is total
nonsense, and anyone who reads all of Howard Brennan's testimony would
know that the CTer who wrote the above bullshit doesn't have the
slightest idea what he's talking about.
Brennan's testimony shows that Brennan saw a man (Lee Harvey Oswald)
in only ONE single window in the Texas School Book Depository on
11/22/63 -- and that window was the southeast corner window on the
sixth floor.
Any reasonable person who examines all of Brennan's Warren Commission
testimony would easily come to the conclusion that Brennan only saw a
man in the EAST-end window. And it's also easy to see that nobody was
manipulating Brennan's words, nor was David Belin preventing any "West
End" references from getting into the WC record.
But, just like almost all other conspiracy kooks who are charter
members of the popular "Anybody But Oswald" club, the CTer who wrote
the above remarks has no idea how to properly and objectively evaluate
physical evidence or witness testimony.
=====================================================
WALT --- Since David Belin did a good job of twisting Brennan's
testimony...
DVP --- Nobody is "twisting" Howard Brennan's testimony except a kook
named Walt. That's for damn sure.
Let's examine it more closely after having read through ALL of
Brennan's WC testimony (which I just now did)......
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan.htm
David W. Belin was in NO WAY trying to twist or manipulate Howard
Brennan's words during Brennan's WC session. That's obvious when you
read the transcript.
For, if Belin HAD been on a mission to "twist" Brennan's account of
the shooting (in order to keep any references to a WEST-END shooter
from entering the official record), would Belin have said this to Mr.
Brennan in such an OPEN-ENDED manner, which allows Brennan to say
anything he wants to say with regard any (supposed) WEST-SIDE
assassin?.....
BELIN: "Mr. Brennan, could you please tell the Commission what
happened from the time you sat on that retaining wall, what you saw?"
And would Belin have been willing to dangle this hot question in front
of Brennan if Belin and the WC had wanted to hush up info re. any
west-
end TSBD killer?.....
BELIN: "Did you see any other people in any other windows that you can
recollect?"
And here's yet another question that no idiot would have dared ask
Brennan if that person (Mr. Belin) had been wanting to choke off the
witness in some way.....
BELIN: "Now, after you saw the man--well, just tell what else you saw
during that afternoon."
And below we have still another example of Belin's reckless
questioning tactics (if he'd been wanting to keep a bunch of stuff out
of the record...because how in the heck did Belin know how Brennan
would respond to this question?).....
BELIN: "Would you describe just exactly what you saw when you saw him
{the TSBD gunman} this last time?"
Below we have other indications that Howard Brennan was referring to
ONLY the southeast TSBD window.....
BRENNAN: "Spoke to Mr. Sorrels, and told him that those were the two
colored boys that was on the fifth floor, or on the next floor
underneath the man that fired the gun."
~~~~~~~~
BELIN: "Was the man that you saw in the window firing the rifle the
same man that you had seen earlier in the window, you said at least a
couple of times, first stepping up and then going back?"
BRENNAN: "Yes, sir."
BELIN: "About how far were you away from that window at the time you
saw him, Mr. Brennan?"
BRENNAN: "Well, at that time, I calculated 110 foot at an angle. But
closer surveillance I believe it will run close to 122 to 126 feet at
an angle."
~~~~~~~~
Notice the references to "THAT WINDOW" and "THE WINDOW" --- indicating
the ONLY window Brennan EVER refers to specifically throughout his
entire testimony....i.e., the SN/SE window on the 6th Floor.
~~~~~~~~
And then there's the "red pencil" demonstration done by Brennan on
CE482, which is a photo of the SN window, with Brennan marking the
approx. angle of the rifle he saw being fired FROM THAT EXACT WINDOW
(obviously)! .....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg
I guess Walt must think that Brennan marked a simulated rifle angle on
CE482 with a red pencil, even though Brennan knew that he was marking
the WRONG WINDOW! Right, Walt?.....
BELIN: "Now, I wonder if you would take on Exhibit 482, if you can
kind of mark the way the rifle was at the time you saw it. Here is a
red pencil. If you could put on Exhibit 482 the direction that you saw
the rifle pointing, sir."
BRENNAN: "I would say more at this angle. Maybe not as far out as
this."
BELIN: "You have put a line, and I have tried to make a little bit
darker line."
BRENNAN: "That is as close as I can get it."
BELIN: "This is on Exhibit 482--as to the angle at which you saw the
rifle. And you say perhaps it wasn't out of the window as far as this
line goes on Exhibit 482, is that correct?"
BRENNAN: "Right."
GERALD FORD: "That is the angle that you believe the rifle was
pointed?"
BRENNAN: "Yes."
ALLEN DULLES: "And that is from the area in the window from which the
rifle was pointing?"
BRENNAN: "Right."
~~~~~~~~
Please note that Brennan doesn't correct anyone on the Commission as
to CE482 being the WRONG WINDOW from where Howard had seen any gunman
firing a rifle.
And Brennan certainly had every opportunity to make such a correction
if one had been required. Obviously, none was required, because CE482
represented the exact window from which Brennan had seen Oswald firing
a weapon at President Kennedy.
And then we have these remarks made by Belin. (Is he lying his ass off
here?).....
BELIN: "What is the fact as to whether or not I told you what to say
or you yourself just told me what you wanted to tell me?"
BRENNAN: "You did not instruct me what to say at all. I told you in
the best words I could to explain exactly my movements and what
happened."
GERALD FORD: "And here today you have testified freely on your own?"
BRENNAN: "Right, I have."
~~~~~~~~
And then we get Allen Dulles asking Brennan the following loaded-full-
of-potential-dynamite question (if the WC had wanted to keep some
stuff out of the record, that is).....
DULLES: "Anything you would like to add?"
And then we can examine Howard Brennan's 11/22/63 affidavit, where we
can also find verbal indications of an EAST-end shooter (not WEST
end), when Brennan says this.....
BRENNAN: "In the east end of the building and the second row of
windows from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before
the President's car arrived."
A little later in the same affidavit, we find.....
BRENNAN: "I then saw this man I have described in the window and he
was taking aim with a high-powered rifle."
Does Walt want the world to believe that when Brennan said "THE
WINDOW" in that last sentence above, Howard was REALLY referring to
the west end of the Depository, even though just a few sentences
earlier in the same affidavit he said "IN THE EAST END OF THE
BUILDING"?
~~~~~~~~
More useful tidbits from Brennan's WC session (with this being an
excellent question being asked by Mr. Belin, btw).....
BELIN: "You said you saw the man with the rifle on the sixth floor,
and then you said you saw some Negroes on the fifth floor."
BRENNAN: "Yes."
BELIN: "Did you get as good a look at the Negroes as you got at the
man with the rifle?"
BRENNAN: "Yes."
BELIN: "Did you feel that your recollection of the Negroes at that
time was as good as the one with the man with the rifle?"
BRENNAN: "Yes--at that time, it was."
~~~~~~~~
And then there's this regarding the issue of the color of the gunman's
clothing.....
BELIN: "Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the man
with the rifle was wearing?"
BRENNAN: "No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in khaki. I
mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other words.
If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side."
~~~~~~~~
So, via the above words of Howard Brennan, the gunman could have been
wearing "light"-colored clothing...or "khaki"-colored clothing. But
there's the word "maybe" in there too. And that initial "no" to
Belin's question in the first place.
Plus -- Since we KNOW that Brennan saw the assassin (Oswald) through a
half-opened window on the southeast corner of the TSBD's 6th
Floor...and we also know that the windows in the TSBD were fairly
dirty on 11/22/63...I'm wondering if (just possibly) the "dirty"
status of the TSBD windows might have influenced the "dingy" remark
made by Howard Brennan above.
=====================================================
WALT --- Belin cleverly did not provide a photo that showed the entire
face of the TSBD as it appeared at 12:30 on 11/22/63. He gave Howard
Brennan photos that showed only windows on the upper east side,
forcing Brennan to use those photos to depict the events he witnessed.
DVP --- Oh sure. And Brennan, being the box of dumb rocks you must
think he was, decided to not say the following --- "Well, Mr. Belin,
this photograph doesn't depict the far-west-end window where I saw the
assassin shooting...but, what the fuck....I'll just pretend the
shooter was on the east end." --- right, Mr. Kook?
~LOL~
(And an even bigger: "LOL".)
:)
=====================================================
WALT --- If the truth be known, the gunman was probably planting the
spent shells when Brennan saw him.
DVP --- Yeah...and then these boobs decided they'd shoot from the
exact OPPOSITE end of the sixth floor from where the shells were
"planted", instead of merely using the pre-arranged patsy-creating SN
window.
Yeah, that makes sense .... if you're a Mega-Kook.
Plus -- There are Oswald's fresh prints on those SN boxes too...don't
forget. Were those being "planted" too? Or did the plotters just get
lucky with those prints?
=====================================================
WALT --- Belin twisted the events that happened BEFORE the shooting to
make it look like Brennan was talking about what he saw DURING the
shooting.
DVP --- And how was Belin supposed to prevent Brennan from using the
words "West End" or "The other end of the building is where I saw him
shoot from", etc.?
Belin just got lucky that the word "West" never escaped Brennan's lips
when Howard "DESCRIBED" the location within the TSBD where the
rifleman was located, huh?
=====================================================
WALT --- Brennan is saying that the shirt was a light-colored khaki
shirt; it could have been dingy white, and perhaps you know that dingy
white is a shade of WHITE.
DVP --- But khaki isn't. .... Kook.
=====================================================
WALT --- Early in his testimony Belin asked Brennan how he was dressed
that day, and Brennan said he was dressed in gray KHAKI work clothes.
So KHAKI is a type of material to Howard Brennan, not necessarily a
color.
DVP --- That must be why Brennan TWICE during his WC testimony utters
the specific word "color" immediately after uttering the word "khaki".
Right? But it's best if you just ignore those TWO times Brennan says
"khaki color".....
BRENNAN (Page 144): "...More of a khaki color."
BRENNAN (Page 160): "...And a khaki color."
=====================================================
WALT --- Now you admit the windows were dirty. So how did Brennan see
all of the details he DESCRIBED through TWO thicknesses of dirty
glass?
DVP --- During the shooting, Brennan no doubt saw Oswald crouching
behind the MC rifle BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE DIRTY WINDOWS, i.e.,
through the open bottom half of the SN window, even though Brennan was
of the false impression that Oswald was "standing".
But don't forget he ALSO thought the Negroes on the 5th Floor were
"standing" as well, which is equally (but consistently) as incorrect.
Now, quite obviously, while watching Oswald aim and fire the last
rifle shot, Brennan could have easily seen many of the details
regarding Oswald's general appearance.
But evidently to a kook like Walt ALL of the pertinent data re.
Oswald's clothes and appearance HAD to be witnessed through ONLY the
CLOSED (upper-half) of the SN window.
Go figure.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce482.jpg
=====================================================
WALT --- You're not really this obtuse....are you?!!
DVP --- No, I'm not. But you sure are. Obtuse, kooky, nutty, Oswald-
loving, evidence-skewing....you name it. You're it.
=====================================================
WALT --- We are in total agreement....Brennan was not lying.
DVP --- Yeah...Walt must think that Howard Brennan was merely
MISINTERPRETED when he gave his WC testimony....but not lying.
Brennan circled ONE SINGLE WINDOW on a Commission Exhibit where he saw
A MAN on the 6th Floor...not TWO windows. Just one. And that one
window was the SN window in the SE corner of the building.
Walt thinks that Brennan must have FORGOTTEN about seeing the gunman
in the WEST window DURING the shooting...which is THE most important
information (of course) given by Brennan during his testimony to the
WC. But Brennan never bothered to say this to Mr. Belin:
"Oh, by the way Mr. Belin, that window I circled in CE477 isn't where
I saw the gunman actually shooting from. No, I saw the man firing a
gun from this west-end window over here. Sorry, I didn't mean to
confuse you."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce477.jpg
Brennan saw the man/assassin (later positively IDed by Brennan as Lee
Harvey Oswald) in only ONE window on 11/22/63....that's obvious by his
testimony and by his WINDOW-CIRCLING actions on CE477....and that
window was the SN window on the southeast side of the TSBD.
Walt, being a revisionist CT kook, will continue to make up his own
unique brand of Assassination (Il)Logic (and made-up witness testimony
evidently) in order to promote his own forever-skewed idea that a
gunman was located on the WEST side of the 6th Floor of the Texas
School Book Depository at 12:30 on 11/22/63. (Even though, per Walt,
Oswald was going to be FRAMED AS THE LONE PATSY at a DIFFERENT window
in the building in the southeast corner. Go figure that crackpot pre-
assassination logic, huh?)
Walt
> On 23 Mar, 19:22, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The kook's (Walter's) mind is wandering. FromDoughertybeing a "decoy
> > shooter", to Malcolm Kilduff, to Milton Jones.
Milton Jones couldn't have been the man that was grinning when he told
bus driver, Cecil McWatters, that the president had been "shot in the
temple" . Miton Jones was a teenager who had just got out of class
and immediately boarded the bus..... There was no way he could have
known the president had been shot in the temple. Whoever that man
was, he thought it a happy event, because he was he was grinning as
Cecil Mc Watters told a lady who was boarding the bus on Marsalis ave,
that JFK had been shot. The lady thought Mc Watter's was joking, so
Mc Watter's told her to ask the grinning man who had told Mcwatter's
that JFK had been shot in the temple.
>
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/136db4e5c96073ee
The delusions of certain CTers are always a wonder to behold.
This thread has totally trashed Walt's "BRENNAN WAS DESCRIBING THE
WEST-END WINDOW" bullshit from pillar to post (and back again)...and
here's what Wacky Walt comes back with....
"Oh no I'm not going home yet. I'm having too much fun kicking yer
ass."
It's all part of the wonderful world of Disney -- er, I mean "CT-
Kooks" .... i.e., part of their lovely "NOTHING IS WHAT IT SEEMS TO
BE" make-believe world of conspiracy. This includes not even realizing
(or dare admitting at any rate) when they (the kooks) have had their
own asses kicked seven ways to Sunday.
I've thoroughly trashed Walt's crackpot Brennan theory in the past
too, of course. This is just the latest time. And Walt still keeps
acting as if his theory remains erect with legs of cast-iron.
A delusional world must be heaven to some.
DVP
03/18/07
Walt
> >>> "Hey asshole....yer the one who tried to change the subject, when you wrote....."What about it, Walt? Don't you ever tire of the Musical Assassins game you continually play (with zero pieces of evidence to back up a single thing you say--like your crackpot "JFK WAS SHOT FROM THE FRONT, AND CROFT PHOTO PROVES IT" nightmare of a theory that nobody else on Earth believes in but you)?" " <<<
>
> One (small) point for Walt. (But my segue was a better one, i.e.,
> emphasizing Walt's "general" type of CT mindset, while providing just
> one of many kooky examples via my Croft example.)
>
> But I'm willing to admit when I'm (kinda) wrong. So let's give Walt 1
> bonus point. ;)
>
> >>> "If you want to talk about evidence that one of the assassins was in front of JFK, then I'll accomodate you." <<<
>
> Oh, you mean the non-existent bullets and the whopping 4 to 5% of
> witnesses who said they heard shots from multiple directions? THAT
> kind of "evidence"?
>
> >>> "I'll debate any evidence you want to talk about." <<<
>
> And you'll mangle every last bit of it...as usual. Right, Walt?
>
> Just like the excellent example of evidence-skewing below, as Walt,
> himself, decides on what the REAL "evidence" and REAL testimony is:
>
> ==============================================================
>
Wiggle and squirm, maggot..... Your post, It doesn't change a thing.
Brennan said the man he saw with the hunting rifle behind the west end
window was wearing "LIGHT COLORED" clothing, and both his shirt and
triusers were "LIGHT COLORED". And The FBI determined that Oswald was
wearing DARK COLORED clothing at work that morning.... and what's
more...Oswald didn't even have any light colored clothing as DESCRIBED
by Howard Brennan.
>
> Plus -- Since we KNOW that Brennan saw the assassin (Oswald) through a
> half-opened window on the southeast corner of the ...
>
> read more »
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Dave, you have NOT answered them, you have put forth assertions for which there is NO proof to show you or the WC are correct." <<<
"Anyone who fits into the "reasonable" class won't have any trouble at
all figuring out this "JFK Mystery":
Oswald's gun."
Not proven, in fact, what was proven was the fact he would have
ordered a 36 inch rifle and NOT a 40 inch rifle like the one found.
NO proof of him picking it up at the post office either.
"Oswald's shells."
Prove it, there were NO LHO prints on them. You also have failed to
prove he owned the rifle found.
"Oswald's bullets."
Prove it. Ditto.
"Oswald's prints."
On boxes? He worked there, so what? There were NO prints on the
rifle or the shells.
"Oswald's workplace."
Along with a lot of other people, and the owner of the building was a
close, personal friend of LBJ.
"Oswald's provable lies."
If they are so provable, how about proving them to be lies? You NEVER
do this part.
"Fresh fibers consistent with Oswald's shirt."
Which shirt? The one he was arrested in but did NOT wear during the
time of the assassination? Yeah, that makes sense.
"Witnesses to Oswald killing 2 men in Dallas."
You are a dreamer, there is NO one who could positively ID LHO the
shooter in either case.
"'This is it.'"
So what? This could mean a lot of things.
"'It's all over now."
"I've never owned a rifle."
"I didn't shoot anybody, no sir."
"I'm just a patsy.'"
None of these comments show guilt.
"Per a kook named Rob, incredibly, all of the above adds up to NO
EVIDENCE AT ALL of Oswald's guilt in EITHER murder he so obviously
committed on 11/22/63."
Am I a kook because I want proof and real evidence, go figure. He
wants to hang someone with NO proof and I'm a kook. He would live
quite happily in Nazi Germany.
"Now, something's wrong here....and it ain't with DVP (or the sharp
Razor held by William of Occam)."
Not every crime or thing in life can be explained in simplest terms,
especially when a major conspiracy has commited the crime.
David Von Pein
>>> "Brennan said the man he saw with the hunting rifle behind the west end window..." <<<
Nothing will ever stop Walt from lying about these things re. Brennan.
Nothing.
Why am I not surprised?
Walt
> >>> "Hey asshole....yer the one who tried to change the subject, when you wrote....."What about it, Walt? Don't you ever tire of the Musical Assassins game you continually play (with zero pieces of evidence to back up a single thing you say--like your crackpot "JFK WAS SHOT FROM THE FRONT, AND CROFT PHOTO PROVES IT" nightmare of a theory that nobody else on Earth believes in but you)?" " <<<
>
> One (small) point for Walt. (But my segue was a better one, i.e.,
> emphasizing Walt's "general" type of CT mindset, while providing just
> one of many kooky examples via my Croft example.)
>
>
Von Pea Brain wrote;.."But I'm willing to admit when I'm (kinda)
wrong."
Hey Pea Brain is "kinda wrong" similar to being "kinda dead" ??
So let's give Walt 1
> bonus point. ;)
>
> >>> "If you want to talk about evidence that one of the assassins was in front of JFK, then I'll accomodate you." <<<
>
> Oh, you mean the non-existent bullets and the whopping 4 to 5% of
> witnesses who said they heard shots from multiple directions? THAT
> kind of "evidence"?
>
> >>> "I'll debate any evidence you want to talk about." <<<
>
> And you'll mangle every last bit of it...as usual. Right, Walt?
>
> Just like the excellent example of evidence-skewing below, as Walt,
> himself, decides on what the REAL "evidence" and REAL testimony is:
>
> ==============================================================
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
> half-opened window on the southeast corner of the ...
>
> read more »
David Von Pein
Yeah...or "kinda pregnant" too. ;)
I was merely slightly qualifying my "wrong" statement. Because I only
considered it to be akin to, let's say, "half of a mistake" on my
part. ;)
Walt
> >>> "Brennan said the man he saw with the hunting rifle behind the west end window..." <<<
>
> Nothing will ever stop Walt from lying about these things re. Brennan.
> Nothing.
Lying???.... Let's take a look.... Here's what Howard Brennan wrote:
Quote.... "I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have
described at the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun.".... unquote
Those are Brennan's words.... It's common knowledge that in different
parts of the country a high powered hunting rifle is identified in
different ways. The terms... " High powered rifle", "Deer rifle",
"Big game rifle", Sporting rifle, and Hunting rifle are all used
interchangably to identify a Sporting rifle as opposed to a military
rifle. One major difference between a high powered, or hunting
rifle, and a military rifle is the militaty rifles have wooden guards
or shields around the barrels of the rifles, whereas hunting rifles do
not.
Since Brennan DESCRIBED the rifle he saw as a "high powered rifle, of
which, he could "see all of the barrel of the gun" as the gunman
"STOOD" and aimed it out of the wide open window, is obvious to
anybody with an IQ higher than that of a turnip, that Brennan was
referring to a HUNTING rifle.
Walt
> >>> "Brennan said the man he saw with the hunting rifle behind the west end window..." <<<
>
> Nothing will ever stop Walt from lying about these things re. Brennan.
> Nothing.
Lying???.... Let's take a look.... Here's what Howard Brennan wrote:
Quote.... "I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have
described at the window and he was taking aim with a high powered
rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun.".... unquote
"I then saw this man I have described"
Brennan DESCRIBED the gunman as "in his early thirties"... Oswald was
at least ten years younger than the gunman.
Brennan DESCRIBED the gunman as weighing about 165 to 175 pounds....
Oswald weighed 140 pounds
Brennan DESCRIBED the gunman as wearing a light colored shirt,
possibly a dingy white.... Oswald was wearing a dark colored shirt, a
reddish brown color.
Brennan DESCRIBED the gunmans trousers as being a shade lighter than
the dingy white colored shirt... Oswald's trousers were a dark gray.
Brennan referred to the rifle as being a "high powered rifle" that had
the metal barrel exposed so that he could "see all of the barrel of
the gun". Hunting rifles are often referred to as "high powered
rifles", and since the rifle found on the sixth floor was a MILITARY
rifle it's obvious that Brennan was NOT referring to a Mannlicher
Carcano.
Walt
> On 24 Mar, 06:28, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > On 23 Mar, 19:22, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > The kook's (Walter's) mind is wandering. FromDoughertybeing a "decoy
> > > shooter", to Malcolm Kilduff, to Milton Jones.
>
Milton Jones couldn't have been the man that was grinning when he
told
bus driver, Cecil McWatters, that the president had been "shot in the
temple" . Miton Jones was a teenager who had just got out of class
and immediately boarded the bus..... There was no way he could have
known the president had been shot in the temple. Whoever that man
was, he thought it a happy event, because he was he was grinning as
Cecil Mc Watters told a lady who was boarding the bus on Marsalis
ave,
that JFK had been shot. The lady thought Mc Watter's was joking, so
Mc Watter's told her to ask the grinning man who had told Mcwatter's
that JFK had been shot in the temple.
I meant to add to this earlier post that the grinning man on Mc
Watters
thought that the murder of the President was a happy event, and so did
the man who shot Tippit. The man who shot Tippit smiled at the Davis
sisters as he jogged away from the scene.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Want to talk about rain forests next, Walt?
>
> > Hey asshole....yer the one who tried to change the subject, when you
> > wrote.....
>
> > " What about it, Walt? Don't you ever tire of the Musical Assassins
> > game
> > you continually play (with zero pieces of evidence to back up a
> > single
> > thing you say--like your crackpot "JFK WAS SHOT FROM THE FRONT, AND
> > CROFT PHOTO PROVES IT" nightmare of a theory that nobody else on
> > Earth believes in but you?"
>
> > If you want to talk about evidence that one of the assassins was in
> > front of JFK ....Then I'll accomodate you. The tactic of changing
> > the focus of the debate is a common tactic for liars.... But you can
> > do that if you want, I'll debate any evidence you want to talk about.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
Many other people have (technically) misidentified the MC as a "high-
powered rifle". It's a common mistake. I, in fact, thought for a long
time that LHO's rifle was a "high-powered" weapon. But after reading
Bob Frazier's testimony, I found out I was (technically) in error.
But Walt thinks that Brennan's IDing the rifle as "high-powered"
should be taken as Gospel regarding the ACTUAL capacity of that rifle
he saw, even though Brennan also said this to the WC:
"I am not an expert on guns."
And then, Brennan's VERY NEXT words were:
"It was, as I could observe, some type of a high-powered rifle."
Doesn't sound TOO definitive to me in the "high-powered" regard.
Brennan was merely saying that the shooter had a RIFLE (i.e., long
gun), and he THOUGHT at the time the rifle looked like a "high-
powered" weapon. Simple as that. But Walt wants to insert a LITERAL
meaning (and a non-existent "hunting rifle" meaning) into Brennan's
"high-powered" comment. And that's just silly.
Plus, as Bud pointed out recently, there's an affidavit of Brennan's
wherein Brennan specifically says he saw Oswald firing "a rifle from
the southeast corner of the sixth floor":
"...positive identification of Lee Harvey Oswald as the man I
saw firing a rifle fro[m] the southeast corner of the sixth floor of
the Texas School Book Depository Building on November 22, 1963." --
Howard L. Brennan; 5/7/64
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan4.htm
And yet we still have Walt clinging to the notion that Brennan never,
ever specified "southeast" window as the window where the GUNMAN
(Oswald) was located.
I suppose Walt's next move is to pretend that Brennan was "coerced"
into filing that May 1964 affidavit saying "southeast"....right Walt?
I'm a little ashamed that I had never noticed (before Bud's recent
post) the existence of that 5/7/64 affidavit filled out by Howard
Brennan. It's readily available from Mr. McAdams' excellent "Witness"
resource page. (I'm wondering if that affidavit has been added to this
page [below] very recently. I can't believe I would have overlooked
that document, especially during my ongoing battles with Walt-Kook re.
his ridiculous nonsense pertaining to Brennan.).....
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:X0lFj.37653$QC....@newsfe20.lga...
>
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:16977424-bdbc-4712...@8g2000hsu.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 23, 12:07 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:d27f4589-ad64-43e2...@p73g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 22, 8:30 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> > messagenews:71b8b611-e576-4fe5...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Mar 22, 7:13 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > WHO is toad vaughan?>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>>
>> > Ellen.
>>
>> > Whore.
>>
>> > .25c hour.
>>
>> > Daily Rates
>>
>> > Typical Heroism of a LN'r (Attack Women)
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Da toad wrote;
>>
>> Don't forget it was you who first started the threats, you worthless
>> piece of shit, by threatening to put my family into a woodchipper.
>> Make a claim like that again and your local law enfiorcement agency
>> will get called, AGAIN.
>>
>> You then claimed you had visited my neighborhood, claiming you "saw
>> where (I) lived". Funny though, you didn't knock on the door or
>> otherwise try and make contact with you, you yellow stinking coward.
>>
>> Tomorrow's Easter - I'd tell you to choke on an egg, but that throat
>> of yours can take anything down it, can't it?
>> ***************************
>>
>> I write;
>>
>> What went "down" your throat were Cub Scout Troops 6, 12, 18 & 69.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Da toad wrote;
>
> You need serious professional help Tomnln.
>
>
>
I write;
You SUCK at evidence/testimony
You SUCK at insults
You SUCK at Cub Scout meetings
You're a Criminal Liar toad;
You need "Imprisonment".
If there's one thing I like as much as Beating the shit outta a Lying Whore
with evidence/testimony;
It's Beating the shit outta a Lying Whore with Insults.
BOTH of which are found HERE>>>
You're a Criminal Lying Asshole.
Who RUNS from evidence/testimony
SEE how toad LIED his teeth out on the subject of what Lee J. Bowers
witnessed>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
SEE what toad RUNS From>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
RUN you Dicky-Licker RUN.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> > > "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in> >>messagenews:0ba0995e-bb37-45eb-ae26-
Walt
> >>> "[Quoting Howard L. Brennan]...."I looked up at the building. I then saw this man I have described at the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun." [Unquote] .... Since Brennan DESCRIBED the rifle he saw as a "high powered rifle, of which he could "see all of the barrel of the gun" as the gunman "STOOD", and aimed it out of the wide-open window, [it] is obvious to anybody with an IQ higher than that of a turnip, that Brennan was referring to a HUNTING rifle." <<<
>
> Many other people have (technically) misidentified the MC as a "high-
> powered rifle". It's a common mistake. I, in fact, thought for a long
> time that LHO's rifle was a "high-powered" weapon. But after reading
> Bob Frazier's testimony, I found out I was (technically) in error.
Don't be stupid..... Of course the Mannlicher Carcano is a high
powered rifle... All military rifles are considered "high powered"
rifles. It's true that there are some that are more powerful than
others, but they are all clissified as "high powered rifles"
But that's not what Howard Brennan meant when he said the rifle was a
"high powered rifle" . There's no doubt that Brennan was thinking
about a HUNTING rifle when he said "high powered rifle" because he
gave further clarification by saying he could see "all of the barrel
of the gun" clear back to the gunman's hands. That means the metal
barrel was visible and not covered by a wooden hand guard like a
Mannlicher Carcano has covering the barrel.
David Von Pein
Oh, great! Now, since I actually AGREED with something Walt said re.
the MC, he's turning south and is now going in the other direction and
claiming that a Carcano IS a high-powered weapon after all. LOL. I
love it.
But maybe Walt should read Bob Frazier's testimony again. Does "low
velocity" = "high powered"? I suppose that a "low velocity" rifle,
which C2766 was, could still be high powered enough to be labelled
"high-powered". Like Mr. Brennan, I'm certainly no expert on guns
either. I'm just going by what Robert Frazier says here re. the
Mannlicher-Carcano's "velocity":
Mr. FRAZIER - The recoil is nominal with this weapon, because it has a
very low velocity and pressure, and just an average-size bullet
weight.
Mr. EISENBERG - Would that trend to improve the shooter's
marksmanship?
Mr. FRAZIER - Under rapid-fire conditions, yes.
Mr. EISENBERG - Would that make it a better choice than a more
powerfully recoiling weapon for the type of crime which was committed?
Mr. FRAZIER - For shooting rapidly, this would be a much better
choice, because the recoil does not throw the muzzle nearly so far off
the target, it does not jar the shooter nearly so much, as a higher-
powered rifle, such as a .270 Winchester or a German 8 mm. Mauser, for
instance, or one of the other military-type weapons available.
Mr. EISENBERG - Is the killing power of the bullets essentially
similar to the killing power at these ranges---the killing power of
the rifles you have named?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG - How much difference is there?
Mr. FRAZIER - The higher velocity bullets of approximately the same
weight would have more killing power. This has a low velocity, but has
very adequate killing power with reference to humans, because it is a
military--it is an established military weapon.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
In any event, Walt, you're sort of right anyway....or, to borrow part
of a statement from Bud (yet again; I always seem to be doing this) --
Whether the darn thing is technically "high-powered" or not via the
official "specs", a Carcano's bullets still come out of the end of the
gun really, really fast. (Fast enough to kill American Presidents from
Massachusetts in 1963 anyway. We know that for a fact.)
>>> "But that's not what Howard Brennan meant when he said the rifle was a "high powered rifle"." <<<
Oh, goodie! Now Walt is going to fine-tune Brennan's words some more
(to match Walt's kooky CT needs). Right, Walt? LOL. I love it.
>>> "There's no doubt that Brennan was thinking about a HUNTING rifle when he said "high powered rifle"..." <<<
Oh..."no doubt". LOL. I love it.
>>> "...because he gave further clarification by saying he could see "all of the barrel of the gun" clear back to the gunman's hands." <<<
Here's another of Walt's many outright lies and distortions concerning
what Howard Brennan said. What Brennan REALLY said regarding seeing
the barrel of the gun is this (and this is from his 11/22/63 affidavit
only, btw; the word "barrel" was never spoken ONCE by Mr. Brennan
during his WC testimony):
"I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was
taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of
the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking
at the man in this windows at the time of the last explosion. Then
this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight.
He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about
his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance.
I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again." --
Howard L. Brennan
Now, Walt, where in the above paragraph does Brennan specify that the
barrel of the rifle that Brennan saw extended "clear back to the
gunman's hands" (which is exactly what you asserted Brennan meant)?
All Brennan said regarding the barrel was "I could see all of the
barrel of the gun". He didn't specify exactly how LONG the barrel was
that he saw. And he certainly said nothing that would imply the barrel
necessarily extended "clear back to the gunman's hands".
Walt, as usual, has added his own crackpot interpretation to Brennan's
testimony. This, of course, is the only way he can make Brennan see a
gunman in the west-end window too--via his own crazy half-assed
interpretation of Brennan's words.
>>> "That means the metal barrel was visible and not covered by a wooden hand guard like a Mannlicher Carcano has covering the barrel." <<<
No, that's what a kook named Walt WANTS Brennan to mean. But what it
really means is just exactly what Brennan said and nothing more: "I
could see all of the barrel of the gun". And those words certainly do
NOT mean that Oswald's Carcano rifle is excluded as being the weapon
Brennan was talking about there.
Only a Mega-Kook would be silly enough to take these ten words uttered
by Howard Brennan and attempt to twist them into meaning that
Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766 could not possibly have been the rifle
Brennan is talking about here -- "I could see all of the barrel of the
gun".
Walt
> >>> "Don't be stupid....Of course the Mannlicher Carcano is a high powered rifle... All military rifles are considered "high powered" rifles. It's true that there are some that are more powerful than others, but they are all clissified as "high powered rifles"." <<<
>
> Oh, great! Now, since I actually AGREED with something Walt said re.
> the MC, he's turning south and is now going in the other direction and
> claiming that a Carcano IS a high-powered weapon after all. LOL. I
> love it.
>
> But maybe Walt should read Bob Frazier's testimony again.
Pssst.... Pea Brain, apparently it has escaped you that... I wouldn't
believe Frazier if he said it was raining until I went outside to see
if it was true.
Does "low
> velocity" = "high powered"? I suppose that a "low velocity" rifle,
> which C2766 was, could still be high powered enough to be labelled
> "high-powered".
Hey dumbass ...2100 fps is not considered "low velocity" The Mi
Carbine has a muzzle velocity of 1700 fps, the 30-30 Winchester has a
muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, the 6.5 Swede has a muzzle velocity of
2200 fps firing a 160 grain bullet.... There are many rifles that
are classified as high power rifles that have muzzle velocities around
2000fps. The velocity has little do do with the ENERGY imparted on
impact.
A .45 acp is a LOW velocity cartridge ( about 8oo fps) but it is
considered a very powerful gun.
You really should learn just a little about the subject before you
attempt to expound as a expert on the subject. Perhaps then you'd
realize when men like Frazier were lying to you.
Walt
Psst Dumbass.... You'd better check what Brennan told the Warren
Commission.. If you don't post what he said about seeing about 85% of
the rifle and the amount of barrel he saw...I will. And you KNOW I
will post it in LARGE upper case letters.
David Von Pein
You don't have to whisper, Walt. (Those "sweet nothings" will get you
nowhere anyhow, because no reasonable person with half a brain cell in
their head believes your wack-o theories. The only reason I listen to
them is for my daily laugh.)
>>> "I wouldn't believe {Robert} Frazier if he said it was raining until I went outside to see if it was true." <<<
LNer Challenge: Find a post penned by Walter PastryLoaf wherein he
BELIEVES something uttered by Bob Frazier of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
I'll bet a post like that exists (given a kook's reputation for
propping up a "liar" when it's good for his CT case).
I could be wrong about my last sentence, I'll admit that. But I'd bet
I'm not.
>>> "2100 fps is not considered "low velocity"." <<<
Better tell that to Frazier then. (Oh, that's right. I forgot for a
second....he's one of the thousands of liars connected with this case
that you can conveniently ignore.)
>>> "A .45 acp is a LOW velocity cartridge ( about 8oo fps) but it is considered a very powerful gun." <<<
What's an "acp"? Give me my weapons lesson for today. (And then
tomorrow you can teach me all about dart-throwing flechettes. Ten-
Four?)
And while you're at it, as my mind wanders over to Howard again, you
can tell us how you know for a fact that Howard Brennan DIDN'T mean
"barrel + stock" when he talked about seeing "all of the barrel of the
rifle". I'm betting that a lot of "lay" people who aren't experts on
firearms might categorize the "barrel" as meaning "the WHOLE long
piece of the gun, whether or not it's covered with a piece of wood or
not".
Prove me wrong, Mr. Kook.
>>> "You really should learn just a little about the subject before you attempt to expound as a expert on the subject. Perhaps then you'd realize when men like Frazier were lying to you." <<<
If Robert A. Frazier was really as much of a liar about so many
different things he testified to in 1964 (as you kooks seem to think
-- and HAVE to think in order to take the noose from around the neck
of your hero named Oswald), then he must have the Guinness record for
"duping the American public"....because everything he testified to
hangs your "patsy". Everything.
But, being the kook Walt is, it's easier to call the leading FBI
investigator in the JFK case a "liar", and thereby sweep all of
Frazier's testimony which hangs Oswald under the carpet, instead of
admitting that Oswald was the double-murderer he was.
Right, Mr. K-word?
Thought so.
David Von Pein
Still whispering, Walt? Wonder why.
>>> "You'd better check what Brennan told the Warren Commission. If you don't post what he said about seeing about 85% of the rifle and the amount of barrel he saw...I will. And you KNOW I will post it in LARGE upper case letters." <<<
Yep. Here it is:
Mr. BELIN. How much of the gun do you believe that you saw?
Mr. BRENNAN. I calculate 70 to 85 percent of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what direction the gun was pointing.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. And what direction was the gun pointing when you saw it?
Mr. BRENNAN. At somewhat 30 degrees downward and west by south.
But note how Walt-Kook STILL couldn't bring himself to state the
testimony 100% correctly (as the kook leaves off the "70%" portion of
Brennan's estimate).
And note how Walt adds this incorrect statement: "And the amount of
barrel he saw".
The word "barrel" doesn't appear ONCE in Brennan's WC session. Not
once. So where is Walt getting this detailed "barrel" testimony?
Where?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brennan.htm
Answer: In his own head.
I'll readily admit my (partial) error from an earlier post, when I
said this:
"All Brennan said regarding the barrel was "I could see all of
the barrel of the gun". He didn't specify exactly how LONG the barrel
was that he saw. And he certainly said nothing that would imply the
barrel necessarily extended "clear back to the gunman's hands"."
Now, the above DVP paragraph is not in error when we look at JUST
Brennan's affidavit (which is what I was specifically referring to in
that paragraph above).
But, as Walt (partly) pointed out--lacking the complete "70 to 85%"
quote, of course--Brennan, in his WC session, did make mention of how
much of Oswald's gun he was able to see sticking out of the southeast
corner window of the 6th Floor of the TSBD.*
However, I shall stress again, the specific word "barrel" is never
mentioned by Brennan in his WC testimony at all. And my earlier
surmise still is a possible valid one, IMO -- regarding the
possibility that Brennan was referring to the BARREL plus the WOODEN
STOCK as ONE CONTINUOUS ENTITY in his affidavit remarks when he said
he could see "all of the barrel of the gun".
Now, Walt, all you have to prove is that Howard Brennan's overall
remarks (11/22 affidavit + WC testimony) concerning the rifle indicate
beyond all reasonable doubt that Brennan could not POSSIBLY have been
seeing Mannlicher-Carcano #C2766 sticking out of that window on
November 22nd, 1963.
Walt, of course, THINKS he has "proven" that fact. But, as everyone
with some sense knows, he's really only fooled himself into believing
he has proven it.
But, for a kook in Walt's league, I'm sure that's more than enough to
make him happy in his "Anybody But Oswald" world of fantasy.
* = I now await Walt's next ejaculation of protest regarding every
fact I stated above about Oswald and the correct window.