Fritz Picks up Hulls, Compromises "Warren Report" Conclusions
dcwi...@netscape.net
The second most significant act in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963,
may have been the picking up of the rifle hulls apparently left behind
by the assassin of President Kennedy. Those hulls--as the "Warren
Report" itself notes (p110)--were the key to *everything*:
The most convincing evidence relating to the number of shots was
provided by the presence on the 6th floor [of the book depository] of
three spent cartridges which were demonstrated to have been fired by
the same rifle that fired the bullets which caused the wounds.
The hulls, then, brought everything together: the number of shots
fired, the 6th-floor location, the rifle, the bullet fragments. But
conflicting stories about the picking up of the hulls threaten to tear
everything apart. Specifically, three separate witnesses have
maintained that Homicide Capt. Will Fritz picked up the hulls before
they could be photographed by the Crime Lab. Some researchers have
suggested that, well, yes, Fritz may have picked them up, but *after*
they were officially photographed:
This may have been at a point following their being photographed &
dusted. (Trask, "Pictures of the Pain," p524)
But in the Homicide version of the story, Fritz *at no point* touches
the cartridges himself, in the depository--not before, during, or
after they are photographed. There's no reconciling of the Homicide
and non-Homicide versions:
Capt Fritz, Det Sims, & Det Boyd went to the SE window on the 6th
floor & saw 3 empty rifle hulls on the floor near the window.... We
stayed there with the empty hulls to preserve the scene.... Fritz
asked Lt. Day [of the Crime Lab] to take pictures of the hulls....
About 1:25 someone called for Fritz, & he left Det Montgomery &
Johnson to stay with the hulls.... Day took another picture of the
hulls.... Sims picked up the empty hulls, & Lt Day held an envelope
open while Sims dropped them in the envelope. (Sims Exhibit A)
When the officers called me to this window, I asked them not to move
the shells nor touch them until Lt Day of the DPD could make pictures
of the hulls showing where they fell after being ejected from the
rifle. After the pictures were made, Det RM Sims of Homicide...
brought the 3 empty hulls to my office. I kept the hulls in an
envelope.... (6/9/64 Fritz affidavit)
In the Homicide version, it is *Det Sims* & only Det Sims--not Fritz--
who picks up the hulls, & he takes them, in their envelope, to Fritz's
office. Good soldier Sims sticks to his boss's story, but no one else
does:
Capt Will Fritz of DPD arrived on the scene & the shells were given to
him. (Deputy Sheriff Jack Faulkner 11/22/63 report, v19 p511)
Fritz then walked to the casings, picked them up & held them in his
hand over the top of the boxes for me to get a close-up shot of the
evidence. (newsman Tom Alyea, in "Secrets from the Sixth Floor
Window", p40)
[Fritz] was the first officer that picked [the empty shells] up, as
far as I know, because I stood there & watched him go over & pick them
up & look at them. (Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney's WC testimony,
v3p286)
At the very least, then, it seems highly unlikely that the Crime Lab
photographs show exactly "where [the hulls] fell after being ejected
from the rifle". And none of the non-Homicide versions of the story
say that Fritz restored the hulls promptly to the floor. Alyea: "I
don't recall if he placed them in his pocket or returned them back to
the floor...." Trask adds, "According to both men [Lt Day & Det
Studebaker, also of the Crime Lab], the photos were made prior to any
movement of the casings...." (p524) But they got to the scene late
and would have had no first-hand knowledge of what happened before
that.
The four who would have had knowledge were Fritz, Alyea, Faulkner, &
Mooney. But if Fritz indeed picked up the hulls before Day &
Studebaker got there, he could hardly have told the truth about it
afterwards: As Trask says, picking up the casings before they were
photographed would have "violated all concept of police scene
documentation" (p524). Alyea has his own problems with the scene
which he describes. He writes that he filmed "about 8 seconds" of the
hulls ("Secrets", p40), but even the thoroughgoing Trask has never
seen this footage (p524). Faulkner would seem to have no credibility
problems, but his observations are confined to that one short
sentence.
To me, Mooney's testimony carries the most evidentiary weight. He was
the one who found the hulls and "stood guard to see that no one
disturbed anything until Fritz approached with his group of
officers...." (v3p285) And later in his testimony (p289), he
reiterates, "Captain Fritz picked up the cartridges, began to examine
them...." So it boils down to Fritz's word against Mooney's--with
some backing, in passing, from Faulkner. Mooney would seem to have
had nothing to gain by his observations, but possibly something to
lose: You don't want to get on the bad side of the Chief of Homicide
by suggesting that he is, at the least, a very careless chap.
The most significant piece of testimony, then, in the whole of the
Kennedy assassination investigation, may be Mooney's here. If
accurate, it calls into question everything which the "Warren Report"
asserts that the finding of the hulls corroborated, from the number of
shots to the location of the shooter to the weapon used in the
shooting. After all, as Trask reports, Lt Day & Det Studebaker were
"told by Inspector Sawyer to report to the sixth floor" (p524), at
1:12. But a minute earlier, Sawyer was radioing headquarters, "On the
third floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls...." (Trask, p523) No wonder Fritz got there first....
copr 2007 dcw
Bud
A lot of words to say nothing. What harm is done by these
discrepancies to the idea that the shells in evidence are the shells
found on the 6th floor of the TSBD by the Dallas police? Are there any
reasonable alternatives to consider?
> copr 2007 dcw
aeffects
of course, LHO didn't do it... the evidence points to it -- gird those
loins young'in
> > copr 2007 dcw
dcwi...@netscape.net
want to! Thanks, Fritz!
dw
>
> > copr 2007 dcw- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
Except, of course, for being able to prove that John Will Fritz picked
up any bullet shells before they were photographed.
Nobody has ever proven that allegation to be a fact. And they never
will.
Anyway, since when do you conspiracy kooks even need a PARTIAL reason
to act upon the following CTer motto (which was ejaculated by Don
"ARCE SHOT JFK" Willis)? --- "We can consider pretty much any damn
thing we want to."
You mega-kooks are going to do that....regardless.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:75ad4d05-5d98-48a6...@f13g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Your Fellow LN'r Tom Alyea said so.
He even filmed it, although his film was not released.
SEE>>> http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
No Wonder you refuse to address these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "Thanks to the Cap'n, we can consider pretty much any damn thing we want to!" <<<
>
> Except, of course, for being able to prove that John Will Fritz picked
> up any bullet shells before they were photographed.
>
> Nobody has ever proven that allegation to be a fact. And they never
> will.
>
was a liar....
\dw
Bud
What part of what dw presented indicates that Oz didn`t do it?
> > > copr 2007 dcw
Bud
Kooks can do that regardless. But resonable people really
interested in getting to the bottom of what occurred will conclude
that the shells in evidence are the ones found on the 6th floor of the
TSBD.
dcwi...@netscape.net
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
stated that the hulls picked up by Fritz & then later (how much later
we don't know) put down by Fritz were "demonstrated to have been fired
by the same rifle that fired the bullets". Oh, this doesn't
necessarily mean that "Oz didn't do it", but it introduces a
certain... doubt into the equation of the carelessly-handled evidence
which indicated that Oz did do it. Nagging doubt along the lines of,
Did Fritz put down the same hulls which he picked up? And, Did he put
down the same number of hulls which he picked up? And, Did he put
them down in the same place?
dw
My own speculative answers to the above questions is, in order, No,
Yes, & No....
Bud
They saw shells, right? Then there were shells found.
Bud
There is no doubt about this evidence. The shells in evidence are
the shells found.
> Nagging doubt along the lines of,
> Did Fritz put down the same hulls which he picked up?
What kind of idiot would think Fritz was carrying rifle shells with
him at the time?
> And, Did he put
> down the same number of hulls which he picked up?
How many shells did the witnesses say they saw? Fritz didn`t find
them.
> And, Did he put
> them down in the same place?
Putting them down un the same general positions would be good
enough. So many variables about bouncing and hitting surrounding
objects that their exact positions couldn`t tell you much anyway.
> dw
> My own speculative answers to the above questions is, in order, No,
> Yes, & No....
Your premise is that Fritz`s actions compromise the Warren
Commission`s findings. Unless you can harm the idea that the shells in
evidence were found in the search right after the assassination, the
WC conclusions can`t be harmed. The WC concluded these shells were
found on the 6th floor of the TSBD because that is the only conclusion
to reach.Whether Fritz picked them up and juggled with them doesn`t
damage that conclusion, it only leaves room to criticize Fritz`s
behavior (a pretty meaningless exercise at this point).
dcwi...@netscape.net
dcwi...@netscape.net
> > Nagging doubt along the lines of,
> > Did Fritz put down the same hulls which he picked up?
>
> What kind of idiot would think Fritz was carrying rifle shells with
> him at the time?
> > And, Did he put
> > down the same number of hulls which he picked up?
>
> How many shells did the witnesses say they saw? Fritz didn`t find
> them.
>
> > And, Did he put
> > them down in the same place?
>
> Putting them down un the same general positions would be good
> enough. So many variables about bouncing and hitting surrounding
> objects that their exact positions couldn`t tell you much anyway.
>
I was suggesting something more nefarious--relocating them from
another spot on the 6th floor, or from another floor--to the "nest".
After all, as I said, if Fritz & co. used Sawyer as their guide, they
went to the third floor, then maybe to the fifth, which is the 3rd
floor *down*, then maybe to the sixth!
dw
> > dw
> > My own speculative answers to the above questions is, in order, No,
> > Yes, & No....
>
> Your premise is that Fritz`s actions compromise the Warren
> Commission`s findings. Unless you can harm the idea that the shells in
> evidence were found in the search right after the assassination, the
> WC conclusions can`t be harmed. The WC concluded these shells were
> found on the 6th floor of the TSBD because that is the only conclusion
> to reach.Whether Fritz picked them up and juggled with them doesn`t
> damage that conclusion, it only leaves room to criticize Fritz`s
> behavior (a pretty meaningless exercise at this point).
>
As Trask noted, this would have violated all notions of proper crime-
scene documentation. I've always been a little surprised that Fritz
didn't say, yes, I picked 'em up to let Alyea get a good pic, but his
(Fritz's) stonewalling, perhaps perjurious testimony & affidavit
suggest there's more to this than making an embedded reporter happy.
\dw
Bud
When you have to reach this far to get your patsy off, it`s time to
just admit he is guilty.
> > > Nagging doubt along the lines of,
> > > Did Fritz put down the same hulls which he picked up?
> >
> > What kind of idiot would think Fritz was carrying rifle shells with
> > him at the time?
>
>
> > > And, Did he put
> > > down the same number of hulls which he picked up?
> >
> > How many shells did the witnesses say they saw? Fritz didn`t find
> > them.
> >
> > > And, Did he put
> > > them down in the same place?
> >
> > Putting them down un the same general positions would be good
> > enough. So many variables about bouncing and hitting surrounding
> > objects that their exact positions couldn`t tell you much anyway.
> >
> I was suggesting something more nefarious--relocating them from
> another spot on the 6th floor, or from another floor--to the "nest".
Well that is the kook game, isn`t it? Not having any really
interest in determining what really occurred, and just focusing on
anything you can use to dispute the oficial conclusions. But, you
woun`t be able to make at case that the information you are focusing
on is better than the information the WC used to draw it`s
conclusions.
> After all, as I said, if Fritz & co. used Sawyer as their guide, they
> went to the third floor, then maybe to the fifth, which is the 3rd
> floor *down*, then maybe to the sixth!
So, early on there was some confusion over the floors. You are
advancing the idea that members of the Dallas police went right into
the TSBD, and started moving evidence around m(as if they`d know what
evidence had to be where, and with civilian media in the building),
feel free to start anytime providing the extraordinary evidence to
support that amazing occurance.
dcwi...@netscape.net
LE SNIP
> > > > certain... doubt into the equation of the carelessly-handled evidence
> > > > which indicated that Oz did do it.
>
> > > There is no doubt about this evidence. The shells in evidence are
> > > the shells found.
>
> > Trusting soul.
>
> When you have to reach this far to get your patsy off, it`s time to
> just admit he is guilty.
Rusting soul.
>
> > > > Nagging doubt along the lines of,
> > > > DidFritzput down the samehullswhich he picked up?
>
> > > What kind of idiot would thinkFritzwas carrying rifle shells with
> > > him at the time?
>
> > > > And, Did he put
> > > > down the same number ofhullswhich he picked up?
>
> > > How many shells did the witnesses say they saw?Fritzdidn`t find
> > > them.
>
> > > > And, Did he put
> > > > them down in the same place?
>
> > > Putting them down un the same general positions would be good
> > > enough. So many variables about bouncing and hitting surrounding
> > > objects that their exact positions couldn`t tell you much anyway.
>
> > I was suggesting something more nefarious--relocating them from
> > another spot on the 6th floor, or from another floor--to the "nest".
>
> Well that is the kook game, isn`t it? Not having any really
> interest in determining what really occurred,
This sounds like simple projection, on your part. At least, the WC
seemed to have more interest in determining what happened with the
hulls than do you--they had Fritz make out an affidavit re their
handling. Of course, his response was a non sequitur to Mooney's
version, that is, it didn't address the latter's insistence that Fritz
handled the hulls himself.
and just focusing on
> anything you can use to dispute the oficial conclusions. But, you
> woun`t be able to make at case that the information you are focusing
> on is better than the information the WC used to draw it`s
> conclusions.
Well, yes, I can make that case--the WC didn't have Faulkner testify.
At least, I brought up his report. Perhaps they didn't even read it.
In the end, they simply ignored Mooney & accepted Fritz's words in his
affidavit. My focus, then, is broader than theirs--I include Faulkner
& Alyea, too. The WC narrowed its focus, perhaps intentionally, so
that it's one against one, Fritz vs Mooney, take your side. But it
was actually 3 against 1, & them odds are harder to ignore than 1 vs
1.... Oh, of course, not for *you*....
dw
>
> > After all, as I said, ifFritz& co. used Sawyer as their guide, they
> > went to the third floor, then maybe to the fifth, which is the 3rd
> > floor *down*, then maybe to the sixth!
>
> So, early on there was some confusion over the floors. You are
> advancing the idea that members of the Dallas police went right into
> the TSBD, and started moving evidence around m(as if they`d know what
> evidence had to be where, and with civilian media in the building),
> feel free to start anytime providing the extraordinary evidence to
> support that amazing occurance.
You got it: Sawyer's transmission that the hulls were found on the
3rd floor. Which in no way can translate as 6th.... (And I didn't say
"members", or plural--just perhaps very perhaps Will F....)
>
> > > > dw
> > > > My own speculative answers to the above questions is, in order, No,
> > > > Yes, & No....
>
> > > Your premise is thatFritz`s actions compromise the Warren
> > > Commission`s findings. Unless you can harm the idea that the shells in
> > > evidence were found in the search right after the assassination, the
> > > WC conclusions can`t be harmed. The WC concluded these shells were
> > > found on the 6th floor of the TSBD because that is the only conclusion
> > > to reach.WhetherFritzpicked them up and juggled with them doesn`t
> > > damage that conclusion, it only leaves room to criticizeFritz`s
dcwi...@netscape.net
copr 2007 dcw
Bud
No, I had the right party. You continue to play kook games with the
evidence, to see if it can be stacked in a manner where Oz is
innocent. As part of this game, kooks can claim anyone at any time is
"in on it", if that person is needed in support of a crackpot theory.
When you need dozens of people against Oz in order to construct a
scenario in which he is innocent, it`s time to just admit his guilt.
> At least, the WC
> seemed to have more interest in determining what happened with the
> hulls than do you--they had Fritz make out an affidavit re their
> handling. Of course, his response was a non sequitur to Mooney's
> version, that is, it didn't address the latter's insistence that Fritz
> handled the hulls himself.
It`s a non-issue, as long as the shells in evidence are the shells
found. Do you have anything to make a case otherwise?
> and just focusing on
> > anything you can use to dispute the oficial conclusions. But, you
> > woun`t be able to make at case that the information you are focusing
> > on is better than the information the WC used to draw it`s
> > conclusions.
>
> Well, yes, I can make that case--the WC didn't have Faulkner testify.
> At least, I brought up his report. Perhaps they didn't even read it.
> In the end, they simply ignored Mooney & accepted Fritz's words in his
> affidavit. My focus, then, is broader than theirs--I include Faulkner
> & Alyea, too. The WC narrowed its focus, perhaps intentionally, so
> that it's one against one, Fritz vs Mooney, take your side. But it
> was actually 3 against 1, & them odds are harder to ignore than 1 vs
> 1.... Oh, of course, not for *you*....
Doesn`t really matter if he picked them up or not. Or when.
> dw
> >
> > > After all, as I said, ifFritz& co. used Sawyer as their guide, they
> > > went to the third floor, then maybe to the fifth, which is the 3rd
> > > floor *down*, then maybe to the sixth!
> >
> > So, early on there was some confusion over the floors. You are
> > advancing the idea that members of the Dallas police went right into
> > the TSBD, and started moving evidence around m(as if they`d know what
> > evidence had to be where, and with civilian media in the building),
> > feel free to start anytime providing the extraordinary evidence to
> > support that amazing occurance.
>
> You got it: Sawyer's transmission that the hulls were found on the
> 3rd floor.
What floor do your witnesses say Fritz picked the shells up from?
> Which in no way can translate as 6th.... (And I didn't say
> "members", or plural--just perhaps very perhaps Will F....)
Do you have witnesses to Fritz picking shells up from the third?
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Thanks to the Cap'n, we can consider pretty much any damn thing we want to!" <<<
>
> Except, of course, for being able to prove that John Will Fritz picked
> up any bullet shells before they were photographed.
Why would Alyea say Fritz picked them up so he could film them (the
boxes were in the way) if he didn't? Is he a bald face liar too?
Fritz is the one who perjured himself in front of the WC.
>
> Nobody has ever proven that allegation to be a fact. And they never
> will.
Why was the allegation made then? Why would Alyea lie? You mock CTers
for saying someone lied, but you never provide proof of those you
claim lied, lied.
>
> Anyway, since when do you conspiracy kooks even need a PARTIAL reason
> to act upon the following CTer motto (which was ejaculated by Don
> "ARCE SHOT JFK" Willis)? --- "We can consider pretty much any damn
> thing we want to."
Well, if the DPD did a better job of securing the evidence and
maintained chain of custody guardianship a whole lot better we
couldn't do that, but they are the reasons we can.
>
> You mega-kooks are going to do that....regardless.
Dave is in the full holiday spirit already!
dcwi...@netscape.net
My research indicates O was probably a guard or a lookout, upstairs or
down, but probably not a shooter, since he ran into Baker at the front
door less than 20 seconds after the last shot.... He was not innocent,
at least if he knew that he was a party to an assassination
beforehand.
dw
>
> > At least, the WC
> > seemed to have more interest in determining what happened with the
> >hullsthan do you--they hadFritzmake out an affidavit re their
> > handling. Of course, his response was a non sequitur to Mooney's
> > version, that is, it didn't address the latter's insistence thatFritz
> > handled thehullshimself.
>
> It`s a non-issue, as long as the shells in evidence are the shells
> found. Do you have anything to make a case otherwise?
That's just it--we don't know that the shells found, & pocketed by
Fritz, were also the same shells photographed later. We don't know if
a shell was added or subtracted, if they were all moved, or if they
were the same shells. If they were photographed when Day returned to
the TSBD, around 3 o'clock, then they were probably not the same
shells at all. I think Day testified he did some more shots *inside*
the building at 3, but I don't think he said *which* of the numbered
shots he did then, tho the shots of the hulls in his diagram have
*later* numbers, like 21 & 22....
dw
>
> > and just focusing on
> > > anything you can use to dispute the oficial conclusions. But, you
> > > woun`t be able to make at case that the information you are focusing
> > > on is better than the information the WC used to draw it`s
> > > conclusions.
>
> > Well, yes, I can make that case--the WC didn't have Faulkner testify.
> > At least, I brought up his report. Perhaps they didn't even read it.
> > In the end, they simply ignored Mooney & acceptedFritz'swords in his
> > affidavit. My focus, then, is broader than theirs--I include Faulkner
> > & Alyea, too. The WC narrowed its focus, perhaps intentionally, so
> > that it's one against one,Fritzvs Mooney, take your side. But it
> > was actually 3 against 1, & them odds are harder to ignore than 1 vs
> > 1.... Oh, of course, not for *you*....
>
> Doesn`t really matter if he picked them up or not. Or when.
>
See above
> > dw
>
> > > > After all, as I said, ifFritz& co. used Sawyer as their guide, they
> > > > went to the third floor, then maybe to the fifth, which is the 3rd
> > > > floor *down*, then maybe to the sixth!
>
> > > So, early on there was some confusion over the floors. You are
> > > advancing the idea that members of the Dallas police went right into
> > > the TSBD, and started moving evidence around m(as if they`d know what
> > > evidence had to be where, and with civilian media in the building),
> > > feel free to start anytime providing the extraordinary evidence to
> > > support that amazing occurance.
>
> > You got it: Sawyer's transmission that thehullswere found on the
> > 3rd floor.
>
> What floor do your witnesses sayFritzpicked the shells up from?
Oh, now that you mention it, Faulkner stated they were found on the
*fifth* floor! Thanks for reminding me.... That would synch with
Sawyer: third from the top....
>
> > Which in no way can translate as 6th.... (And I didn't say
> > "members", or plural--just perhaps very perhaps Will F....)
>
> Do you have witnesses toFritzpicking shells up from the third?
Third from the top floor: Faulkner. Maybe Alyea *did* get a shot of
the hulls, but couldn't use it, because the background would show it
was not near the "nest".
dcwi...@netscape.net
wrote:
> On Nov 17, 1:19 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Thanks to the Cap'n, we can consider pretty much any damn thing we want to!" <<<
>
> > Except, of course, for being able to prove that John WillFritzpicked
> > up any bullet shells before they were photographed.
>
> boxes were in the way) if he didn't? Is he a bald face liar too?Fritzis the one who perjured himself in front of the WC.
>
As I responded to Bud, maybe Alyea couldn't use the shot because the
background was not the "nest"--it was some other spot in the
depository. Why indeed would he make up such a story?
dw
tomnln
<dcwi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:cffad077-0653-46fd...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Tom Alyea believes in a Lone Assassin.
See what he witnessed>>> http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
Bud
<snicker> You mean your hunt for decrepancies to weave into some
fantasy scenario where Oz is innocent.
> indicates O was probably a guard or a lookout, upstairs or
> down, but probably not a shooter, since he ran into Baker at the front
> door less than 20 seconds after the last shot.... He was not innocent,
> at least if he knew that he was a party to an assassination
> beforehand.
Well, that makes a lot of sense. How does he warn the shooter from
the lower floors? What exactlly can the shooter do with a warning?
> dw
> >
> > > At least, the WC
> > > seemed to have more interest in determining what happened with the
> > >hullsthan do you--they hadFritzmake out an affidavit re their
> > > handling. Of course, his response was a non sequitur to Mooney's
> > > version, that is, it didn't address the latter's insistence thatFritz
> > > handled thehullshimself.
> >
> > It`s a non-issue, as long as the shells in evidence are the shells
> > found. Do you have anything to make a case otherwise?
>
> That's just it--we don't know that the shells found, & pocketed by
> Fritz, were also the same shells photographed later.
You do if you have the capability to draw rational conclusions.
Kooks don`t have this ability.
> We don't know if
> a shell was added or subtracted, if they were all moved, or if they
> were the same shells.
How do you know absolutely that any evidence collected by any law
enforcement to any crime hasn`t been tampered with or altered? Perhaps
we should do away with the justice system entirely.
> If they were photographed when Day returned to
> the TSBD, around 3 o'clock, then they were probably not the same
> shells at all. I think Day testified he did some more shots *inside*
> the building at 3, but I don't think he said *which* of the numbered
> shots he did then, tho the shots of the hulls in his diagram have
> *later* numbers, like 21 & 22....
<snicker> If there is a suspicious fire, the kooks would
investigate the firemen who respond, and ignore the guy with the
wicked grin that smells of gasoline.
> dw
> >
> > > and just focusing on
> > > > anything you can use to dispute the oficial conclusions. But, you
> > > > woun`t be able to make at case that the information you are focusing
> > > > on is better than the information the WC used to draw it`s
> > > > conclusions.
> >
> > > Well, yes, I can make that case--the WC didn't have Faulkner testify.
> > > At least, I brought up his report. Perhaps they didn't even read it.
> > > In the end, they simply ignored Mooney & acceptedFritz'swords in his
> > > affidavit. My focus, then, is broader than theirs--I include Faulkner
> > > & Alyea, too. The WC narrowed its focus, perhaps intentionally, so
> > > that it's one against one,Fritzvs Mooney, take your side. But it
> > > was actually 3 against 1, & them odds are harder to ignore than 1 vs
> > > 1.... Oh, of course, not for *you*....
> >
> > Doesn`t really matter if he picked them up or not. Or when.
> >
> See above
"above" doesn`t change what I said.
> > > dw
> >
> > > > > After all, as I said, ifFritz& co. used Sawyer as their guide, they
> > > > > went to the third floor, then maybe to the fifth, which is the 3rd
> > > > > floor *down*, then maybe to the sixth!
> >
> > > > So, early on there was some confusion over the floors. You are
> > > > advancing the idea that members of the Dallas police went right into
> > > > the TSBD, and started moving evidence around m(as if they`d know what
> > > > evidence had to be where, and with civilian media in the building),
> > > > feel free to start anytime providing the extraordinary evidence to
> > > > support that amazing occurance.
> >
> > > You got it: Sawyer's transmission that thehullswere found on the
> > > 3rd floor.
> >
> > What floor do your witnesses sayFritzpicked the shells up from?
>
> Oh, now that you mention it, Faulkner stated they were found on the
> *fifth* floor! Thanks for reminding me.... That would synch with
> Sawyer: third from the top....
Being a kook, you will latch onto that information, and be
perplexed for many decades to come. The WC, being comprised with
rational human beings, were able to overcome such descrepancies to
come to a reasonable conclusion.
> > > Which in no way can translate as 6th.... (And I didn't say
> > > "members", or plural--just perhaps very perhaps Will F....)
> >
> > Do you have witnesses toFritzpicking shells up from the third?
>
> Third from the top floor: Faulkner. Maybe Alyea *did* get a shot of
> the hulls, but couldn't use it, because the background would show it
> was not near the "nest".
What floor did Alyea say Fritz picked the shells off of? What floor
did Mooney say? Exploiting early confusion over the floors won`t
prevent anyone who is honestly trying to determine what occurred from
doing so. You can`t make any case for the shells being found on any
floor but the 6th that isn`t blown away by the preponderance of
evidence (people outside put the shooter on the 6th, there were people
on the 5th, who saw no shooter on that floor, ect).
David Von Pein
Well said, Bud. I love it. (And so very true, too.)
I thought of another pretty fair analogy to use on the CT-Kooks (like
Don "ARCE DID IT" Willis).....
At some point in every crime and at every crime scene, the dust will
settle and the truth can almost always be rooted out, with the
inconsistencies, irregularities, and initial confusion surrounding the
crime scene ironed out relatively quickly into a cohesive and accurate
scenario based on the actual, real evidence.
But in the hands of JFK conspiracy-loving kooks, the dust never ever
"settles" in Dealey Plaza. The forever-lingering dust in the air above
the whole case continues to cloud and obscure the crime scene and all
witnesses, participants, and officials....for all time.
If you're a kook like Mr. Willis, who loves to invent new conspiracy-
flavored scenarios involving a decent-sized number of obviously-
innocent people (like Danny Arce, Harold Norman, and Bonnie Ray
Williams), the murder case of John F. Kennedy is more akin to the
board game "Clue".
Just move a few pieces around the part of the board marked "Texas
School Book Depository"; and place the murder weapon in a different
"room"/(floor); and change the names of the real killers....and
Voila!....you've got a brand-new version of how President Kennedy met
his tragic fate on Elm Street.
Kooks like Donald love doing this. Most conspiracy-happy theorists,
however, don't go quite as far as Mr. Willis, in that the majority of
the CT-Kook population keeps their "Clue" boards and tokens much
closer to their vest, which is actually fairly smart on their part, in
that they don't have to reveal their unspoken theories to the masses.
Because if they did reveal their detailed "conspiratorial" analysis, a
large dose of laughter is surely to follow, for their theories (like
Mr. Willis') inevitably are based on their make-believe "Clue" boards,
instead of residing within the realm of the actual evidence recovered
from the actual crime scenes in Dallas, Texas, in November 1963.
Smoke, mirrors, dust that never settles, and invisible bullets. These
are the tricks of the conspiracy kook's trade. And have been for
exactly 44 years come 12:30 PM CST this very day.
===========================
THE SETTLED DUST AND SMOKE:
===========================
dcwi...@netscape.net
The "actual evidence" picked up by Fritz, as noted, may not exactly
tally with the "evidence" later put down by Fritz, & may not have been
put down in the same place. Single-handedly, he cast doubt on *all*
the "actual evidence" recovered that day....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
> > was not near the "nest".
>
> did Mooney say?
2 points! Yes, Mooney is the best witness for the "nest" as the site
of the hull find. But he's also the best witness for Fritz as the
despoiler of the *photographed* hulls as evidence that they were
actually the hulls recovered from that scene
\dw
Exploiting early confusion over the floors won`t
> prevent anyone who is honestly trying to determine what occurred from
> doing so. You can`t make any case for the shells being found on any
> floor but the 6th that isn`t blown away by the preponderance of
> evidence
(people outside put the shooter on the 6th
Several witnesses said the sniper's window was wide open, like the 5th-
floor windows--Brennan, Couch, Fischer, Edwards. You'd have to go
with them in this regard, since it would have been easier to determine
a wide-open window in the TSBD than to determine which *floor* the
sniper was on....
there were people
> on the 5th, who saw no shooter on that floor, ect).
>
On 11/22/63, only one of the 3 people even admitted that he was on the
5th floor--Williams. Why were the other 2 so belated in telling their
stories? Took Jarman till Sunday, Norman till Tuesday to go
public.... And Williams' son sez he has video footage of Williams
telling the true story of the 5th floor....
So much for your preponderosa of evidence....
dw
Bud
You haven`t shown where a police officer recovering evidence spoils
that evidence. You`ve said it does, is all. Again, unless you can make
the case that the shells in evidence aren`t the shells found, you
really aren`t damaging the WC`s conclusions.
> \dw
> Exploiting early confusion over the floors won`t
> > prevent anyone who is honestly trying to determine what occurred from
> > doing so. You can`t make any case for the shells being found on any
> > floor but the 6th that isn`t blown away by the preponderance of
> > evidence
>
>
> (people outside put the shooter on the 6th
>
> Several witnesses said the sniper's window was wide open, like the 5th-
> floor windows--Brennan, Couch, Fischer, Edwards. You'd have to go
> with them in this regard, since it would have been easier to determine
> a wide-open window in the TSBD than to determine which *floor* the
> sniper was on....
No, you go with the window they indicated the shots came from.
> there were people
> > on the 5th, who saw no shooter on that floor, ect).
> >
> On 11/22/63, only one of the 3 people even admitted that he was on the
> 5th floor--Williams. Why were the other 2 so belated in telling their
> stories? Took Jarman till Sunday, Norman till Tuesday to go
> public.... And Williams' son sez he has video footage of Williams
> telling the true story of the 5th floor....
> So much for your preponderosa of evidence....
In what way does this address that there were witnesses on the 5th
floor who saw no shooter? Do you think you have shown in any way that
they weren`t on the 5th floor, or they were on the 5th floor and saw a
shooter and neglected to tell? Again, you aren`t harming the idea the
shots came from the 6th floor, as it still remains the only reasonable
conclusion when the preponderance of evidence is considered.
Bud
You say that it does. You just haven`t shown that it does.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> > actually thehullsrecovered from that scene
>
> You haven`t shown where a police officer recovering evidence spoils
> that evidence. You`ve said it does, is all. Again, unless you can make
> the case that the shells in evidence aren`t the shells found, you
> really aren`t damaging the WC`s conclusions.
>
that he didn't "recover" evidence, then he's damaged whatever part of
the inquiry he had a hand in (literally). He didn't commit perjury
for no reason....
dw
> > \dw
> > Exploiting early confusion over the floors won`t
> > > prevent anyone who is honestly trying to determine what occurred from
> > > doing so. You can`t make any case for the shells being found on any
> > > floor but the 6th that isn`t blown away by the preponderance of
> > > evidence
>
> > (people outside put the shooter on the 6th
>
> > Several witnesses said the sniper's window was wide open, like the 5th-
> > floor windows--Brennan, Couch, Fischer, Edwards. You'd have to go
> > with them in this regard, since it would have been easier to determine
> > a wide-open window in the TSBD than to determine which *floor* the
> > sniper was on....
>
> No, you go with the window they indicated the shots came from.
Even if it doesn't match their memories? By the time of the hearings,
it was well known that the 6th floor was supposed to be where the
shots came from. What witness isn't going to go along with *public*
knowledge? Even if it contradicts what they actually saw! Oh, here,
I'll put my mark on what everyone else sez....
dw
>
> > there were people
> > > on the 5th, who saw no shooter on that floor, ect).
>
> > On 11/22/63, only one of the 3 people even admitted that he was on the
> > 5th floor--Williams. Why were the other 2 so belated in telling their
> > stories? Took Jarman till Sunday, Norman till Tuesday to go
> > public.... And Williams' son sez he has video footage of Williams
> > telling the true story of the 5th floor....
> > So much for your preponderosa of evidence....
>
> In what way does this address that there were witnesses on the 5th
> floor who saw no shooter? Do you think you have shown in any way that
> they weren`t on the 5th floor, or they were on the 5th floor and saw a
> shooter and neglected to tell? Again, you aren`t harming the idea the
> shots came from the 6th floor, as it still remains the only reasonable
> conclusion when the preponderance of evidence is considered.
>
Took a while for them to get their stories straight....
>
> > dw
>
> > > > > > > > > > dw
> > > > > > > > > > My own speculative answers to the above questions is, in order, No,
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, & No....
>
> > > > > > > > > Your premise is thatFritz`s actions compromise the Warren
> > > > > > > > > Commission`s findings. Unless you can harm the idea that the shells in
> > > > > > > > > evidence were found in the search right after the
>
> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
Bud
It`s not perjury just because he said something different than
someone else. Again, the "damage" to this evidence exists only in your
mind.
> dw
>
> > > \dw
> > > Exploiting early confusion over the floors won`t
> > > > prevent anyone who is honestly trying to determine what occurred from
> > > > doing so. You can`t make any case for the shells being found on any
> > > > floor but the 6th that isn`t blown away by the preponderance of
> > > > evidence
> >
> > > (people outside put the shooter on the 6th
> >
> > > Several witnesses said the sniper's window was wide open, like the 5th-
> > > floor windows--Brennan, Couch, Fischer, Edwards. You'd have to go
> > > with them in this regard, since it would have been easier to determine
> > > a wide-open window in the TSBD than to determine which *floor* the
> > > sniper was on....
> >
> > No, you go with the window they indicated the shots came from.
>
> Even if it doesn't match their memories?
Who says it didn`t? When was it established that the witnesses
could not have considered the 6th floor window fully open?
> By the time of the hearings,
> it was well known that the 6th floor was supposed to be where the
> shots came from. What witness isn't going to go along with *public*
> knowledge? Even if it contradicts what they actually saw! Oh, here,
> I'll put my mark on what everyone else sez....
Whatever it takes to make your silly theories work.
Walt
Good point, Don.... Orville Nix is an excellent example of a witness
willing to surrender his good sense ( literally) rather than go
against the official story that the authorities were putting out.
Orville Nix filmed the murder from a pedestal on the sounth side of
Main street a couple of hundred feet from the Lincoln at the time of
the shooting. His SENSES ( eyes and ears) told him that he had
witnessed gunfire from thr grassy knoll, and he said so that day.
Wowever a couple of days later when he was asked about what he'd seen
and heard he said that he thought that the shots had come from the
grassy knoll but now he knew that that wasn't true. When pressed by
the reporter as to why he had changed his mind, he replied.... " Well
they found those shells up there, and the gun, and everything so now I
know the shots came from that building"
The quote may not be verbatim, but it is the crux of what Nix said.
Nix was perfectly willing to surrender the information that his own
good sense(s) imparted to him in favor of the "OPINIONS" of "experts".
Walt
>
>
>
>
> > > there were people
> > > > on the 5th, who saw no shooter on that floor, ect).
>
> > > On 11/22/63, only one of the 3 people even admitted that he was on the
> > > 5th floor--Williams. Why were the other 2 so belated in telling their
> > > stories? Took Jarman till Sunday, Norman till Tuesday to go
> > > public.... And Williams' son sez he has video footage of Williams
> > > telling the true story of the 5th floor....
> > > So much for your preponderosa of evidence....
>
> > In what way does this
>
Bud
Perhaps he was aware of a concept that kooks are not, that fleeting
impressions under these circumstances are not carved in stone, and
when better, more reliable information becomes available, it`s best no
to doggedly cling to the initial impressions. I was reading through
the witness testimony, and there was a woman who said she intially
thought pasper was flying out of the limo. By the time the WC
questioned her, she said she now realized that it was flesh. Kooks
would hold her to her initial impression, and demand to know where the
paper is in the z-film.
dcwi...@netscape.net
photographed are damaged as evidence since Fritz disobeyed his own
injunction against touching the hulls. He thot it was pretty
important that *his detectives* didn't touch them! Do as I say, not
as I do....
dw
>
>
>
> > dw
>
> > > > \dw
> > > > Exploiting early confusion over the floors won`t
> > > > > prevent anyone who is honestly trying to determine what occurred from
> > > > > doing so. You can`t make any case for the shells being found on any
> > > > > floor but the 6th that isn`t blown away by the preponderance of
> > > > > evidence
>
> > > > (people outside put the shooter on the 6th
>
> > > > Several witnesses said the sniper's window was wide open, like the 5th-
> > > > floor windows--Brennan, Couch, Fischer, Edwards. You'd have to go
> > > > with them in this regard, since it would have been easier to determine
> > > > a wide-open window in the TSBD than to determine which *floor* the
> > > > sniper was on....
>
> > > No, you go with the window they indicated the shots came from.
>
> > Even if it doesn't match their memories?
>
> Who says it didn`t? When was it established that the witnesses
> could not have considered the 6th floor window fully open?
>
>
> > By the time of the hearings,
> > it was well known that the 6th floor
>
Walt
witnessed gunfire from the grassy knoll, and he said so that day.
However a couple of days later when he was asked about what he'd seen
and heard he said that he thought that the shots had come from the
grassy knoll but now he knew that that wasn't true. When pressed by
the reporter as to why he had changed his mind, he replied.... " Well
they found those shells up there, and the gun, and everything so now I
know the shots came from that building"
The quote may not be verbatim, but it is the crux of what Nix said.
Nix was perfectly willing to surrender the information that his own
good sense(s) imparted to him in favor of "OPINIONS" of "experts".
Walt
Perhaps he was aware of a concept that kooks are not, that fleeting
impressions under these circumstances are not carved in stone, and
when better, more reliable information becomes available, it`s best no
to doggedly cling to the initial impressions. I was reading through
the witness testimony, and there was a woman who said she intially
thought pasper was flying out of the limo. By the time the WC
questioned her, she said she now realized that it was flesh. Kooks
would hold her to her initial impression, and demand to know where
the paper is in the z-film.
What an insipid and poorly thought-out counterpoint.....
The woman you sight saw "something" white that that he ONE sense
imparted to her brain. Her brain immediately processed the info, and
it reminded her of something she had seen before...... A piece of
paper in the wind.
She was only wrong about the object that she saw as "a piece of
paper". She wasn't wrong about any of other details.
The comparison between the woman you cite and Orville Nix isn't even
comparable.