Was F. Lee Mudd the man in red on the steps?
pjsp...@aol.com
out exactly where F. Lee Mudd had been standing. Here is the bulk of the
FBI's report on Mudd:
(1-28-64 FBI report on an interview with Mudd, 24H538) “On November 22,
1963, he was in Dallas, Texas, on a business trip to purchase clothing for
his store. He operates the Southside Ranch, 9066 Mansfield Road,
Shreveport, Louisiana, a western store. While in Dallas he decided to
watch the parade for President t Kennedy. At about noon, he was watching
the parade from a position on the north side of Elm Street and some 75 to
100 feet west of a building, which he later learned was the Texas School
Book Depository. He saw the president’s car approaching from the east on
Elm Street in the parade, and he recognized President Kennedy and saw him
waving to the crowd. When the President’s car was some 50 or more feet
away from him, he heard what sounded to him like two gunshots, and he saw
the President slump. Immediately thereafter, he observed the President’s
car pull out of the line of the parade and continue west on Elm Street
toward the underpass. When the President’s car came abreast of Mudd, he
could see the President slumped down toward his wife, who was leaning over
him. He recalled seeing another man in the car, whom he did not recognize
at the time but whom he later learned was Governor Connally and this man
appeared to be holding one arm to his side. However he did not notice this
man much because his attention was focused on the President. Mr. Mudd
stated he definitely recalls hearing two shots probably less than a second
apart. He said there may have been a third shot fired, but he could not be
sure of this. He stated that immediately after the shots were fired, some
of the spectators along the side of the street dropped to the ground, and
he did so himself, inasmuch as the shots alarmed him and he did not know
what had happened or where the shots had come from. He looked around him,
and he recalled that in looking toward the building nearby, he noticed
several broken windows on about the fourth floor, and the thought occurred
to him that possibly the shots had been fired through these broken
windows. However, he did not observe any smoke, nor did he see anyone at
the windows, nor did he notice any motion within the building. He said the
building appeared to be abandoned. Subsequent to the shooting, he did not
notice anyone enter or leave the building. Mr. Mudd stated that when the
shots were fired, they sounded as if they came from the direction of the
building."
In Tink Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas, he provided a witness map, and
placed Mudd in the crowd on Elm Street up by the signs. While placing Mudd
in this location made no sense to me, I could never quite figure out where
he'd actually been standing, and assumed the author of the FBI report had
either mistakenly reported Mudd's statements, or that Mudd wasn't actually
a witness.
Well a few days back it hit me that Mudd purportedly stood on the north
side of Elm and that he saw Kennedy pass after hearing two quick shots and
seeing Kennedy slump down in the car...an obvious reference to the head
shot. Well, the only unidentified witnesses in position to see this are
the two men on the steps by Emmett Hudson in the Muchmore film. It then
hit me that Mudd was in Dallas to buy western Clothes and HELLO, the
little man in red by Hudson was wearing a western shirt. It also hit me
that the little man in red got down on the ground, just as reported by
Mudd.
I thereby propose that F. Lee Mudd was the man on the steps by Hudson.
Since I first proposed this a few days back, Martin Hinrichs prepared a
map of Dealey Plaza showing that yes indeed the man in red was in the
location described by Mudd in his statement.
This can be viewed here:
http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx306/Hinrichs7/patmudd.jpg
There's also this statement by Hudson in relation to the man beside him:
Mr. LIEBELER - So, you were standing about where I placed the "X" on
photograph No. 18 of Commission Exhibit No. 875. Tell me what you saw -
tell me what happened to the best of your recollection. Mr. HUDSON - Well
there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late
twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up
there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them
parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on
Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps.
Now consider the last part of the FBI's report:
Mr. Mudd stated that he remained in the vicinity for possibly three or
four minutes, after which he walked back toward the main part of town,
where he had parked his car.
Although Hudson said the fellow said he worked over there on Industrial,
it seems perfectly reasonable to believe Mudd had told him he was in town
on business, and had been working over there that day. .
So whadda ya think?
Alex Foyle
> .....
> So whadda ya think?
Interesting speculation, Pat. Anybody know whether F. Lee Mudd is still
alive?
For the sake of completeness here is the rest of Mudd's 1/28/64 statement:
"Mr. Mudd stated that he remained in the vicinity for possibly three or
four minutes, after which he walked back toward the main part of town,
where he had parked his car. He did not remain to talk to police or Secret
Service men because he did not feel he had seen anything that would be of
assistance to them.
Mr. Mudd said he was not with anyone else at the time this occurred. He
said he later made another trip to Dallas, accompanied by his wife, and he
showed her the place where the assassination occurred, and he observed the
Texas School Book Depository building and he is confident this is the same
building he was standing near at the time of the assassination.
Mr. Mudd said he could furnish no further information regarding this
matter."
yeuhd
synthesizing the basic facts of the case.
I notice this map puts F. Lee Mudd much further up Elm Street:
http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/witnessMap/Mudd.htm
But if the presidential limousine was 50 feet or so up Elm from Mudd
when he saw the president slump, Mudd must have been further down Elm
than that photo map indicates. The only men standing between the north
pergola and Elm Street were:
1. Charles Hester sitting on the bench in the pergola
2. Louie Steven Witt standing with his umbrella by the Stemmons Fwy
sign
3. "Dark-complected man" standing next to Witt and waving
4. Bill Newman with his family on the sidewalk further down Elm
5. Abe Zapruder on the pedestal at the opposite end of the pergola
from Hester
6. 7. & 8. Emmett Hudson and the other two men on the knoll steps
Any men east (uphill) of #1, 2 & 3 would have been past the limousine
when the president slumped, not 50 feet before it. See the Bronson
photo in the middle of this page:
http://www.copweb.be/Les%20temoins%20de%20Dealey%20Plaza-2.htm
So, yes, Mudd would have to be one of the other two men on the knoll
steps. Which means another witness standing between the fence and the
limousine who said the shots came from the direction of the Depository
("Mr. Mudd stated that when the shots were fired, they sounded as if
they came from the direction of the building").
I have been trying to find the red-shirted man in any films or still
photos after he is seen in the Muchmore film standing below Emmett
Hudson and raising his arms in shock as the limousine passes the steps
after the head shot:
http://www.jfk-online.com/Muchmore1.avi
Hudson said the young man standing next to Hudson (nicknamed
"Industrial man" because he told Hudson he worked on nearby Industrial
Blvd.) told him to get down after the shots were fired. But Hudson
said nothing about the third man on the steps.
I've been unable to determine which two of those three men are sitting
on the steps in Willis photos #6 and 7:
http://www.jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html#_W
As for the later history of F. Lee Mudd, perhaps this is he in the
Social Security Death Index:
Name: Francis Mudd
SSN: 438-12-2613
ZIP code of last residence: 71108 (Shreveport, Caddo Parish,
Louisiana)
Born: 12 November 1903
Died: December 1974
State (Year) SSN issued: Louisiana (1936–1950)
No other Mudd in Louisiana in the SSDI has a first initial of "F". And
the city is right. A 1948–1949 city directory of Shreveport lists a
Francis L. Mudd, salesman. (The only other man named Mudd is a Howard
R.)
Brigette Kohley
shadows.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold/bond5lg.jpg
I also suspect this red material by the steps is the red shirt man's
shirt. Seems to be the same shade of red.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold/bond8lg.jpg
As far as Francis Mudd...he was 60 at the time of the assassination.
Neither of the two men on the steps with Hudson to me appear to be
anywhere near that age. Perhaps F. Lee was his son.
Alex Foyle
> Hudson said the young man standing next to Hudson (nicknamed
> "Industrial man" because he told Hudson he worked on nearby Industrial
> Blvd.) told him to get down after the shots were fired. But Hudson
> said nothing about the third man on the steps.
Right, but then the young man next to Hudson ran back into the parking
lot more or less right after the head shot, as can be seen in the Nix
film. Maybe he told Hudson to get down as he was turning around to run
away. In the Nix and Muchmore films we can see that Red Shirt man
(RSM) originally was standing alone one or two steps below Hudson and
the younger man. After the head shot RSM also turns around and moves
one or two steps up nearer to Hudson (see Nix film) and maybe at that
point RSM told Hudson to get down. Because that is what both men
seemed to be doing in several photos taken after the assassination.
> I've been unable to determine which two of those three men are sitting
> on the steps in Willis photos #6 and 7:
>
> http://www.jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html#_W
I think you can see RSM and Hudson both sitting down on the steps in
Willis #6. RSM is sitting right next to the sign on the lamppost and
Hudson is sitting one or two steps further up, you can see Hudson’s
legs and half of his cap or hat against the background of the tree. In
Groden’s book “The Killing of a President” (TKOAP) there is a blow up
of Towner photo #2 in color on page 46. Towner #2 must have been taken
some seconds before Willis #6, and we can see the same, i.e. both men
sitting down, Hudson one or two steps further up from RSM.
http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/croppedjim2.jpg
There is a good blow up of Willis #7 in TKOAP on page 51, where it is
clear that the man sitting below Hudson is RSM. You can also see them
in the shadows in Bond photo #4 and there is a man in a red shirt now
standing in Bond #7. Bond #7 seems to have been taken closely after
Towner #3 where we can see that RSM has gotten up and Hudson seems to
be in the process of getting up. There are also good blow ups of this
in TKOAP pages 54-56.
http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/bond4.jpg
http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/bond7.jpg
http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/jim3.jpg
> No other Mudd in Louisiana in the SSDI has a first initial of "F". And
> the city is right. A 1948–1949 city directory of Shreveport lists a
> Francis L. Mudd, salesman. (The only other man named Mudd is a Howard
> R.)
That seems to be the man. Thanks for the good find, yeuhd. In the
brief moments we see RSM from the front, e.g. in the Muchmore film, he
does look middle aged at least, definitely not young. So RSM could
have been the 60 year old Francis Lee Mudd.
cdddraftsman
Don Roberdeau has maps with all the people who were in DP.
http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2009/08/1-men-of-courage-jfk-assassination_09.html
Don't break your wrist scrolling down , his blog is 5 blocks long .
tl
Psst ! :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/NoisyVisionStudio.jpg
yeuhd
> Don Roberdeau has maps with all the people who were in DP.http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2009/08/1-men-of-courage-jfk-assassina...
Don Roberdeau places F. Lee Mudd way up Elm Street, east of the
Thornton Freeway sign, which is farther east than anyone seen on the
north side of Elm in the Zapruder film. On Roberdeau's map, the red-
shirted man on the knoll steps is just an unlabeled dot.
This website by Alain Boquet and Marcel Dehaeseleer, which possibly
relied on Roberdeau's map, likewise puts Mudd way up on Elm, and picks
him out in the Croft photo as a black man in a blue shirt:
http://www.copweb.be/Les%20temoins%20de%20Dealey%20Plaza-2.htm
But unless Mudd gave some later interview in which he established that
as his locale, I'm saying both Roberdeau and Boquet-Dehaeseleer are
almost certainly wrong. Kennedy began "slumping" after he passed that
location, not 50 feet before ("When the President’s car was some 50 or
more feet away from him, he heard what sounded to him like two
gunshots, and he saw the President slump.… When the President’s car
came abreast of Mudd, he could see the President slumped down toward
his wife, who was leaning over him.").
There are only two unidentified men on the north side of Elm whose
position fits Mudd's description, and those are "Industrial man" and
the red-shirted man, the two unidentified men standing on the knoll
steps. Industrial man worked in Dallas, and so can't be Mudd, who was
in Dallas on a business trip. That leaves the red-shirted man.
yeuhd
> As far as Francis Mudd...he was 60 at the time of the assassination.
> Neither of the two men on the steps with Hudson to me appear to be
> anywhere near that age. Perhaps F. Lee was his son.
This is one of the best frame enlargements of the red-shirted man:
Nothing in that image says younger man to me. Those baggy pants have
an AARP discount card in the wallet.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 21, 6:26 am, yeuhd<needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hudson said the young man standing next to Hudson (nicknamed
>> "Industrial man" because he told Hudson he worked on nearby Industrial
>> Blvd.) told him to get down after the shots were fired. But Hudson
>> said nothing about the third man on the steps.
>
> Right, but then the young man next to Hudson ran back into the parking
> lot more or less right after the head shot, as can be seen in the Nix
Right after? I doubt that you can prove that.
> film. Maybe he told Hudson to get down as he was turning around to run
> away. In the Nix and Muchmore films we can see that Red Shirt man
> (RSM) originally was standing alone one or two steps below Hudson and
> the younger man. After the head shot RSM also turns around and moves
> one or two steps up nearer to Hudson (see Nix film) and maybe at that
> point RSM told Hudson to get down. Because that is what both men
> seemed to be doing in several photos taken after the assassination.
>
You seem very confused. You want to change it from the Young Fella
telling Hudson to get down to now the man in front of them telling
Hudson to get down. Why? What agenda are you trying to push by
misrepresenting the historical facts?
>> I've been unable to determine which two of those three men are sitting
>> on the steps in Willis photos #6 and 7:
>>
>> http://www.jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html#_W
>
> I think you can see RSM and Hudson both sitting down on the steps in
> Willis #6. RSM is sitting right next to the sign on the lamppost and
> Hudson is sitting one or two steps further up, you can see Hudson�s
> legs and half of his cap or hat against the background of the tree. In
> Groden�s book �The Killing of a President� (TKOAP) there is a blow up
> of Towner photo #2 in color on page 46. Towner #2 must have been taken
> some seconds before Willis #6, and we can see the same, i.e. both men
> sitting down, Hudson one or two steps further up from RSM.
>
> http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/croppedjim2.jpg
>
> There is a good blow up of Willis #7 in TKOAP on page 51, where it is
> clear that the man sitting below Hudson is RSM. You can also see them
> in the shadows in Bond photo #4 and there is a man in a red shirt now
> standing in Bond #7. Bond #7 seems to have been taken closely after
> Towner #3 where we can see that RSM has gotten up and Hudson seems to
> be in the process of getting up. There are also good blow ups of this
> in TKOAP pages 54-56.
>
> http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/bond4.jpg
> http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/bond7.jpg
> http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/jim3.jpg
>
>> No other Mudd in Louisiana in the SSDI has a first initial of "F". And
>> the city is right. A 1948�1949 city directory of Shreveport lists a
>> Francis L. Mudd, salesman. (The only other man named Mudd is a Howard
>> R.)
>
> That seems to be the man. Thanks for the good find, yeuhd. In the
> brief moments we see RSM from the front, e.g. in the Muchmore film, he
> does look middle aged at least, definitely not young. So RSM could
> have been the 60 year old Francis Lee Mudd.
>
>
Silly. You actually believe these crackpots who claim they were in
Dealey Plaza?
pjsp...@aol.com
>
> > No other Mudd in Louisiana in the SSDI has a first initial of "F". And
> > the city is right. A 1948–1949 city directory of Shreveport lists a
> > Francis L. Mudd, salesman. (The only other man named Mudd is a Howard
> > R.)
>
> That seems to be the man. Thanks for the good find, yeuhd. In the
> brief moments we see RSM from the front, e.g. in the Muchmore film, he
> does look middle aged at least, definitely not young. So RSM could
> have been the 60 year old Francis Lee Mudd.
So we can agree that red shirt man is the one who stayed and talked with
Hudson after the shots. This makes him the young fellow Hudson mentioned,
and not 60 year old Francis Mudd. I don't see why people think red shirt
man is old. When I watch his response and movements in the Muchmore and
Nix films, it's clear to me he's young.
I also think it's a mistake to try and twist Hudson's statement the young
man was at his left into meaning the man he spoke to is the man at his
left in the Moorman photo. Red shirt man is also to his left, only two
steps down. It's certainly more reasonable to assume RSM took a few steps
forward as the limo approached, and that this other man stepped forward
into his place, (unbeknownst to Hudson and just for a second), than to
assume RSM stood near Hudson just before the shots, and sat down with him
afterward, and that Hudson would forget about him completely, and instead
claim the man who ran off after the shots got down on the ground and
begged him to get down on the ground.
Anthony Marsh
Don't know that AARP had discount cards in 1963 or even if they were
around then. He certainly doesn't look like a senior citizen. But a
frame from a color movie may not be clear enough to make any claims. Try
looking at some black and white photos showing the three men.
Anthony Marsh
>> Don Roberdeau has maps with all the people who were in DP.http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/2009/08/1-men-of-courage-jfk-assassina...
>
> Don Roberdeau places F. Lee Mudd way up Elm Street, east of the
> Thornton Freeway sign, which is farther east than anyone seen on the
> north side of Elm in the Zapruder film. On Roberdeau's map, the red-
> shirted man on the knoll steps is just an unlabeled dot.
>
Craig Ciccone has Mudd halfway between the Stemmons sign and the tree.
I am not sure if his map is online and it is too big for me to scan.
> This website by Alain Boquet and Marcel Dehaeseleer, which possibly
> relied on Roberdeau's map, likewise puts Mudd way up on Elm, and picks
> him out in the Croft photo as a black man in a blue shirt:
> http://www.copweb.be/Les%20temoins%20de%20Dealey%20Plaza-2.htm
>
> But unless Mudd gave some later interview in which he established that
> as his locale, I'm saying both Roberdeau and Boquet-Dehaeseleer are
> almost certainly wrong. Kennedy began "slumping" after he passed that
> location, not 50 feet before ("When the President�s car was some 50 or
> more feet away from him, he heard what sounded to him like two
> gunshots, and he saw the President slump.� When the President�s car
yeuhd
> Craig Ciccone has Mudd halfway between the Stemmons sign and the tree.
That's a bizarre place to put Mudd. If you mean one of the two trees
by the corner of the stockade fence, no photo or film shows any man
standing halfway between there and the Stemmons sign as the motorcade
went by. That would be downhill from Zapruder and uphill from the
Newmans.
Bronson photo #5:
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 21, 9:06 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Craig Ciccone has Mudd halfway between the Stemmons sign and the tree.
>
> That's a bizarre place to put Mudd. If you mean one of the two trees
No, the tree near the Stemmons Freeway sign. Guess you don't have a map. I
thought about giving you the cartesian coordinates or GSP, but why bother?
I did not say Ciccone was correct. I disagreed with a lot of his
placements.
yeuhd
> On 2/21/2010 11:03 PM, yeuhd wrote:
>
> > On Feb 21, 9:06 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Craig Ciccone has Mudd halfway between the Stemmons sign and the tree.
>
> > That's a bizarre place to put Mudd. If you mean one of the two trees
>
> No, the tree near the Stemmons Freeway sign. Guess you don't have a map.
Take another look at Bronson #5, or at a map:
http://www.jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html#_B
No tree was near the Stemmons Freeway sign. The nearest tree was 50
feet northeast.
yeuhd
> This website by Alain Boquet and Marcel Dehaeseleer, which possibly
> relied on Roberdeau's map, likewise puts Mudd way up on Elm, and picks
> him out in the Croft photo as a black man in a blue shirt:http://www.copweb.be/Les%20temoins%20de%20Dealey%20Plaza-2.htm
A little more genealogy research and I found Francis Mudd, 17, living
with his parents (Francis and Myra Mudd) in Shreveport, La., in the
1920 U.S. Census. The family is white.
In the 1948–1949 city directory of Shreveport, Myra Mudd, widow of F.
S. Mudd, is living at the same address as salesman Francis L. Mudd.
In the 1950 city directory of Shreveport, Myra Mudd, widow of F. S.
Mudd, is living at the same address as insurance agent Lee Mudd and
student Lee Mudd, Jr.
Have not found anything more about Lee Mudd, Jr., although there was a
consulting forester named Lee Mudd in Shreveport in 1967.
Alex Foyle
> > Right, but then the young man next to Hudson ran back into the parking
> > lot more or less right after the head shot, as can be seen in the Nix
> Right after? I doubt that you can prove that.
The man in the light shirt (LSM) runs towards the back right after the
head shot. Proof? Just watch the Nix movie, for example here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvbvvAYimgM
At 0.14 seconds you can see that LSM has already turned around to run
towards the back.
At 0.15 LSM has disappeared into the shadows and RSM also begins to
move backwards.
> You seem very confused. You want to change it from the Young Fella
> telling Hudson to get down to now the man in front of them telling
> Hudson to get down. Why? What agenda are you trying to push by
> misrepresenting the historical facts?
Very confused and trying to push an agenda? Please read again for
comprehension and perhaps also look up the meaning of the word
"maybe". Hudson said in his WC testimony that the young man told him
to get down after the shots were fired. In the Nix film we can clearly
see that LSM ran to the back within seconds after the head shot. So
the only time LSM could have told Hudson to get down was when he
started his dash towards the back. At the same time RSM retreats some
steps upwards towards Hudson and photos just after that show both men
sitting down. Therefore I dared to speculate that it ("maybe"!) might
have been RSM who told Hudson to get down, as that is what they did. I
didn't rule out that LSM told Hudson to get down, just pointed out
that he had little time to do so after the last shot as he turned
around and ran away. So, no, I have no confused agenda here and
reading all of Hudson’s statements actually makes it clear that RSM
was the man who told Hudson to “lay down” (please read my whole post
carefully and maybe also reread all of Hudson's statements).
What is confusing, though, is for example this exchange between
Liebeler and Hudson:
“Mr. LIEBELER - If you don't think the President got hit by the first
shot and you say he got hit in the head with the second shot -
Mr. HUDSON - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - And if we assume that he was shot twice, you would have
to say that he was hit by the third shot; isn't that right?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER - He was hit again after he got hit in the head?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.”
Hudson apparently believed that the third shot was fired after the
head shot. Therefore it appears impossible for LSM to have been the
man who told Hudson to “lay down” as LSM was gone after the head shot
and Hudson said that the man who said “lay down” said so after the
last shot. For all we know (which is little) LSM could still have
been the man who told Hudson to get down, but LSM was definitely not
the man seen sitting with Hudson in later photos.
Misrepresenting the historical facts? Then why did Hudson never
mention the historical fact that there were actually two men standing
with him? Neither in his 11/22/63 Sheriff's statement, nor in his WC
testimony did he mention both men. Only in his 11/26/63 FBI interview
did he point himself out in the Moorman photo as being the man in the
middle of the group of three men on the steps.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=33
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm
http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/mary_5.jpg
In his WC testimony Hudson said:
"I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting there with me -
standing there with me at the present time, he says, "lay down,
Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay
down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying
down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground
and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and
when I was close to the ground - you could tell the shot was coming
from above and kind of behind."
If you take this testimony and compare it to what we see in the Nix
film, then RSM must have been the young fellow that Hudson is talking
about, because LSM did not lay down with Hudson. Hudson said the same
in his sheriff's statement:
"He also talked about working somewhere over on Industrial Blvd. This
man said lay down and we did."
So Hudson said that they both got down, thus the other man must be RSM
as he was the one who was later seen sitting down with Hudson. In his
sheriff's statement Hudson made no mention about the age of the man
next to him. Only in his WC testimony did he state that he was a
"young fellow":
"Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his
late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he
walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there
in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he
worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there
first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto
Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side
and I was on the right and so the first shot rung out and, ..."
If we take all of Hudson's statements and testimony as historical
fact, then the young man who said he works on Industrial Boulevard
must have been RSM and RSM must have also been the man who told Hudson
to get down. Would you agree?
And you would probably believe Hudson when he said that the third shot
was fired after the head shot, right?
> Silly. You actually believe these crackpots who claim they were in
> Dealey Plaza?
Silly you. I wrote that it "could have been" Mudd, not that I
"actually believe" it was Mudd. And no, I am still not convinced that
either of the two men standing with Hudson could have been Mudd,
mostly due to the imprecise statements of Hudson with regards to the
two men he was effectively and demonstrably standing with on the
stairs.
So do you "actually believe" that Mudd was a crackpot who only claimed
that he was in Dealey Plaza that day?
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_2108.pdf
Alex Foyle
> So we can agree that red shirt man is the one who stayed and talked with
> Hudson after the shots. This makes him the young fellow Hudson mentioned,
> and not 60 year old Francis Mudd. I don't see why people think red shirt
> man is old. When I watch his response and movements in the Muchmore and
> Nix films, it's clear to me he's young.
Agreed, RSM is the young man Hudson mentioned in his statement and
testimony. But to me RSM doesn’t look too young in the few slides from
the Muchmore movie where we can see him clearly and from the front.
And his throwing up his arms and retreating some steps up is not
necessarily a sign that he must have been a young man. Maybe somebody
can provide a blow up of the good stills from the Muchmore movie where
we can see RSM.
> I also think it's a mistake to try and twist Hudson's statement the young
> man was at his left into meaning the man he spoke to is the man at his
> left in the Moorman photo.
Also agreed, although Hudson clearly said:
“He was sitting on my left and we were both facing the street with our
backs to the railroad yards and the brick building.” (from sheriff’s
statement)
“When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and
stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the
right …” (from WC testimony)
> Red shirt man is also to his left, only two
> steps down. It's certainly more reasonable to assume RSM took a few steps
> forward as the limo approached, and that this other man stepped forward
> into his place, (unbeknownst to Hudson and just for a second), than to
> assume RSM stood near Hudson just before the shots, and sat down with him
> afterward, and that Hudson would forget about him completely, and instead
> claim the man who ran off after the shots got down on the ground and
> begged him to get down on the ground.
Agreed again. And if you read Hudson’s sheriff’s statement, his FBI
interview and his WC testimony carefully, then it is more than clear
that the man who told Hudson to “lay down” was RSM. And the young man
who said he worked at Industrial Blvd. was also RSM. Unless, of
course, Hudson got confused (as possibly also with his perceived
sequence of shots) and somehow possibly conflated the two men he was
standing with into one man.
But if RSM was indeed the young man working on Industrial Blvd., then
his described young age (“late twenties”) by Hudson makes it unlikely
that RSM was the 60 year old F. Lee Mudd.
What do you think?
Alex Foyle
>
> A little more genealogy research ...
In addition I could find this obituary from May 2000 of one Mrs.
Billie J. Paxton of Shreveport, Louisiana.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/PAXTON/2000-06/0961389378
Towards the end of the obituary it states:
"The family wishes to thank Jean and Janet Huff, Joyce and Lee
Mudd, ..."
Maybe relatives?
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 22, 1:01 am, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
>> So we can agree that red shirt man is the one who stayed and talked with
>> Hudson after the shots. This makes him the young fellow Hudson mentioned,
>> and not 60 year old Francis Mudd. I don't see why people think red shirt
>> man is old. When I watch his response and movements in the Muchmore and
>> Nix films, it's clear to me he's young.
>
> Agreed, RSM is the young man Hudson mentioned in his statement and
> the Muchmore movie where we can see him clearly and from the front.
> And his throwing up his arms and retreating some steps up is not
> necessarily a sign that he must have been a young man. Maybe somebody
> can provide a blow up of the good stills from the Muchmore movie where
> we can see RSM.
>
>> I also think it's a mistake to try and twist Hudson's statement the young
>> man was at his left into meaning the man he spoke to is the man at his
>> left in the Moorman photo.
>
> Also agreed, although Hudson clearly said:
>
> backs to the railroad yards and the brick building.� (from sheriff�s
> statement)
>
> �When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and
> stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the
>
>> Red shirt man is also to his left, only two
>> steps down. It's certainly more reasonable to assume RSM took a few steps
>> forward as the limo approached, and that this other man stepped forward
>> into his place, (unbeknownst to Hudson and just for a second), than to
>> assume RSM stood near Hudson just before the shots, and sat down with him
>> afterward, and that Hudson would forget about him completely, and instead
>> claim the man who ran off after the shots got down on the ground and
>> begged him to get down on the ground.
>
> interview and his WC testimony carefully, then it is more than clear
> who said he worked at Industrial Blvd. was also RSM. Unless, of
> course, Hudson got confused (as possibly also with his perceived
> sequence of shots) and somehow possibly conflated the two men he was
> standing with into one man.
>
> But if RSM was indeed the young man working on Industrial Blvd., then
> that RSM was the 60 year old F. Lee Mudd.
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
I think YOU are conflating, on purpose. Again I ask what is your agenda
in doing this? And I intensely dislike all this making up cute terms and
acronyms for spectators. We are stuck with crap like Black Dog Man, but
let's not keep adding to it.
Why this interest in Mudd?
yeuhd
clothes-buying business trip to Dallas. I think he was most likely in
Dealey Plaza because he had been doing business at Dealey Plaza's Dal- Tex
building, which was the center of Dallas' clothing industry (Dal- Tex is
short for Dallas Textile, and Abraham Zapruder was one of the clothing
manufacturers whose office was there). There was a parking lot on the
southwest corner of Elm and Record, across the street and just east of the
Dal-Tex; maybe Mudd parked there.
That is one of the reasons why I do not think Mudd was the young man
Emmett Hudson chatted with. Other reasons: The young man said he worked on
Industrial Blvd., which alone disqualifies him for me. Had Mudd made small
talk with Hudson, I think it probably would have been about visiting from
out-of-town and the luck of being there at the same time as the motorcade.
I also think a man in his late 20s was less likely (possible, but less
likely) to be the operator of a store big enough to send its operator on
an out-of-state buying trip than a 60-year-old man. And the clothing of
the red-shirted man looks more like western wear than the clothing worn by
the other man on the steps.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 22, 12:57 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Right, but then the young man next to Hudson ran back into the parking
>>> lot more or less right after the head shot, as can be seen in the Nix
>
>> Right after? I doubt that you can prove that.
>
> The man in the light shirt (LSM) runs towards the back right after the
> head shot. Proof? Just watch the Nix movie, for example here:
>
Ok, just stop it with this LSM and RSM nonsense right now. Enough already.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvbvvAYimgM
>
> At 0.14 seconds you can see that LSM has already turned around to run
> towards the back.
>
> At 0.15 LSM has disappeared into the shadows and RSM also begins to
> move backwards.
>
>> You seem very confused. You want to change it from the Young Fella
>> telling Hudson to get down to now the man in front of them telling
>> Hudson to get down. Why? What agenda are you trying to push by
>> misrepresenting the historical facts?
>
> Very confused and trying to push an agenda? Please read again for
> comprehension and perhaps also look up the meaning of the word
> "maybe". Hudson said in his WC testimony that the young man told him
> to get down after the shots were fired. In the Nix film we can clearly
> see that LSM ran to the back within seconds after the head shot. So
You can't see anything clearly in the Nix film. You are just guessing.
> the only time LSM could have told Hudson to get down was when he
> started his dash towards the back. At the same time RSM retreats some
> steps upwards towards Hudson and photos just after that show both men
> sitting down. Therefore I dared to speculate that it ("maybe"!) might
> have been RSM who told Hudson to get down, as that is what they did. I
Hudson said it was the YOUNG fella who was standing NEXT to him.
Somehow you twist this into an old man standing in front of him.
Again, what is your agenda in twisting facts like this?
This day a was sitting on the front steps of the sloping area and about
half way down the steps. There was another man sitting there with me. He
was sitting on my left and we were both facing the street with our backs
to the railroad yards and the brick building. At the same time the
President's car was directly in front of us, I heard a shot and I saw the
President fall over in the seat. I do not know who this other man was that
was sitting beside me. In our conversation he talked about having a hard
time finding a place to park. He also talked about working somewhere over
on Industrial Blvd. This man said Lay down and we did. I definately [sic]
heard 3 shots. The shots that I heard definately [sic] came from behind
and above me. When I laid down on the ground I laid on my right side and
my view was still toward the street where the President's car had passed.
I did look around but I did not see any firearms at all. This shot sounded
to me like a high powered rifle.
"Beside me." You twist this into "in front of me."
"This man." You twist this into "the other guy."
Again, what is your agenda in twisting the historical record to fit your
pet theories?
> didn't rule out that LSM told Hudson to get down, just pointed out
> that he had little time to do so after the last shot as he turned
> around and ran away. So, no, I have no confused agenda here and
> reading all of Hudson?s statements actually makes it clear that RSM
> was the man who told Hudson to ?lay down? (please read my whole post
> carefully and maybe also reread all of Hudson's statements).
>
Silly. He said the man "beside me" told him to lay down.
> What is confusing, though, is for example this exchange between
> Liebeler and Hudson:
>
> ?Mr. LIEBELER - If you don't think the President got hit by the first
> shot and you say he got hit in the head with the second shot -
> Mr. HUDSON - Yes.
> Mr. LIEBELER - And if we assume that he was shot twice, you would have
> to say that he was hit by the third shot; isn't that right?
> Mr. HUDSON - Yes.
> Mr. LIEBELER - He was hit again after he got hit in the head?
> Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.?
>
Objection, your honor, leading the witness.
> Hudson apparently believed that the third shot was fired after the
> head shot. Therefore it appears impossible for LSM to have been the
> man who told Hudson to ?lay down? as LSM was gone after the head shot
> and Hudson said that the man who said ?lay down? said so after the
You ignore the likelihood that the last two shots were very close
together. There is no time lag to take into consideration.
The only time lag is how long it takes the young fella to say "lay down"
after seeing the head shot.
> last shot. For all we know (which is little) LSM could still have
> been the man who told Hudson to get down, but LSM was definitely not
> the man seen sitting with Hudson in later photos.
>
So what?
> Misrepresenting the historical facts? Then why did Hudson never
> mention the historical fact that there were actually two men standing
> with him? Neither in his 11/22/63 Sheriff's statement, nor in his WC
There weren't two men standing with him. The other man was standing in
front of him. He only mentioned the man standing next to him because he
had talked to him.
Likewise he didn't mention seeing Zapruder filming only a few feet away
from him.
The affidavit is only a short statement. In testimony the counsel has time
to explore and ask more questions.
> testimony did he mention both men. Only in his 11/26/63 FBI interview
> did he point himself out in the Moorman photo as being the man in the
> middle of the group of three men on the steps.
>
Middle? Again you are misrepresenting historical facts to fit your wacky
theories. What is your agenda in doing that?
Maybe the problem is that you don't have a good map showing where Hudson
was.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/knollmen.gif
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=33
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson1.htm
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson.htm
> http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/mary_5.jpg
>
> In his WC testimony Hudson said:
>
> "I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting there with me -
> standing there with me at the present time, he says, "lay down,
> Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay
> down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying
> down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground
> and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and
> when I was close to the ground - you could tell the shot was coming
> from above and kind of behind."
>
> If you take this testimony and compare it to what we see in the Nix
> film, then RSM must have been the young fellow that Hudson is talking
> about, because LSM did not lay down with Hudson. Hudson said the same
> in his sheriff's statement:
>
> "He also talked about working somewhere over on Industrial Blvd. This
> man said lay down and we did."
>
> So Hudson said that they both got down, thus the other man must be RSM
> as he was the one who was later seen sitting down with Hudson. In his
Sure, maybe later after the shots. Hudson was only ever talking about the
young man who had sat next to him and talked to him. Not the third guy.
> sheriff's statement Hudson made no mention about the age of the man
> next to him. Only in his WC testimony did he state that he was a
> "young fellow":
>
> "Well there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his
> late twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he
> walked up there and he said he finally just taken a place over there
> in one of them parking lots, and he come on down there and said he
> worked over there on Industrial and me and him both just sat there
> first on those steps. When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto
> Elm, we got up and stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side
> and I was on the right and so the first shot rung out and, ..."
>
> If we take all of Hudson's statements and testimony as historical
> fact, then the young man who said he works on Industrial Boulevard
> must have been RSM and RSM must have also been the man who told Hudson
> to get down. Would you agree?
>
No, you are being silly. Just stop this nonsense.
> And you would probably believe Hudson when he said that the third shot
> was fired after the head shot, right?
>
HE didn't say that. Liebeler did.
> > Silly. You actually believe these crackpots who claim they were in
>> Dealey Plaza?
>
> Silly you. I wrote that it "could have been" Mudd, not that I
> "actually believe" it was Mudd. And no, I am still not convinced that
> either of the two men standing with Hudson could have been Mudd,
> mostly due to the imprecise statements of Hudson with regards to the
> two men he was effectively and demonstrably standing with on the
> stairs.
>
What's the point in bringing Mudd into this at all?
> So do you "actually believe" that Mudd was a crackpot who only claimed
> that he was in Dealey Plaza that day?
>
Not necessarily Mudd, but others. I think there is one guy who hangs out
in Dealey Plaza telling everyone how he was there that day.
Mudd doesn't tell us anything useful and he admitted such.
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_2108.pdf
>
>
Another pointless citation. Mudd said nothing which would indicate that
he was on the grassy knoll. He said he was near the building, maybe 75
to 100 feet away.
So why do you put him on the grassy knoll?
What agenda are you pushing?
pjsp...@aol.com
probably right, and that the head shot was most probably the second of the
three shots heard by the majority of the witnesses. Charles Brehm most
certainly thought so, as did Malcolm Summers. Other nearby witnesses,
including Mary Moorman, Jean Hill, James Chaney and Abraham Zapruder, all
thought they heard a shot after the head shot (Zapruder couldn't say for
sure). Several of the SS agents in the follow-up car, while refusing to
say there was a shot after the head shot, didn't rule it out, and claimed
instead that the last two shots came so fast they couldn't tell which one
was the head shot. If there were three well spaced shots, with the third
and final shot--a head shot--coming FIVE seconds after the second shot, of
course, there would be no such confusion.
I think yeuhd is on to something and that our man Mudd is the junior, not
the senior. He may even still be alive. It may take awhile but we really
should resolve this question.
pjsp...@aol.com
living in Shreveport.
http://www.peoplesearchpro.com/PSP.aspx?_act=step3fwp
It felt a little weird for me to buy his phone number from a website,
but feel free to do so if you're comfortable with it.
curtjester1
I thinks if my recollections are right, that there were two men on the
steps alongside Hudson, and both have never have 'come forward'.
In Groden's what I'll call Picture Book(s), there was a great pic of what
is purported to be one of those men, as the first man up the GK. He is
standing on something looking over the fence, and I believe he is depicted
as being very tall. I don't remember his clothing per se, but I think he
had some light brown trousers.
I surely can't buy into a man stating that he left because he thought he
would be of no value to anyone. He had to be one of the closest witnesses
there were...or should I say 'Suspect'?
CJ
Anthony Marsh
It is tree C, which is the one closest to the north sidewalk of Elm St.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/knollmen.gif
I can understand that you don't have Ciccone's map.
Maybe you don't want a copy because you know it is inaccurate.
Fine with me. But maybe you should have a copy of the best map.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/ovs-scan.gif
Do I need to letter the trees for you?
It's marked as the 12" Elm.
pjsp...@aol.com
see that Mudd's description of his location puts him right at the steps.
He says he walked in from a distant parking lot. Hudson says the man he
spoke to had parked some distance away. The man in red wore a red
shirt-which appears to me to be a western shirt. Mudd was in Dallas buying
Western clothing for his western store. It makes total sense then that
Mudd is the man in red.
If you want to fiddle with words to try and convince yourself the young
man mentioned by Hudson was the guy who was there just for a second and
then raced away, then go ahead. But the Nix film absolutely shows him
racing back up the steps, and at least one other photo (I think it's
Towner) shows him far away from Hudson and the steps only seconds after
the shooting.
It seems to me that if anyone has been pushing an agenda it is my fellow
CTs, who have been trying to pretend Mudd was much further up the street
for only 40 years or so, so they could get around his belief the shots
came from the TSBD. He, in fact, said essentially the same thing as
Hudson. It should not go without saying, however, that the back of the
arcade, where Newman and Zapruder thought the last shot/shots derived, was
in line with the location from where Hudson and Mudd thought the shots had
come, while the picket fence was not.
> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=104...
> >http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/pdf/WH24_CE_2108...
yeuhd
> "The family wishes to thank Jean and Janet Huff, Joyce and Lee
> Mudd, ..."
>
> Maybe relatives?
That Lee Mudd, wife Joyce, is a lawyer in Shreveport by the full name of
Lee Sterling Mudd. He was admitted to the Louisiana Bar in August 1963, so
I don't think he is our western clothier. He may be a brother or cousin to
Francis Lee Mudd, Jr., because Jr.'s grandfather was also named Francis
Sterling Mudd.
yeuhd
> Another pointless citation. Mudd said nothing which would indicate that
> he was on the grassy knoll. He said he was near the building, maybe 75
> to 100 feet away.
> So why do you put him on the grassy knoll?
> What agenda are you pushing?
I can see now why you are very much irritated about discussions that place
F. Lee Mudd on the knoll steps. Mudd is another witness standing between
the fence and the limousine who said the shots came from the direction of
the Depository ("Mr. Mudd stated that when the shots were fired, they
sounded as if they came from the direction of the building"), and that is
bad news for your knoll-shooter theories.
Mudd said that he was standing on the north side of Elm Street. He said
that he heard a shot, and saw the president slump, when the limousine was
still about 50 feet before him. The only unidentified men on the north
side of Elm Street from the point where the president began to slump
(Z-223) to the Triple Underpass are:
1. "Dark-complected man", waving and standing at the curb by umbrella
man Louie Steven Witt and the Stemmons Freeway sign.
2. The red-shirted man standing on the knoll steps below Emmett
Hudson.
3. The man standing on the knoll steps to Emmett Hudson's left.
All other men, going even further up the north side of Elm Street to the
Thornton Freeway sign, have been identified; and in any case would have
been *past* the presidential limousine when the president began to slump.
Now, some may object that Mudd said he was 75 to 100 feet from the TSBD,
while the red-shirted man was much further away from the TSBD than that.
Mudd may have been a poor estimator of the TSBD's distance, but I do trust
Mudd to know the difference between something happening 50 feet before him
and something happening after it past him. Mudd specifically said that
when the limousine came abreast of him, President Kennedy was slumped
toward his wife, and she was leaning over him. That puts Mudd definitely
west (downhill) of the Thornton Freeway sign, and almost certainly west of
the Stemmons sign too.
Add to that the fact that Mudd said he dropped to the ground, and we have
no still photos, films, or witness accounts of any man on the north side
of Elm Street, from the Thornton Freeway sign to the Triple Underpass,
dropping to the ground, other than Bill Newman and the men standing on the
knoll steps.
This is very amusing. I expect many nitpicking, churlish objections to F.
Lee Mudd being on the knoll steps (e.g., "Why this interest in Mudd?" and
"I intensely dislike all this making up cute terms and acronyms for
spectators"), when the real "problem" is that Mudd means another knoll
witness who said the shots came from the TSBD.
yeuhd
> It should not go without saying, however, that the back of the
> arcade,
An area that was in full view of Lee Bowers.
> where Newman and Zapruder thought the last shot/shots derived, was
> in line with the location from where Hudson and Mudd thought the shots had
> come, while the picket fence was not.
Zapruder said he thought the shots had come from the area behind him
because
1. The right side of President Kennedy's head was facing that way when
it exploded,
2. The police ran up to the area behind Zapruder afterward.
Zapruder said that he himself could not tell from which direction the
shots came, that there was too much reverberation.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you form any opinion about the direction from which
the shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you
had seen?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo
which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of
— it had a sound all over.
Alex Foyle
> I think YOU are conflating, on purpose. Again I ask what is your agenda
> in doing this?
Calm down, Tony, I already told you that I have no agenda here.
> Why this interest in Mudd?
Because we still don't know where he was standing.
yeuhd
You wrote above, "The tree near the Stemmons Freeway sign." As I said
before: No tree was near the Stemmons Freeway sign. The nearest tree
(the one marked 12" Elm) was 50 feet northeast of the sign.
Unfortunately, the "best map", as you call it, does not include either
the Thornton or Stemmons freeway signs. Nor does it include something
as basic as a distance scale.
Alex Foyle
> Alex, one of the little appreciated facts about the case is that Hudson is
> probably right, and that the head shot was most probably the second of the
> three shots heard by the majority of the witnesses.
Pat, let's not a start a discussion about this topic in this thread. I
only brought this up because Hudson said he was told to lay down after
the last shot was fired. We can open another thread about the sequence
of shots, although I seem to completely disagree with you on that
issue.
Let's make the most of this thread and try and find out where F. Lee
Mudd was standing.
> I think yeuhd is on to something and that our man Mudd is the junior, not
> the senior. He may even still be alive. It may take awhile but we really
> should resolve this question.
I think you misread yeuhd. In a reply to that 2000 obituary I posted
he said:
"That Lee Mudd, wife Joyce, is a lawyer in Shreveport by the full name
of
Lee Sterling Mudd. He was admitted to the Louisiana Bar in August
1963, so
I don't think he is our western clothier."
I tend to agree with yeuhd on that one. Lee Sterling Mudd is not our
F. Lee Mudd.
But apparently you have found a Francis Mudd, son of Francis Mudd, in
Shreveport here:
http://www.peoplesearchpro.com/PSP.aspx?_act=step3fwp
I couldn't find a Frances Mudd in Shreveport in that directory, but
like yeuhd I could find this:
Lee. S. Mudd and Joyce S. Mudd living in Shreveport. Maybe that Lee
Sterling is F. Lee's son?
Alex Foyle
> That Lee Mudd, wife Joyce, is a lawyer in Shreveport by the full name of
> Lee Sterling Mudd. He was admitted to the Louisiana Bar in August 1963, so
> I don't think he is our western clothier. He may be a brother or cousin to
> Francis Lee Mudd, Jr., because Jr.'s grandfather was also named Francis
> Sterling Mudd.
Thanks. So this lawyer Francis Lee Mudd, Jr., is he still alive?
I couldn't find him in the directory provided by Pat.
http://www.peoplesearchpro.com/PSP.aspx?_act=step3fwp
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 23, 1:06 am, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
>> Alex, one of the little appreciated facts about the case is that Hudson is
>> probably right, and that the head shot was most probably the second of the
>> three shots heard by the majority of the witnesses.
>
> Pat, let's not a start a discussion about this topic in this thread. I
> only brought this up because Hudson said he was told to lay down after
> the last shot was fired. We can open another thread about the sequence
> of shots, although I seem to completely disagree with you on that
> issue.
>
Are you sure he meant the LAST shot?
> Let's make the most of this thread and try and find out where F. Lee
> Mudd was standing.
>
Why bother? It is unimportant.
Anthony Marsh
Go on, pretend that you can't read a map. Again, do I need to mark it
for you? It was the only Elm on the north side. How hard is that?
Anthony Marsh
Silly.
yeuhd
> On Feb 23, 4:05 am, yeuhd <needleswax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > That Lee Mudd, wife Joyce, is a lawyer in Shreveport by the full name of
> > Lee Sterling Mudd. He was admitted to the Louisiana Bar in August 1963, so
> > I don't think he is our western clothier. He may be a brother or cousin to
> > Francis Lee Mudd, Jr., because Jr.'s grandfather was also named Francis
> > Sterling Mudd.
>
> Thanks. So this lawyer Francis Lee Mudd, Jr., is he still alive?
>
No, re-read my paragraph above. The lawyer is Francis Sterling Mudd.
The last occupation I know for Francis Lee Mudd, Jr. is "student" in
1950. Junior *may* be the consulting forester who was living in
Shreveport in 1967.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 22, 10:05 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> It should not go without saying, however, that the back of the
>> arcade,
>
> An area that was in full view of Lee Bowers.
>
No. Bowers could not see through the fence. Bowers could not see through
the trees. Bowers could not see through the pergola. Bowers said that he
could not see the man in dark clothes because he was in the shadows.
>> where Newman and Zapruder thought the last shot/shots derived, was
>> in line with the location from where Hudson and Mudd thought the shots had
>> come, while the picket fence was not.
>
> Zapruder said he thought the shots had come from the area behind him
> because
>
> 1. The right side of President Kennedy's head was facing that way when
> it exploded,
> 2. The police ran up to the area behind Zapruder afterward.
>
That's your interpretation, not what he said himself. You seem to be
unfamiliar with the evidence in this case. What a surprise. Loftus warns
us to go to the earliest statements. Within hours of the shooting Zapruder
gave his statement to the FBI. He said that the assassin was behind him.
http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/Witness/witnessMap/Zapruder.htm
> Zapruder said that he himself could not tell from which direction the
> shots came, that there was too much reverberation.
>
> Mr. LIEBELER. Did you form any opinion about the direction from which
> the shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you
> had seen?
> Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo
> which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of
> ? it had a sound all over.
>
How many months later was that? Zapruder was also influenced by the
government telling us that the lone assassin was in the TSBD. What we are
interested in are the initial impressions of the witnesses. Zapruder's
instant impression was that the assassin was behind him.
You can even see Zapruder in the TV interview, which DVP deceptively
edited out, on the grassy knoll point to his right to indicate where the
shots came from.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 22, 5:07 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Another pointless citation. Mudd said nothing which would indicate that
>> he was on the grassy knoll. He said he was near the building, maybe 75
>> to 100 feet away.
>> So why do you put him on the grassy knoll?
>> What agenda are you pushing?
>
> I can see now why you are very much irritated about discussions that place
> F. Lee Mudd on the knoll steps. Mudd is another witness standing between
> the fence and the limousine who said the shots came from the direction of
> the Depository ("Mr. Mudd stated that when the shots were fired, they
> sounded as if they came from the direction of the building"), and that is
> bad news for your knoll-shooter theories.
>
More nonsense. We don't have unanimous agreement from everyone on the
grassy knoll about where the shots were coming from. So I don't need Mudd
or any other person. My objection is the same as being annoyed by Beverly
Oliver saying that she was Babushka Lady or Gordon Arnold showing us where
he was standing near the walkway. There are a lot of witnesses who said
things that I would love to believe and cite, but I know they are kooks.
> Mudd said that he was standing on the north side of Elm Street. He said
> that he heard a shot, and saw the president slump, when the limousine was
> still about 50 feet before him. The only unidentified men on the north
> side of Elm Street from the point where the president began to slump
> (Z-223) to the Triple Underpass are:
>
Silly. You are pulling a Harris.
There are lots of unidentified men and Mudd is listed as a known witness.
> 1. "Dark-complected man", waving and standing at the curb by umbrella
> man Louie Steven Witt and the Stemmons Freeway sign.
> 2. The red-shirted man standing on the knoll steps below Emmett
> Hudson.
> 3. The man standing on the knoll steps to Emmett Hudson's left.
>
> All other men, going even further up the north side of Elm Street to the
> Thornton Freeway sign, have been identified; and in any case would have
> been *past* the presidential limousine when the president began to slump.
>
No, they have not. You are pulling a Harris.
The limo's position at the time of the first shot was much more than 50
feet away from the three men on the steps to the Pergola. Even when the
President slumped at Z-215.
> Now, some may object that Mudd said he was 75 to 100 feet from the TSBD,
> while the red-shirted man was much further away from the TSBD than that.
Some may object? Well, if you are going to pull a Harris you have to
believe that every witness was accurate down to the inch.
> Mudd may have been a poor estimator of the TSBD's distance, but I do trust
> Mudd to know the difference between something happening 50 feet before him
> and something happening after it past him. Mudd specifically said that
> when the limousine came abreast of him, President Kennedy was slumped
> toward his wife, and she was leaning over him. That puts Mudd definitely
> west (downhill) of the Thornton Freeway sign, and almost certainly west of
> the Stemmons sign too.
>
More Harris nonsense.
> Add to that the fact that Mudd said he dropped to the ground, and we have
> no still photos, films, or witness accounts of any man on the north side
> of Elm Street, from the Thornton Freeway sign to the Triple Underpass,
> dropping to the ground, other than Bill Newman and the men standing on the
> knoll steps.
>
More Harris speak, interpreting where you think he must be and then
looking for evidence of him there.
> This is very amusing. I expect many nitpicking, churlish objections to F.
> Lee Mudd being on the knoll steps (e.g., "Why this interest in Mudd?" and
> "I intensely dislike all this making up cute terms and acronyms for
> spectators"), when the real "problem" is that Mudd means another knoll
> witness who said the shots came from the TSBD.
>
So what? What you got now? 2 or 3? I am not impressed.
Anthony Marsh
> Tony, no one is pushing an agenda. If you'd looked at Martin's map you'd
> see that Mudd's description of his location puts him right at the steps.
Whose map? Why should that be an authority? Ciccone's map places him up
at the top of Elm Street.
> He says he walked in from a distant parking lot. Hudson says the man he
> spoke to had parked some distance away. The man in red wore a red
> shirt-which appears to me to be a western shirt. Mudd was in Dallas buying
> Western clothing for his western store. It makes total sense then that
> Mudd is the man in red.
>
More Harris speak.
> If you want to fiddle with words to try and convince yourself the young
> man mentioned by Hudson was the guy who was there just for a second and
> then raced away, then go ahead. But the Nix film absolutely shows him
Not what I said.
> racing back up the steps, and at least one other photo (I think it's
> Towner) shows him far away from Hudson and the steps only seconds after
> the shooting.
>
You THINK it does. Show it to me. Prove it.
> It seems to me that if anyone has been pushing an agenda it is my fellow
> CTs, who have been trying to pretend Mudd was much further up the street
> for only 40 years or so, so they could get around his belief the shots
I have not seen anyone before this pushing an agenda to move Mudd
anywhere. I see a lot of people guessing.
> came from the TSBD. He, in fact, said essentially the same thing as
> Hudson. It should not go without saying, however, that the back of the
> arcade, where Newman and Zapruder thought the last shot/shots derived, was
> in line with the location from where Hudson and Mudd thought the shots had
> come, while the picket fence was not.
>
Huh?
Diagram what you mean.
I uploaded a diagram. Why can't you?
Anthony Marsh
> While studying the eyewitnesses a few years back, I had trouble figuring
> out exactly where F. Lee Mudd had been standing. Here is the bulk of the
> FBI's report on Mudd:
>
> 1963, he was in Dallas, Texas, on a business trip to purchase clothing for
> his store. He operates the Southside Ranch, 9066 Mansfield Road,
> Shreveport, Louisiana, a western store. While in Dallas he decided to
> watch the parade for President t Kennedy. At about noon, he was watching
> the parade from a position on the north side of Elm Street and some 75 to
> 100 feet west of a building, which he later learned was the Texas School
> Elm Street in the parade, and he recognized President Kennedy and saw him
> away from him, he heard what sounded to him like two gunshots, and he saw
> car pull out of the line of the parade and continue west on Elm Street
> could see the President slumped down toward his wife, who was leaning over
> him. He recalled seeing another man in the car, whom he did not recognize
> at the time but whom he later learned was Governor Connally and this man
> appeared to be holding one arm to his side. However he did not notice this
> man much because his attention was focused on the President. Mr. Mudd
> stated he definitely recalls hearing two shots probably less than a second
> apart. He said there may have been a third shot fired, but he could not be
> sure of this. He stated that immediately after the shots were fired, some
> of the spectators along the side of the street dropped to the ground, and
> he did so himself, inasmuch as the shots alarmed him and he did not know
> what had happened or where the shots had come from. He looked around him,
> and he recalled that in looking toward the building nearby, he noticed
> several broken windows on about the fourth floor, and the thought occurred
> to him that possibly the shots had been fired through these broken
> windows. However, he did not observe any smoke, nor did he see anyone at
> the windows, nor did he notice any motion within the building. He said the
> building appeared to be abandoned. Subsequent to the shooting, he did not
> shots were fired, they sounded as if they came from the direction of the
>
> In Tink Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas, he provided a witness map, and
> placed Mudd in the crowd on Elm Street up by the signs. While placing Mudd
> in this location made no sense to me, I could never quite figure out where
> he'd actually been standing, and assumed the author of the FBI report had
> either mistakenly reported Mudd's statements, or that Mudd wasn't actually
> a witness.
>
> Well a few days back it hit me that Mudd purportedly stood on the north
> side of Elm and that he saw Kennedy pass after hearing two quick shots and
> seeing Kennedy slump down in the car...an obvious reference to the head
> shot. Well, the only unidentified witnesses in position to see this are
> the two men on the steps by Emmett Hudson in the Muchmore film. It then
> hit me that Mudd was in Dallas to buy western Clothes and HELLO, the
> little man in red by Hudson was wearing a western shirt. It also hit me
> that the little man in red got down on the ground, just as reported by
> Mudd.
>
> I thereby propose that F. Lee Mudd was the man on the steps by Hudson.
>
> Since I first proposed this a few days back, Martin Hinrichs prepared a
> map of Dealey Plaza showing that yes indeed the man in red was in the
> location described by Mudd in his statement.
>
> This can be viewed here:
>
> http://i766.photobucket.com/albums/xx306/Hinrichs7/patmudd.jpg
>
That map is stupid. It has no relationship to Mudd's description of where
he was standing. Equating 50 feet from the middle of the street with 50
feet from the limo at a specific time is moronic.
> There's also this statement by Hudson in relation to the man beside him:
>
> Mr. LIEBELER - So, you were standing about where I placed the "X" on
> photograph No. 18 of Commission Exhibit No. 875. Tell me what you saw -
> tell me what happened to the best of your recollection. Mr. HUDSON - Well
> there was a young fellow, oh, I would judge his age about in his late
> twenties. He said he had been looking for a place to park and he walked up
> there and he said he finally just taken a place over there in one of them
> parking lots, and he come on down there and said he worked over there on
> Industrial and me and him both just sat there first on those steps.
>
Anthony Marsh
> Alex, one of the little appreciated facts about the case is that Hudson is
> probably right, and that the head shot was most probably the second of the
> three shots heard by the majority of the witnesses. Charles Brehm most
> certainly thought so, as did Malcolm Summers. Other nearby witnesses,
> including Mary Moorman, Jean Hill, James Chaney and Abraham Zapruder, all
> thought they heard a shot after the head shot (Zapruder couldn't say for
> sure). Several of the SS agents in the follow-up car, while refusing to
> say there was a shot after the head shot, didn't rule it out, and claimed
> instead that the last two shots came so fast they couldn't tell which one
> was the head shot. If there were three well spaced shots, with the third
> and final shot--a head shot--coming FIVE seconds after the second shot, of
> course, there would be no such confusion.
>
Again you fall down the Harris hole of believing that whatever a witness
says it the absolute truth. I would never rely on those witnesses for
anything. But they might be accidentally right that the grassy knoll shot
hit Kennedy's head and the next shot from the TSBD missed Kennedy's head.
> I think yeuhd is on to something and that our man Mudd is the junior, not
> the senior. He may even still be alive. It may take awhile but we really
> should resolve this question.
>
No, we shouldn't. Why don't you go find the Babushka Lady film and
identify the grassy knoll shooter? Slacker.
> On Feb 22, 7:24 am, Alex Foyle<alexfo...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 1:01 am, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> So we can agree that red shirt man is the one who stayed and talked with
>>> Hudson after the shots. This makes him the young fellow Hudson mentioned,
>>> and not 60 year old Francis Mudd. I don't see why people think red shirt
>>> man is old. When I watch his response and movements in the Muchmore and
>>> Nix films, it's clear to me he's young.
>>
>> Agreed, RSM is the young man Hudson mentioned in his statement and
>> testimony. But to me RSM doesn?t look too young in the few slides from
>> the Muchmore movie where we can see him clearly and from the front.
>> And his throwing up his arms and retreating some steps up is not
>> necessarily a sign that he must have been a young man. Maybe somebody
>> can provide a blow up of the good stills from the Muchmore movie where
>> we can see RSM.
>>
>>> I also think it's a mistake to try and twist Hudson's statement the young
>>> man was at his left into meaning the man he spoke to is the man at his
>>> left in the Moorman photo.
>>
>> Also agreed, although Hudson clearly said:
>>
>> ?He was sitting on my left and we were both facing the street with our
>> backs to the railroad yards and the brick building.? (from sheriff?s
>> statement)
>>
>> ?When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and
>> stood up, me and him both. He was on the left side and I was on the
>> right ?? (from WC testimony)
>>
>>> Red shirt man is also to his left, only two
>>> steps down. It's certainly more reasonable to assume RSM took a few steps
>>> forward as the limo approached, and that this other man stepped forward
>>> into his place, (unbeknownst to Hudson and just for a second), than to
>>> assume RSM stood near Hudson just before the shots, and sat down with him
>>> afterward, and that Hudson would forget about him completely, and instead
>>> claim the man who ran off after the shots got down on the ground and
>>> begged him to get down on the ground.
>>
>> Agreed again. And if you read Hudson?s sheriff?s statement, his FBI
>> interview and his WC testimony carefully, then it is more than clear
>> that the man who told Hudson to ?lay down? was RSM. And the young man
>> who said he worked at Industrial Blvd. was also RSM. Unless, of
>> course, Hudson got confused (as possibly also with his perceived
>> sequence of shots) and somehow possibly conflated the two men he was
>> standing with into one man.
>>
>> But if RSM was indeed the young man working on Industrial Blvd., then
>> his described young age (?late twenties?) by Hudson makes it unlikely
yeuhd
> On 2/23/2010 12:26 AM, yeuhd wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 10:05 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> >> It should not go without saying, however, that the back of the
> >> arcade,
>
> > An area that was in full view of Lee Bowers.
>
> No. Bowers could not see through the fence. Bowers could not see through
> the trees. Bowers could not see through the pergola. Bowers said that he
> could not see the man in dark clothes because he was in the shadows.
Again, you try to pull a switcheroo, trying to put words in someone's
mouth that were not said. We are not talking seeing through a fence. We
are not talking about seeing through trees. We are talking about the back
of the arcade, i.e., the pergola. Now, unless you are talking about a
gunman who was firing from up in a tree, and not on the ground, the back
of the pergola was in view of Lee Bowers. And sitting on the front side of
the pergola were Beatrice and Charles Hester on one end and Abraham
Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman on the other end. That covers the front and
back of the pergola. No one saw any gunman.
Are you claiming there was a gunman firing from the back of the pergola?
>
> >> where Newman and Zapruder thought the last shot/shots derived, was
> >> in line with the location from where Hudson and Mudd thought the shots had
> >> come, while the picket fence was not.
>
> > Zapruder said he thought the shots had come from the area behind him
> > because
>
> > 1. The right side of President Kennedy's head was facing that way when
> > it exploded,
> > 2. The police ran up to the area behind Zapruder afterward.
>
> That's your interpretation, not what he said himself. You seem to be
> unfamiliar with the evidence in this case.
Not that's not my "interpretation", that's what Zapruder testified.
Here are his exact words, in case you are not familiar with them:
Mr. ZAPRUDER. As to what happened — I remember the police were running
behind me. There were police running right behind me. Of course, they
didn't realize yet, I guess, where the shot came from — that it came
from that height.
Mr. LIEBELER. As you were standing on this abutment facing Elm street,
you say the police ran over behind the concrete structure behind you
and down the railroad track behind that, is that right?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. After the shots?
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes — after the shots — yes, some of them were
motorcycle cops — I guess they left their motorcycles running and they
were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting.
I guess they thought it came from right behind me.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any impression as to the direction from
which these shots came?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course,
you can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere,
but BEING I WAS HERE AND HE WAS HIT ON THIS LINE AND HE WAS HIT RIGHT
IN THE HEAD — I saw it right around here, so it looked like it came
from here and it could come from there.
Mr. LIEBELER. All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked
down into Elm Street, YOU SAW THE PRESIDENT HIT ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF
THE HEAD AND YOU THOUGHT PERHAPS THE SHOTS HAD COME FROM BEHIND YOU?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. WELL, YES.
Mr. LIEBELER. From the direction behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes, actually — I couldn't say what I thought at the
moment, where they came from — after the impact of the tragedy was
really what I saw and I started and I said — yelling, "They've killed
him" — I ASSUMED THEY CAME FROM THERE, BECAUSE AS THE POLICE STARTED
RUNNING BACK OF ME, IT LOOKED LIKE IT CAME FROM THE BACK OF ME.
Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what
direction the shots did come from actually?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. No.
> How many months later was that? Zapruder was also influenced by the
> government telling us that the lone assassin was in the TSBD. What we are
> interested in are the initial impressions of the witnesses. Zapruder's
> instant impression was that the assassin was behind him.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. I assumed that they came from there, because as the
police started running back of me, it looked like it came from the
back of me.
Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what
direction the shots did come from actually?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. No.
yeuhd
> On 2/22/2010 10:06 PM, yeuhd wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 5:07 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Another pointless citation. Mudd said nothing which would indicate that
> >> he was on the grassy knoll. He said he was near the building, maybe 75
> >> to 100 feet away.
> >> So why do you put him on the grassy knoll?
> >> What agenda are you pushing?
>
> > I can see now why you are very much irritated about discussions that place
> > F. Lee Mudd on the knoll steps. Mudd is another witness standing between
> > the fence and the limousine who said the shots came from the direction of
> > the Depository ("Mr. Mudd stated that when the shots were fired, they
> > sounded as if they came from the direction of the building"), and that is
> > bad news for your knoll-shooter theories.
>
> More nonsense. We don't have unanimous agreement from everyone on the
> grassy knoll about where the shots were coming from. So I don't need Mudd
> or any other person. My objection is the same as being annoyed by Beverly
> Oliver saying that she was Babushka Lady or Gordon Arnold showing us where
> he was standing near the walkway. There are a lot of witnesses who said
> things that I would love to believe and cite, but I know they are kooks.
Beverly Oliver (1970) and Gordon Arnold (1978) first came forth years
after the assassination, and told their stories to assassination
buffs, not to the police or the FBI. Their accounts contained numerous
details that contradicted evidence from photographs, films, and other
witnesses. F. Lee Mudd told his story to the FBI two months after the
assassination. His account comports with other evidence from films,
photos, and witnesses.
> > Mudd said that he was standing on the north side of Elm Street. He said
> > that he heard a shot, and saw the president slump, when the limousine was
> > still about 50 feet before him. The only unidentified men on the north
> > side of Elm Street from the point where the president began to slump
> > (Z-223) to the Triple Underpass are:
>
> Silly. You are pulling a Harris.
> There are lots of unidentified men and Mudd is listed as a known witness.
So … Mudd is an impostor like Beverly Oliver and Gordon Arnold … no,
wait, he's a "known witness." You're trying to play both sides of the
street again.
There are no unidentified men on the north side of Elm Street from the
Thornton Freeway sign (which the President was abreast about Z-200)
to the Triple Underpass other than the three I listed above. (Four if
you want to include the young black man eating lunch on the bench.)
> > All other men, going even further up the north side of Elm Street to the
> > Thornton Freeway sign, have been identified; and in any case would have
> > been *past* the presidential limousine when the president began to slump.
>
> No, they have not. You are pulling a Harris.
> The limo's position at the time of the first shot was much more than 50
> feet away from the three men on the steps to the Pergola. Even when the
> President slumped at Z-215.
Silly.
The President slumped at Z-215? He was behind the Stemmons Freeway
sign at Z-215:
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/zfilm/zframe215.html
> > This is very amusing. I expect many nitpicking, churlish objections to F.
> > Lee Mudd being on the knoll steps (e.g., "Why this interest in Mudd?" and
> > "I intensely dislike all this making up cute terms and acronyms for
> > spectators"), when the real "problem" is that Mudd means another knoll
> > witness who said the shots came from the TSBD.
>
> So what? What you got now? 2 or 3? I am not impressed.
Silly.
Nine people were on the grassy knoll, if we include all of the grassy
area between the stockade fence or pergola and the sidewalk. See
Bronson photo #5:
http://www.jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html#_B
We now know the identities of six of those. Two of those six (Beatrice
Hester and Zapruder) could not tell from which direction the shots
came. The other four (Mudd, Sitzman, Hudson, and Charles Hester) said
the shots came from the direction of the Depository building.
Want to limit the definition of the grassy knoll to the area from the
steps westward? OK. Three people were there, we now know the
identities of two (Hudson and Mudd), and both of those said the shots
came from the direction of the Depository.
pjsp...@aol.com
was 75 to 100 feet west of the TSBD and that the limo was 50 feet away
from him when two quick shots were fired, and then passed by him after the
shooting, he suggested he'd been standing in a specific area. That area is
the area around the steps.
Rather than fighting this, I think you should take a breath and realize
that here was one of the closest witnesses, who, in support of others in
the area, claimed the last two shots were almost on top of each other.
He's a strong witness for conspiracy, in my book.
On Feb 23, 7:07 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
Alex Foyle
> > Because we still don't know where he was standing.
>
> Silly.
What's silly? Trying to find out where a witness was standing?
Alex Foyle
> > On Feb 23, 1:06 am, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> Are you sure he meant the LAST shot?
No, I am not 100% sure. So let’s look at this part of Hudson's WC
testimony again:
"Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?
Mr. HUDSON - Three.
Mr. LIEBELER - Three shots?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the
head; is that right?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was.
Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question
in your mind about that, was there?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here
another shot?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. I'll tell you - this young fellow that was
sitting there with me - standing there with me at the present time, he
says, "lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says,
"Lay down, lay down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was
already laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over
on the ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third
shot rung out and when I was close to the ground - you could tell the
shot was coming from above and kind of behind."
Now, for a change, and before you accuse me of twisting the historical
facts again, why don’t you tell us when who told Hudson to lay down.
And tell us also who Hudson eventually did lay down with.
> > Let's make the most of this thread and try and find out where F. Lee
> > Mudd was standing.
>
> Why bother? It is unimportant.
You must be kidding, right? What is your agenda here? Why do you
bother posting in this thread then?
Are you trying to smear Mudd by mentioning him in the same breath as
Arnold and Oliver? Is that your agenda?
Do you think Mudd is a kook? You said “not necessarily”. What now, yes
or no?
Anthony Marsh
> Martin's map perfectly illustrates Mudd's statements. When Mudd said he
> was 75 to 100 feet west of the TSBD and that the limo was 50 feet away
> from him when two quick shots were fired, and then passed by him after the
> shooting, he suggested he'd been standing in a specific area. That area is
> the area around the steps.
>
No, it doesn't. It just measures the width. It does not measure the
distance from the steps to the TSBD. It is childish.
> Rather than fighting this, I think you should take a breath and realize
> that here was one of the closest witnesses, who, in support of others in
> the area, claimed the last two shots were almost on top of each other.
> He's a strong witness for conspiracy, in my book.
>
SO what? That's no excuse for trying to shuffle witnesses around.
Anthony Marsh
Fine, then don't obsess over him and try to move him to the grassy knoll.
What is your agenda in trying to do that? What are you trying to prove?
You got a wacky theory and then you go looking for witnesses to
misrepresent in order to support your wacky theory. I'm sorry, but that
has already been patented by Robert Harris. If you want to use that method
then you'll have to pay royalties to Harris.
>>> Mudd said that he was standing on the north side of Elm Street. He said
>>> that he heard a shot, and saw the president slump, when the limousine was
>>> still about 50 feet before him. The only unidentified men on the north
>>> side of Elm Street from the point where the president began to slump
>>> (Z-223) to the Triple Underpass are:
>>
>> Silly. You are pulling a Harris.
>> There are lots of unidentified men and Mudd is listed as a known witness.
>
> So ? Mudd is an impostor like Beverly Oliver and Gordon Arnold ? no,
> wait, he's a "known witness." You're trying to play both sides of the
> street again.
>
> There are no unidentified men on the north side of Elm Street from the
> Thornton Freeway sign (which the President was abreast about Z-200)
So you claim. Then point out each one and identify him.
No, no Mudd. And Hudson said the shots came from behind him.
> Want to limit the definition of the grassy knoll to the area from the
> steps westward? OK. Three people were there, we now know the
> identities of two (Hudson and Mudd), and both of those said the shots
> came from the direction of the Depository.
>
Garbage.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 23, 9:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/23/2010 12:26 AM, yeuhd wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 22, 10:05 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>>> It should not go without saying, however, that the back of the
>>>> arcade,
>>
>>> An area that was in full view of Lee Bowers.
>>
>> No. Bowers could not see through the fence. Bowers could not see through
>> the trees. Bowers could not see through the pergola. Bowers said that he
>> could not see the man in dark clothes because he was in the shadows.
>
> Again, you try to pull a switcheroo, trying to put words in someone's
> mouth that were not said. We are not talking seeing through a fence. We
No, YOU said "full view." That means you think Bowers could see
EVERYTHING in that area. So I pointed out what he couldn't see.
> are not talking about seeing through trees. We are talking about the back
> of the arcade, i.e., the pergola. Now, unless you are talking about a
> gunman who was firing from up in a tree, and not on the ground, the back
> of the pergola was in view of Lee Bowers. And sitting on the front side of
I am talking about the same man that Bowers was talking about, the one
dressed in dark clothing that he said he could not see in the shadows.
> the pergola were Beatrice and Charles Hester on one end and Abraham
> Zapruder and Marilyn Sitzman on the other end. That covers the front and
> back of the pergola. No one saw any gunman.
>
None of them have to see the gunman, but he appears in the Zapruder film
and the Moorman photo so if someone were looking for him and not filming
they might see him. But everyone was looking at the limousine.
> Are you claiming there was a gunman firing from the back of the pergola?
>
No, that is not my theory. I forgot whose theory that is, but I am not
interested in it.
>>
>>>> where Newman and Zapruder thought the last shot/shots derived, was
>>>> in line with the location from where Hudson and Mudd thought the shots had
>>>> come, while the picket fence was not.
>>
>>> Zapruder said he thought the shots had come from the area behind him
>>> because
>>
>>> 1. The right side of President Kennedy's head was facing that way when
>>> it exploded,
>>> 2. The police ran up to the area behind Zapruder afterward.
>>
>> That's your interpretation, not what he said himself. You seem to be
>> unfamiliar with the evidence in this case.
>
> Not that's not my "interpretation", that's what Zapruder testified.
Again, his testimony AFTER he had been told that all the shots came from
the TSBD. As Loftus says, look for the earliest statement, which you
failed to do.
> Here are his exact words, in case you are not familiar with them:
>
> Mr. ZAPRUDER. As to what happened ? I remember the police were running
> behind me. There were police running right behind me. Of course, they
> didn't realize yet, I guess, where the shot came from ? that it came
> from that height.
> Mr. LIEBELER. As you were standing on this abutment facing Elm street,
> you say the police ran over behind the concrete structure behind you
> and down the railroad track behind that, is that right?
> Mr. ZAPRUDER. After the shots?
> Mr. LIEBELER. Yes.
> Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes ? after the shots ? yes, some of them were
> motorcycle cops ? I guess they left their motorcycles running and they
> were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting.
> I guess they thought it came from right behind me.
> Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any impression as to the direction from
> which these shots came?
> Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course,
Here is where YOU misrepresent. Zapruder says "also" meaning he believed
the shots came from where the police thought they came from, behind him on
the grassy knoll.
> you can't tell when something is in line it could come from anywhere,
> but BEING I WAS HERE AND HE WAS HIT ON THIS LINE AND HE WAS HIT RIGHT
> IN THE HEAD ? I saw it right around here, so it looked like it came
> from here and it could come from there.
> Mr. LIEBELER. All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked
> down into Elm Street, YOU SAW THE PRESIDENT HIT ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF
> THE HEAD AND YOU THOUGHT PERHAPS THE SHOTS HAD COME FROM BEHIND YOU?
> Mr. ZAPRUDER. WELL, YES.
> Mr. LIEBELER. From the direction behind you?
> Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes, actually ? I couldn't say what I thought at the
> moment, where they came from ? after the impact of the tragedy was
> really what I saw and I started and I said ? yelling, "They've killed
> him" ? I ASSUMED THEY CAME FROM THERE, BECAUSE AS THE POLICE STARTED
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 23, 10:22 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/23/2010 12:31 PM, Alex Foyle wrote:
>>> On Feb 23, 1:06 am, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
>> Are you sure he meant the LAST shot?
>
The YOUNG FELLA who was standing to his left on the same step.
See my diagram.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/knollmen.gif
> And tell us also who Hudson eventually did lay down with.
I don't care about eventually.
>
>>> Let's make the most of this thread and try and find out where F. Lee
>>> Mudd was standing.
>>
>> Why bother? It is unimportant.
>
> You must be kidding, right? What is your agenda here? Why do you
> bother posting in this thread then?
>
My agenda is to correct errors regardless of which side makes them.
> Are you trying to smear Mudd by mentioning him in the same breath as
> Arnold and Oliver? Is that your agenda?
>
No, not at all. I am trying to smear YOU by calling you a Harrisite.
> Do you think Mudd is a kook? You said �not necessarily�. What now, yes
> or no?
>
No, not Mudd. But he is not an important witness.
Only a kook would claim that he is an important witness.
Anthony Marsh
The way you are going about it, by misrepresenting the testimony. By
applying the Harris method without paying him royalties.
This is how a kook would evaluate Sam Holland's statement on 11/22/63
using the Harris method.
"and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to get over in the back seat to him
and then the second shot rang out."
So he looks at the films and finds that Jackie did not jump up until well
after the head shot and he concludes that the first shot was the head shot
and the second shot rang out after the head shot.
yeuhd
No, other way around. I read Mudd's testimony with his description of
where he stood and where the limousine was in relation to him at the
time of certain known events. His description required him to have
been definitely west of the Thornhill Freeway sign and almost
certainly west of the Stemmons Freeway sign too. There were only three
unidentified men in that stretch of Elm (the "dark-complected man" and
the two men by Emmett Hudson), and only two of those men dropped to
the ground after the shots were fired — both of them on the knoll
steps.
See the Art Rickerby photos:
http://www.jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html#_R
(They appear to have been taken from a moving vehicle in the order of
#3, #1, #2.)
Willis photos #6 and #7:
http://www.jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html#_W
Bond photo #4:
http://www.jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html#_B
Bothun photo #4:
http://www.jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html#_B
> > There are no unidentified men on the north side of Elm Street from the
> > Thornton Freeway sign (which the President was abreast about Z-200)
>
> So you claim. Then point out each one and identify him.
Starting at the Thornton Freeway sign and going along the north side
of Elm Street downhill to the Triple Underpass. All men are on the
sidewalk unless otherwise noted:
1. John Templin (seen at the center of Z-151)
http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/oral-histories/interviews-by-name?letter=T
2. Ernest Brandt (seen wearing suit and hat at the center of Z-151)
http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/oral-histories/interviews-by-name?letter=B
3. John Chism (seen with wife and child in Bronson photo #5, Willis
photo #5, and Betzner photo #3)
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0245a.htm
4. Alan Smith (seen in Bronson photo #5, Willis photo #5, and Betzner
photo #3 on sidewalk; and afterward in Rickerby photos #1 and #2
retreated to cupola shelter)
Chicago Tribune, Nov. 23, 1963, p. 9.
5. Charles Hester (seen in Bronson photo #5, sitting on bench by wife
on forecourt of pergola; afterward in Altgen photo #8 with wife on
ground in front of pergola colonnade)
6. Louie Steven Witt (seen in Bronson photo #5, standing with open
umbrella on the curb between the grass and the sidewalk)
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0217a.htm
7. "Dark-complected man" (seen waving at the bottom center of Z-230
and in Bronson photo #5)
Mentioned in L.S. Witt's testimony:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0219a.htm
Stemmons Freeway sign
8. Bill Newman (seen with wife and children in Bronson photo #5 and
afterward in numerous photos)
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0254b.htm
9. Abraham Zapruder (standing with Marilyn Sitzman on concrete parapet
at pergola)
10. Young black man (sitting with young black woman on bench in alcove
by pergola)
Mentioned in 1966 Marilyn Sitzman interview:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/sitzman.htm
11. "Industrial man"
Mentioned in Emmett Hudson's sheriff's affidavit and WC testimony.
12. Emmett Hudson
13. Red-shirted man
> > We now know the identities of six of those. Two of those six (Beatrice
> > Hester and Zapruder) could not tell from which direction the shots
> > came. The other four (Mudd, Sitzman, Hudson, and Charles Hester) said
> > the shots came from the direction of the Depository building.
>
> No, no Mudd. And Hudson said the shots came from behind him.
FBI interview of Emmett Hudson, November 25, 1963:
"Hudson said the shots sounded as if they were fired over his head and
from some position to the left of where he was standing. In other
words, the shots sounded as if they were fired by someone at a
position which was behind him, which was above him, and which was to
his left. He again called attention to the photograph referred to
above, and particularly to the corner of the Texas School Book
Depository building appearing in such photograph and said the shots
sounded as if they were coming from that building (Texas School Book
Depository building).
"Hudson stated when he heard the shots, he turned around and looked in
the general direction of the Texas School Book Depository building,
411 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas; however, he did not see anyone with a
rifle or firearm of any kind."
yeuhd
> On 2/24/2010 12:12 AM, yeuhd wrote:
>
> > On Feb 23, 9:38 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/23/2010 12:26 AM, yeuhd wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 22, 10:05 pm, "pjspe...@AOL.COM"<pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
> >>>> It should not go without saying, however, that the back of the
> >>>> arcade,
>
> >>> An area that was in full view of Lee Bowers.
>
> >> No. Bowers could not see through the fence. Bowers could not see through
> >> the trees. Bowers could not see through the pergola. Bowers said that he
> >> could not see the man in dark clothes because he was in the shadows.
>
> > Again, you try to pull a switcheroo, trying to put words in someone's
> > mouth that were not said. We are not talking seeing through a fence. We
>
> No, YOU said "full view." That means you think Bowers could see
> EVERYTHING in that area. So I pointed out what he couldn't see.
Pay attention.
pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
"It should not go without saying, however, that the back of the
arcade, where Newman and Zapruder thought the last shot/shots derived,
was in line with the location from where Hudson and Mudd thought the
shots had come, while the picket fence was not."
I wrote immediately after the phrase "the back of the arcade":
"An area that was in full view of Lee Bowers."
YOU started writing about the area behind the stockade fence, when
neither pjspeare nor I were talking about the area behind the fence.
> > Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes — after the shots — yes, some of them were
> > motorcycle cops — I guess they left their motorcycles running and they
> > were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting.
> > I guess they thought it came from right behind me.
> > Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any impression as to the direction from
> > which these shots came?
> > Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course,
>
> Here is where YOU misrepresent. Zapruder says "also" meaning he believed
> the shots came from where the police thought they came from, behind him on
> the grassy knoll.
What part of Zapruder's word "No" do you not understand in the passage
above? Zapruder makes it clear that he could not personally tell from
which direction the shots came, but inferred it only indirectly from
the direction the right side of President Kennedy's head was facing
when it exploded, and from the fact that police officers ran up the
knoll afterward.
How about his second "no":
Alex Foyle
> > Now, for a change, and before you accuse me of twisting the historical
> > facts again, why don’t you tell us when who told Hudson to lay down.
>
> The YOUNG FELLA who was standing to his left on the same step.
> See my diagram.
>
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/knollmen.gif
And when did the “young fella” say "lay down"? After the last shot?
> > And tell us also who Hudson eventually did lay down with.
>
> I don't care about eventually.
How pathetic is that? You pretend to not care, because Hudson
evidently did lay down with man in the red shirt.
> > You must be kidding, right? What is your agenda here? Why do you
> > bother posting in this thread then?
>
> My agenda is to correct errors regardless of which side makes them.
You haven't corrected one error in this thread, you are just huffing
and puffing abuses, as usual.
> > Do you think Mudd is a kook? You said “not necessarily”. What now, yes
> > or no?
>
> No, not Mudd. But he is not an important witness.
You don't even know where he was standing. And who are you to decide
who is an important witness and who not?
> Only a kook would claim that he is an important witness.
Only a kook would claim to decide who is an important witness,
especially when he doesn’t even know where that witness was standing
Alex Foyle
> > What's silly? Trying to find out where a witness was standing?
> The way you are going about it, by misrepresenting the testimony.
YOU blatantly misrepresented what Hudson said, as I showed in my last
long reply to you.
> By applying the Harris method without paying him royalties.
Why are you now frantically trying to divert attention from the real
issue here by calling everybody a "Harrisite"?
You pretend to neither care about which man got down with Hudson, nor
about where Mudd was actually standing.
On top of that you misrepresent everything Hudson said, by claiming
that the "young fella” next to Hudson told him to “lay down”.
Is that the Marsh method? Pulling a Tony?
Alex Foyle
> You can't see anything clearly in the Nix film. You are just guessing.
You seem to be the only one who can't or refuses to see these obvious
movements of the two men standing with Hudson.
> Hudson said it was the YOUNG fella who was standing NEXT to him.
> Somehow you twist this into an old man standing in front of him.
"Old man"? Where did I say that? You are the master twister here.
> Again, what is your agenda in twisting facts like this?
Again, I have no agenda, quit being obnoxious, Tony.
> "Beside me." You twist this into "in front of me."
> "This man." You twist this into "the other guy."
I didn't say/twist either of the two. Why do you make this up?
> Again, what is your agenda in twisting the historical record to fit your
> pet theories?
> > ….
> Silly. He said the man "beside me" told him to lay down.
You just don't listen. If you had read everything carefully it would
even dawn on you that the man in the red shirt was the man who said
lay down and he was also the man who did get down with Hudson. Both
actions confirmed by Hudson's statements and the photographic record.
You either believe Hudson, the photos and the films or you don’t. Make
up your mind.
> There weren't two men standing with him. The other man was standing in
> front of him. He only mentioned the man standing next to him because he
> had talked to him.
You pretend to be really ignorant about what Hudson actually said.
Take a break and read Hudson's statements again.
> > testimony did he mention both men. Only in his 11/26/63 FBI interview
> > did he point himself out in the Moorman photo as being the man in the
> > middle of the group of three men on the steps.
> Middle? Again you are misrepresenting historical facts to fit your wacky
> theories. What is your agenda in doing that?
In the middle of the three men you see on the Moorman photo, duh.
Quote from the FBI report:
“He (Hudson) pointed to the man in the middle of this group of three
individuals in the photograph (Moorman) and advised: “That is me in
the light colored clothing and that is where I was standing when the
President was shot.””
But to make it clear to you too, Hudson was standing to the right of
LSM (just to annoy you) and RSM was standing some steps further down
in front of Hudson and LSM. Still no agenda there, but you may
continue to aggravate and to delude yourself.
http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/mary_5.jpg
> Maybe the problem is that you don't have a good map showing where Hudson
> was.
>
> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/knollmen.gif
That's a good map? Wow, I can see Gordon Arnold and Badgeman ... but
at least Hudson is on the right spot, well done.
> Sure, maybe later after the shots. Hudson was only ever talking about the
> young man who had sat next to him and talked to him. Not the third guy.
The third guy? You just make this up, without any basis. Please reread
Hudson's statements.
> > If we take all of Hudson's statements and testimony as historical
> > fact, then the young man who said he works on Industrial Boulevard
> > must have been RSM and RSM must have also been the man who told Hudson
> > to get down. Would you agree?
>
> No, you are being silly. Just stop this nonsense.
No, you are being silly again. This is what Hudson said. From his
sheriff's statement:
"He also talked about working somewhere over on Industrial Blvd. This
man said lay down and we did."
The man in the red shirt was the man that sat down on the stairs with
Hudson, period. Either you believe Hudson or you don't. Perhaps you
have an agenda here?
> > And you would probably believe Hudson when he said that the third shot
> > was fired after the head shot, right?
>
> HE didn't say that. Liebeler did.
Hudson replied to Liebeler's question: “He was hit again after he got
hit in the head? Yes, Sir.”
And why would Liebeler try to “lead” Hudson to say that he heard a
third shot after the head shot?
Most of Hudson's testimony revolves around this issue. Here is another
exchange:
"Mr. LIEBELER - How many shots did you here altogether?
Mr. HUDSON - Three.
Mr. LIEBELER - Three shots?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the
head; is that right?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was.
Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question
in your mind about that, was there?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you here
another shot?
Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot?
Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. I'll tell you - this young fellow that was
sitting there with me - standing there with me at the present time, he
says, "lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says,
"Lay down, lay down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was
already laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over
on the ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third
shot rung out and when I was close to the ground - you could tell the
shot was coming from above and kind of behind."
> What's the point in bringing Mudd into this at all?
Again, because we don't know where Mudd was standing and Pat was
speculating whether Mudd could have been the man in the red shirt on
the stairs. Have you even read the title of this thread?
> > So do you "actually believe" that Mudd was a crackpot who only claimed
> > that he was in Dealey Plaza that day?
>
> Not necessarily Mudd, but others. I think there is one guy who hangs out
> in Dealey Plaza telling everyone how he was there that day.
> Mudd doesn't tell us anything useful and he admitted such.
At least you are not as audacious as you implied in your last post.
But your "Mudd doesn't tell us anything useful" is telling, thanks.
> So why do you put him on the grassy knoll?
Again, Pat started this thread and suggested that Mudd might have
stood with Hudson on the stairs due to Mudd's description of where he
was. Did you read Pat's and yeuhd's posts re Mudd's location? Did you
see Martin Hinrich's map? Ah, yes, you think it’s “childish”.
So where do you put Mudd, Mr. Know It All?
tomnln
Volume VII page 572.
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:938dabe8-0439-41f7...@b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Pay attention.
pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> > Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes � after the shots � yes, some of them were
> > motorcycle cops � I guess they left their motorcycles running and they
yeuhd
> Zapruder said the shots "came from behind me".
> Volume VII page 572.
Which part of the following testimony from 5 H 572 do you not
understand?
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any impression as to the direction from
which these shots came?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. NO, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course,
YOU CAN'T TELL when something is in line IT COULD COME FROM ANYWHERE,
but BEING AS I WAS HERE AND HE WAS HIT ON THIS LINE AND HE WAS HIT
RIGHT IN THE HEAD — I saw it right around here, so it looked like it
came from here and it could come from there.
Mr. LIEBELER. All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked
down into Elm Street, YOU SAW THE PRESIDENT HIT ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF
THE HEAD AND YOU THOUGHT PERHAPS the shots had come from behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, YES.
Mr. LIEBELER. From the direction behind you?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes, ACTUALLY — I COULDN'T SAY WHAT I THOUGHT AT THE
MOMENT, WHERE THEY CAME FROM — after the impact of the tragedy was
really what I saw and I started and I said — yelling, "They've killed
him" — I ASSUMED THAT THEY CAME FROM THERE, BECAUSE AS THE POLICE
STARTED RUNNING BACK OF ME, IT LOOKED LIKE IT CAME FROM THE BACK OF
ME.
Mr. LIEBELER. BUT YOU DIDN'T FORM ANY OPINION AT THAT TIME AS TO WHAT
DIRECTION THE SHOTS DID COME FROM ACTUALLY?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. NO.
Mr. LIEBELER. And you indicated that they could have come also from
behind or from any other direction except perhaps from the left,
because they could have been from behind or even from the front.
Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, it could have been — in other words if you have a
point — you could hit a point from any place, as far as that's
concerned. I HAVE NO WAY OF DETERMINING WHAT DIRECTION THE BULLET WAS
GOING.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you form any opinion about the direction from which
the shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you
had seen?
Mr. ZAPRUDER. NO, THERE WAS TOO MUCH REVERBERATION.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 25, 5:04 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> What's silly? Trying to find out where a witness was standing?
>
>> The way you are going about it, by misrepresenting the testimony.
>
> YOU blatantly misrepresented what Hudson said, as I showed in my last
> long reply to you.
>
>> By applying the Harris method without paying him royalties.
>
> Why are you now frantically trying to divert attention from the real
> issue here by calling everybody a "Harrisite"?
>
Why are you now frantically trying to divert attention from the real
issue here by falsely claiming that that I call EVERYBODY a Harrisite?
> You pretend to neither care about which man got down with Hudson, nor
> about where Mudd was actually standing.
>
I don't care about the exact spot where he was standing. I know it
wasn't next to Hudson.
> On top of that you misrepresent everything Hudson said, by claiming
> that the "young fella� next to Hudson told him to �lay down�.
>
> Is that the Marsh method? Pulling a Tony?
>
Unlike you I post a link to his earliest statement, the one he gave that
same day, so that anyone can doublecheck the wording for themselves.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hudson1.htm
VOLUNTARY STATEMENT. Not Under Arrest Form No. 86
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
COUNTY OF DALLAS, TEXAS
Before me, the undersigned authority, on this the 22nd day of November
A.D. 1963 personally appeared Emmett Joseph Hudson, Address 107 South
Bishop, Dallas, Texas Age 56 , Phone No. WH 2-2008
Deposes and says:
I am presently employed by the City of Dallas, Texas in the Park
Department. I have been so employed for the past 6 years. My position is
to take care of the property on the West side of Houston Street between
Houston Street and the Tripple [sic] Underpass. I also take care of the
fountain in front of the Union Terminal. This day a was sitting on the
front steps of the sloping area and about half way down the steps. There
was another man sitting there with me. He was sitting on my left and we
were both facing the street with our backs to the railroad yards and the
brick building. At the same time the President's car was directly in
front of us, I heard a shot and I saw the President fall over in the
seat. I do not know who this other man was that was sitting beside me.
In our conversation he talked about having a hard time finding a place
to park. He also talked about working somewhere over on Industrial Blvd.
This man said Lay down and we did. I definately [sic] heard 3 shots. The
shots that I heard definately [sic] came from behind and above me. When
I laid down on the ground I laid on my right side and my view was still
toward the street where the President's car had passed. I did look
around but I did not see any firearms at all. This shot sounded to me
like a high powered rifle.
/s/ Emmett J. Hudson
Subscribed and sworn to before me on this the 22nd day of Nov A. D. 1963
/s/ C. M. Jones
Notary Public, Dallas County, Texas
He is talking about the man who was sitting beside him. Then he said
that "this man" told him to lay down. I can understand simple English
and substitute the referenced object for "this."
So Hudson is clearly saying that the man who was sitting beside him is
the one who told him to lay down. And they both did.
If you have a different interpretation of that statement then you are
the one misrepresenting.
>
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 25, 4:59 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> Now, for a change, and before you accuse me of twisting the historical
>>
>> The YOUNG FELLA who was standing to his left on the same step.
>> See my diagram.
>>
>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/knollmen.gif
>
>
Instead of dealing with what I said you ask a stupid question. Hudson
thought the first shot did not hit Kennedy and the second shot hit Kennedy
in the head. Then he heard a shot after the head shot. What you are
talking about is Liebeler leading the witness, trying to get him to
endorse the official shooting sequence which has the third shot as the
head shot.
In his WC testimony Hudson does not specify exactly when the young fella
started saying to lay down. Hudson thinks they did lay down between the
head shot and the last shot.
>>> And tell us also who Hudson eventually did lay down with.
>>
>> I don't care about eventually.
>
> How pathetic is that? You pretend to not care, because Hudson
> evidently did lay down with man in the red shirt.
>
So what? His comments were about the man who told him to lay down.
I don't who else was lying down where.
>>> You must be kidding, right? What is your agenda here? Why do you
>>> bother posting in this thread then?
>>
>> My agenda is to correct errors regardless of which side makes them.
>
> You haven't corrected one error in this thread, you are just huffing
> and puffing abuses, as usual.
>
>>> Do you think Mudd is a kook? You said ?not necessarily?. What now, yes
>>> or no?
>>
>> No, not Mudd. But he is not an important witness.
>
> You don't even know where he was standing. And who are you to decide
> who is an important witness and who not?
>
>> Only a kook would claim that he is an important witness.
>
> Only a kook would claim to decide who is an important witness,
> especially when he doesn?t even know where that witness was standing
>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
I was objecting to your claim that Bowers had a full view of the entire
area. And no one said a shooter was behind the pergola.
I said the shooter was behind the fence.
Bowers said he could not see the man in dark clothing in that area
because of the shadows.
>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. Yes � after the shots � yes, some of them were
>>> motorcycle cops � I guess they left their motorcycles running and they
>>> were running right behind me, of course, in the line of the shooting.
>>> I guess they thought it came from right behind me.
>>> Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any impression as to the direction from
>>> which these shots came?
>>> Mr. ZAPRUDER. No, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course,
>>
>> Here is where YOU misrepresent. Zapruder says "also" meaning he believed
>> the shots came from where the police thought they came from, behind him on
>> the grassy knoll.
>
> What part of Zapruder's word "No" do you not understand in the passage
> above? Zapruder makes it clear that he could not personally tell from
> which direction the shots came, but inferred it only indirectly from
> the direction the right side of President Kennedy's head was facing
> when it exploded, and from the fact that police officers ran up the
> knoll afterward.
>
What part of Loftus do you not understand? Go to the earliest statement.
Don't be fooled by an attorney leading the witness.
> How about his second "no":
>
> Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't form any opinion at that time as to what
> direction the shots did come from actually?
> Mr. ZAPRUDER. No.
>
He did. And the FBI also lied by saying that he didn't have any initial
impression. His initial impression was that the assassin was behind him,
as he told the FBI that day.
Anthony Marsh
That would not be 50 feet away from the limousine at the time of the
first shot and much more than 100 feet away from the TSBD.
Place the limousine wherever you want for the first shot and then use a
compass set to 50 feet from the right front corner to draw a circle.
Then use the compass set to 100 feet from the SW corner of the TSBD and
draw a circle and see where they intersect. It ain't on the grassy knoll.
> unidentified men in that stretch of Elm (the "dark-complected man" and
> the two men by Emmett Hudson), and only two of those men dropped to
> the ground after the shots were fired � both of them on the knoll
> steps.
>
> See the Art Rickerby photos:
>
> http://www.jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html#_R
>
> (They appear to have been taken from a moving vehicle in the order of
> #3, #1, #2.)
>
> Willis photos #6 and #7:
>
> http://www.jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html#_W
>
> Bond photo #4:
>
> http://www.jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html#_B
>
> Bothun photo #4:
>
> http://www.jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html#_B
>
>>> There are no unidentified men on the north side of Elm Street from the
>>> Thornton Freeway sign (which the President was abreast about Z-200)
>>
>> So you claim. Then point out each one and identify him.
>
> Starting at the Thornton Freeway sign and going along the north side
> of Elm Street downhill to the Triple Underpass. All men are on the
> sidewalk unless otherwise noted:
>
> 1. John Templin (seen at the center of Z-151)
> http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/oral-histories/interviews-by-name?letter=T
>
So you claim, but do not prove.
> 2. Ernest Brandt (seen wearing suit and hat at the center of Z-151)
> http://www.jfk.org/go/collections/oral-histories/interviews-by-name?letter=B
>
Do you really think Brandt is telling the truth?
> 3. John Chism (seen with wife and child in Bronson photo #5, Willis
> photo #5, and Betzner photo #3)
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0245a.htm
>
> 4. Alan Smith (seen in Bronson photo #5, Willis photo #5, and Betzner
> photo #3 on sidewalk; and afterward in Rickerby photos #1 and #2
> retreated to cupola shelter)
> Chicago Tribune, Nov. 23, 1963, p. 9.
>
> 5. Charles Hester (seen in Bronson photo #5, sitting on bench by wife
> on forecourt of pergola; afterward in Altgen photo #8 with wife on
> ground in front of pergola colonnade)
>
> 6. Louie Steven Witt (seen in Bronson photo #5, standing with open
> umbrella on the curb between the grass and the sidewalk)
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0217a.htm
>
And you believe it really was Witt?
> 7. "Dark-complected man" (seen waving at the bottom center of Z-230
> and in Bronson photo #5)
All you say is "dark-complected" and then you claim that means he is
identified? Maybe he's Mudd for all you know.
> Mentioned in L.S. Witt's testimony:
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0219a.htm
>
> Stemmons Freeway sign
>
> 8. Bill Newman (seen with wife and children in Bronson photo #5 and
> afterward in numerous photos)
> http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0254b.htm
>
> 9. Abraham Zapruder (standing with Marilyn Sitzman on concrete parapet
> at pergola)
>
> 10. Young black man (sitting with young black woman on bench in alcove
> by pergola)
> Mentioned in 1966 Marilyn Sitzman interview:
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/sitzman.htm
>
Mentioned but you don't show where he was at the time of the shooting.
And you don't show him in any photos. Gordon Arnold also said he was
there, so you might include him in your identified witnesses.
> 11. "Industrial man"
Young Fella.
> Mentioned in Emmett Hudson's sheriff's affidavit and WC testimony.
>
> 12. Emmett Hudson
>
> 13. Red-shirted man
>
>>> We now know the identities of six of those. Two of those six (Beatrice
>>> Hester and Zapruder) could not tell from which direction the shots
>>> came. The other four (Mudd, Sitzman, Hudson, and Charles Hester) said
>>> the shots came from the direction of the Depository building.
>>
>> No, no Mudd. And Hudson said the shots came from behind him.
>
> FBI interview of Emmett Hudson, November 25, 1963:
>
> "Hudson said the shots sounded as if they were fired over his head and
> from some position to the left of where he was standing. In other
> words, the shots sounded as if they were fired by someone at a
> position which was behind him, which was above him, and which was to
> his left. He again called attention to the photograph referred to
Yes, so shade in the area behind him and to his left. Then shade in the
area behind and to the right of Zapruder and see where they intersect.
> above, and particularly to the corner of the Texas School Book
> Depository building appearing in such photograph and said the shots
> sounded as if they were coming from that building (Texas School Book
> Depository building).
>
Well, guess what, 3 shots did come from the sniper's nest. But that was
not behind Hudson. The fence was behind Hudson.
yeuhd
> I said the shooter was behind the fence.
> Bowers said he could not see the man in dark clothing in that area
> because of the shadows.
Bowers made it clear in his filmed interview with Mark Lane that the
two men were in the area *between* the pergola and the stockade fence.
And that as one of the men walked back and forth, he periodically
disappeared from Bowers' view behind the fence. In other words, that
the man was on the Elm Street side of the fence:
"These two men were standing back from the street somewhat AT THE TOP
OF THE INCLINE and were VERY NEAR TWO TREES WHICH WERE IN THE AREA.
And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth,
DISAPPEARED BEHIND A WOODEN FENCE WHICH IS ALSO SLIGHTLY TO THE WEST
OF THAT. These two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there
at the time of the shooting."
The area in which Bowers said he could not see the darker dressed man
was *not* the back of the fence.
Mr. BOWERS. He [the police officer] came up into this area where there
are some trees, and WHERE I HAD DESCRIBED THE TWO MEN WERE in the
general vicinity of this.
Mr. BALL. Were the two men THERE at the time?
Mr. BOWERS. I — as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could
not say.
The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees.
Bowers *never* said that he saw either of the men on Bowers' side of
the fence. In fact, Bowers stated plainly in his filmed interview with
Mark Lane that "no one" was on his side of the fence when the shots
were fired. Not surprisingly, Lane edited out that part of the Bowers
interview when he used it in the documentary "Rush to Judgment".
yeuhd
> On 2/25/2010 9:00 AM, yeuhd wrote:
> > 7. "Dark-complected man" (seen waving at the bottom center of Z-230
> > and in Bronson photo #5)
>
> All you say is "dark-complected" and then you claim that means he is
> identified? Maybe he's Mudd for all you know.
Are you even paying attention? In this thread I have included the
"dark-complected man" in the short list of UNIDENTIFIED men on the
north side of Elm Street.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6dc02d9d646e50ea
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1848219c81e13491
> > 11. "Industrial man"
>
> Young Fella.
"I intensely dislike all this making up cute terms and acronyms for
spectators"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/8873e5269d35a3f6
yeuhd
in Shreveport, Louisiana:
"The Mudd who ran the Southside Ranch Shop was Francis Lee Mudd Sr.,
who was married to Faye Katherine or Katherine Faye (maiden name
unknown at this time). His probable son was actually named Lee S.
Mudd, married to Joyce (maiden name unknown presently). Lee S. Mudd is
a forester and is still living.… Francis Lee Mudd was married to
Gertrude in the early 1930's before marrying Faye about 1956, so
Gertrude was probably Lee S. Mudd's mother. Francis Lee Mudd was an
insurance salesman until about 1957, then he ran a gas station in
Keithville (Lee's Cities Service). In 1962, he is shown as the owner
of the Southside Ranch Shop. From 1967 until his death, Francis Lee
Mudd was a representative for Louisiana Hospital Services. Katherine
Faye Mudd, his wife, died in 1994. Hope that this is helpful."
So, combining this with the information in the 1930 U.S. Census and
the Social Security Death Index, we now know that the F. Lee Mudd who
was in Dealey Plaza, and who operated the Southside Ranch Shop, was a
60-year-old white man.
Don Roberdeau and Boquet-Dehaeseleer both identify F. Lee Mudd as a
black man in a blue shirt standing on the sidewalk uphill (east) of
the Thornton Freeway sign:
http://www.copweb.be/Les%20temoins%20de%20Dealey%20Plaza-2.htm
They are clearly wrong.
Given that we now know the race of F. Lee Mudd, there are now only TWO
unidentified white men on the north side of Elm Street who could be
Mudd. Both are standing by Emmett Hudson on the knoll stairs. There
are simply no other unidentified white men on the north side of Elm
Street who were standing *downhill* of the limousine, as Mudd says he
was, when President Kennedy began to slump (Z-210 to Z-223, depending
on whom you believe).
Nor are there any other UNidentified white men along the north side of
Elm Street between the Thornton Freeway sign and the Triple Underpass
who are known from films, photos or witness accounts to have dropped
to the ground after the shots were fired.
Hudson said that the "young fellow" was standing "on the left side" of
Hudson as the motorcade came down Elm Street. That leaves 60-year-old
F. Lee Mudd to be the man in the red shirt, standing below Hudson.
Alex Foyle
> Instead of dealing with what I said you ask a stupid question.
YOU were the one who asked me whether I am sure that Hudson was told
to lay down after the last shot. Apart from not being a “stupid”
question it was your “stupid” question in the first place. I replied
to you by saying that I am not 100% sure and therefore reposted
Hudson’s WC testimony in which he refers to that moment and asked you
to tell me which man told Hudson to lay down and when he did that. You
erroneously claimed again that the “young fella next” to Hudson told
him to lay down, but you refrained from answering when that happened
(after the second shot or after the last shot?). So when I asked you
to answer your own question based on Hudson’s statements you tell me
it’s a stupid question … you really are a piece of work, Marsh.
> > You pretend to not care, because Hudson evidently did lay down with man in the red shirt.
>
> So what? His comments were about the man who told him to lay down.
> I don't who else was lying down where.
You don’t what? Probably you don’t care again, right? But you should,
because for the final time I quote Hudson to you from his sheriff’s
statement (1) and his WC testimony (2):
(1) "He also talked about working somewhere over on Industrial Blvd.
This man said lay down and we did."
(2) „I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting there with me
- standing there with me at the present time, he says, "lay down,
Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay
down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying
down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground
and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and
when I was close to the ground …”
As you can see, in both statements Hudson said that the man who told
him to lay down was also the man who did lay down with him, i.e. the
man in the red shirt. The man in the light shirt never did lay down on
the stairs with Hudson as he ran towards the back within seconds after
the head shot.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 25, 5:12 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Zapruder said the shots "came from behind me".
>> Volume VII page 572.
>
> Which part of the following testimony from 5 H 572 do you not
> understand?
>
> Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any impression as to the direction from
> which these shots came?
> Mr. ZAPRUDER. NO, I also thought it came from back of me. Of course,
> YOU CAN'T TELL when something is in line IT COULD COME FROM ANYWHERE,
> but BEING AS I WAS HERE AND HE WAS HIT ON THIS LINE AND HE WAS HIT
> came from here and it could come from there.
> Mr. LIEBELER. All right, as you stood here on the abutment and looked
> down into Elm Street, YOU SAW THE PRESIDENT HIT ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF
> THE HEAD AND YOU THOUGHT PERHAPS the shots had come from behind you?
> Mr. ZAPRUDER. Well, YES.
> Mr. LIEBELER. From the direction behind you?
> MOMENT, WHERE THEY CAME FROM ? after the impact of the tragedy was
> really what I saw and I started and I said ? yelling, "They've killed
> him" ? I ASSUMED THAT THEY CAME FROM THERE, BECAUSE AS THE POLICE
> STARTED RUNNING BACK OF ME, IT LOOKED LIKE IT CAME FROM THE BACK OF
> ME.
> Mr. LIEBELER. BUT YOU DIDN'T FORM ANY OPINION AT THAT TIME AS TO WHAT
> DIRECTION THE SHOTS DID COME FROM ACTUALLY?
> Mr. ZAPRUDER. NO.
> Mr. LIEBELER. And you indicated that they could have come also from
> behind or from any other direction except perhaps from the left,
> because they could have been from behind or even from the front.
> point ? you could hit a point from any place, as far as that's
> concerned. I HAVE NO WAY OF DETERMINING WHAT DIRECTION THE BULLET WAS
> GOING.
> Mr. LIEBELER. Did you form any opinion about the direction from which
> the shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you
> had seen?
> Mr. ZAPRUDER. NO, THERE WAS TOO MUCH REVERBERATION.
>
What part of Loftus do you not understand? She says go to the earliest
statement. Zapruder's earliest statement that afternoon was "the position
of the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder."
Alex Foyle
> Unlike you I post a link to his earliest statement, the one he gave that
> same day, so that anyone can doublecheck the wording for themselves.
You really believe your own delusions, huh? Because if you actually
check the posts in this thread you will see that I was the first one
to post the link to Hudson's first statement, as well as to his WC
testimony and the FBI report about him.
From the sheriff’s statement:
> He also talked about working somewhere over on Industrial Blvd.
> This man said Lay down and we did.
Hudson said that he did lay down ("we did") with the man who told him
to do so. And the man Hudson did lay down with was the man in the red
shirt.
> He is talking about the man who was sitting beside him. Then he said
> that "this man" told him to lay down. I can understand simple English
> and substitute the referenced object for "this."
> So Hudson is clearly saying that the man who was sitting beside him is
> the one who told him to lay down. And they both did.
Exactly, Tony, "they both did". The man in the red shirt did lay down
with him, because the man in the light shirt had run towards the
back.
> If you have a different interpretation of that statement then you are
> the one misrepresenting.
I guess you have to make up your mind now and decide whether you
believe Hudson and the photographic record or if you want to continue
to misrepresent both.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 26, 4:02 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Instead of dealing with what I said you ask a stupid question.
>
> YOU were the one who asked me whether I am sure that Hudson was told
> question it was your �stupid� question in the first place. I replied
> to you by saying that I am not 100% sure and therefore reposted
> to tell me which man told Hudson to lay down and when he did that. You
> him to lay down, but you refrained from answering when that happened
> (after the second shot or after the last shot?). So when I asked you
> it�s a stupid question � you really are a piece of work, Marsh.
>
>>> You pretend to not care, because Hudson evidently did lay down with man in the red shirt.
>>
>> So what? His comments were about the man who told him to lay down.
>> I don't who else was lying down where.
>
> because for the final time I quote Hudson to you from his sheriff�s
> statement (1) and his WC testimony (2):
>
> (1) "He also talked about working somewhere over on Industrial Blvd.
> This man said lay down and we did."
>
> - standing there with me at the present time, he says, "lay down,
> Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay
> down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying
> down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground
> and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and
>
> As you can see, in both statements Hudson said that the man who told
> him to lay down was also the man who did lay down with him, i.e. the
> man in the red shirt. The man in the light shirt never did lay down on
> the stairs with Hudson as he ran towards the back within seconds after
> the head shot.
>
That is ludicrous. The man in the red shirt was not the young fella who
was standing next to him.
Anthony Marsh
No contradiction. I did not make up that cute term. Robert Cutler did,
based on Hudson's testimony.
Anthony Marsh
>> I said the shooter was behind the fence.
>> Bowers said he could not see the man in dark clothing in that area
>> because of the shadows.
>
> Bowers made it clear in his filmed interview with Mark Lane that the
> two men were in the area *between* the pergola and the stockade fence.
> And that as one of the men walked back and forth, he periodically
> disappeared from Bowers' view behind the fence. In other words, that
> the man was on the Elm Street side of the fence:
>
> "These two men were standing back from the street somewhat AT THE TOP
> OF THE INCLINE and were VERY NEAR TWO TREES WHICH WERE IN THE AREA.
> And one of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth,
> DISAPPEARED BEHIND A WOODEN FENCE WHICH IS ALSO SLIGHTLY TO THE WEST
> OF THAT. These two men to the best of my knowledge were standing there
> at the time of the shooting."
>
Sure, so do you think he meant the North leg of the fence?
And this is well before the shooting. He just assumed that were in the
same area at the time of the shooting.
Maybe they were looking for the best shooting location.
> The area in which Bowers said he could not see the darker dressed man
> was *not* the back of the fence.
>
He did not see him at the time of the shooting.
> Mr. BOWERS. He [the police officer] came up into this area where there
> are some trees, and WHERE I HAD DESCRIBED THE TWO MEN WERE in the
> general vicinity of this.
> Mr. BALL. Were the two men THERE at the time?
> Mr. BOWERS. I � as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could
> not say.
> The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees.
>
> Bowers *never* said that he saw either of the men on Bowers' side of
> the fence. In fact, Bowers stated plainly in his filmed interview with
You overlook the fact that there were too legs to the fence, the north
leg and the west leg.
> Mark Lane that "no one" was on his side of the fence when the shots
> were fired. Not surprisingly, Lane edited out that part of the Bowers
No, just that he couldn't see anyone there.
yeuhd
> > not say.
> > The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees.
>
> > Bowers *never* said that he saw either of the men on Bowers' side of
> > the fence. In fact, Bowers stated plainly in his filmed interview with
>
> You overlook the fact that there were too legs to the fence, the north
> leg and the west leg.
>
> > Mark Lane that "no one" was on his side of the fence when the shots
> > were fired. Not surprisingly, Lane edited out that part of the Bowers
>
> No, just that he couldn't see anyone there.
No, Bowers did *not* say the back side of the fence (either leg!) was
where he could not see the darker dressed man. Read his testimony. At no
time did Bowers say either man was inside the fence area (either leg!).
Bowers said that after the shooting, he was not sure if the darker dressed
man was in the area "where I had described the two men were". The area
Bowers described where the two men were before and during the shooting was
the area between the pergola and the fence:
"These two men were standing back from the street somewhat AT THE TOP OF
THE INCLINE and were VERY NEAR TWO TREES WHICH WERE IN THE AREA. And one
of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, DISAPPEARED BEHIND
A WOODEN FENCE WHICH IS ALSO SLIGHTLY TO THE WEST OF THAT. These two men
to the best of my knowledge were standing there at the time of the
shooting."
In his filmed interview with Mark Lane, Bowers specifically dismisses the
idea of a second gunman being behind the fence because, he says, at the
time of the shooting "no one" was behind the fence — not "I couldn't
tell if…" or "Maybe, but I couldn't see…" Bowers further establishes
in the interview that no strangers were in the area between the fence and
his tower. After he describes to Mark Lane the three cars that circled the
parking lot in the twenty minutes before the motorcade, Bowers says,
"Most of the other people who were in the area I knew, if not by name,
then by seeing them day after day [in his Warren Commission testimony,
Bowers said that one or two uniformed parking lot attendants were
present], so that there was no one unaccounted for in the immediate area
other than this, the three who were in these three cars that have been
mentioned."
yeuhd
> What part of Loftus do you not understand? She says go to the earliest
> statement. Zapruder's earliest statement that afternoon was "the position
> of the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder."
No one disputes that Zapruder thought that. Zapruder says quite openly in
his Warren Commission testimony that he thought that. But Zapruder ALSO
makes clear that he only inferred that conclusion INDIRECTLY, from the
direction the right side of the President's head was facing when it
exploded, and from the fact that the police ran up the knoll afterward.
Zapruder says he had no way of directly determining the direction from
which the bullets came because there was too much reverberation.
And your suggestion that Zapruder was conforming his WC testimony to the
conventional belief that all shots came from the TSBD, doesn't make sense
— mainly because Zapruder never claimed that he heard the shots come
from the TSBD.
Anthony Marsh
> On Feb 26, 8:16 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> What part of Loftus do you not understand? She says go to the earliest
>> statement. Zapruder's earliest statement that afternoon was "the position
>> of the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder."
>
> No one disputes that Zapruder thought that. Zapruder says quite openly in
> his Warren Commission testimony that he thought that. But Zapruder ALSO
> makes clear that he only inferred that conclusion INDIRECTLY, from the
> direction the right side of the President's head was facing when it
> exploded, and from the fact that the police ran up the knoll afterward.
Partly correct. Just like the Parkland doctors and Kilduff he got that
impression partly because the right side of Kennedy's head opened up. But
that supposed entrance wound does not tell you where the SHOOTER is. It
would be theoretically possible for a shooter firing from another window
in the TSBD to hit Kennedy's right temple. That location would not be
behind Zapruder and to his right.
> Zapruder says he had no way of directly determining the direction from
> which the bullets came because there was too much reverberation.
>
After being led by counsel who was trying to negate his earliest statement
because they KNEW that most people said the shots came from the grassy
knoll and that would mean conspiracy and WWIII which they were tasked to
prevent at all costs.
> And your suggestion that Zapruder was conforming his WC testimony to the
> conventional belief that all shots came from the TSBD, doesn't make sense
> ? mainly because Zapruder never claimed that he heard the shots come
> from the TSBD.
>
It makes a lot of sense because that is what he said later, that the
shots came from the TSBD, because the WC said so.
Anthony Marsh
>>> not say.
>>> The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees.
>>
>>> Bowers *never* said that he saw either of the men on Bowers' side of
>>> the fence. In fact, Bowers stated plainly in his filmed interview with
>>
>> You overlook the fact that there were too legs to the fence, the north
>> leg and the west leg.
>>
>>> Mark Lane that "no one" was on his side of the fence when the shots
>>> were fired. Not surprisingly, Lane edited out that part of the Bowers
>>
>> No, just that he couldn't see anyone there.
>
> No, Bowers did *not* say the back side of the fence (either leg!) was
> where he could not see the darker dressed man. Read his testimony. At no
> time did Bowers say either man was inside the fence area (either leg!).
He can't say where the man was when he couldn't see him. He only
described where the man was when he could see him.
> Bowers said that after the shooting, he was not sure if the darker dressed
> man was in the area "where I had described the two men were". The area
> Bowers described where the two men were before and during the shooting was
> the area between the pergola and the fence:
>
That's the north leg of the fence.
> "These two men were standing back from the street somewhat AT THE TOP OF
> THE INCLINE and were VERY NEAR TWO TREES WHICH WERE IN THE AREA. And one
> of them, from time to time as he walked back and forth, DISAPPEARED BEHIND
> A WOODEN FENCE WHICH IS ALSO SLIGHTLY TO THE WEST OF THAT. These two men
> to the best of my knowledge were standing there at the time of the
> shooting."
>
Why don't you put it ALL in CAPS? What's your damn point?
> In his filmed interview with Mark Lane, Bowers specifically dismisses the
> idea of a second gunman being behind the fence because, he says, at the
> time of the shooting "no one" was behind the fence � not "I couldn't
> tell if�" or "Maybe, but I couldn't see�" Bowers further establishes
> in the interview that no strangers were in the area between the fence and
> his tower. After he describes to Mark Lane the three cars that circled the
> parking lot in the twenty minutes before the motorcade, Bowers says,
>
The mere fact that the photographic evidence shows someone behind the
fence proves Bowers wrong.
> "Most of the other people who were in the area I knew, if not by name,
> then by seeing them day after day [in his Warren Commission testimony,
> Bowers said that one or two uniformed parking lot attendants were
> present], so that there was no one unaccounted for in the immediate area
> other than this, the three who were in these three cars that have been
> mentioned."
>
Three men? OK, so he sees two of them milling around near the pergola.
Where is the third then?
yeuhd
> > "Most of the other people who were in the area I knew, if not by name,
> > then by seeing them day after day [in his Warren Commission testimony,
> > Bowers said that one or two uniformed parking lot attendants were
> > present], so that there was no one unaccounted for in the immediate area
> > other than this, the three who were in these three cars that have been
> > mentioned."
>
> Three men? OK, so he sees two of them milling around near the pergola.
> Where is the third then?
Bowers said three cars circled around the parking lot in the period
11:55–12:25. The first two cars left without parking (others have said
that the lot was full when they went back there after the assassination),
but Bowers did not know what became of the third car. He did, however, say
that no strangers were in the immediate area at the time the motorcade
went by, and said without qualification that "no one" was on his side of
the fence when the shots were fired. I know that upsets you.