Oswald--Patsy and Conspirator
dcwi...@netscape.net
On Friday, November 22, 1963, Lee Oswald made no attempt to conceal
himself in the windows of the Texas School Book Depository. He was, if
anything, outrageously obvious, but only because he knew that no film
or photo of him in any window would ever become public....
12:22pm TSBD employees Harold Norman & James Jarman enter the building
through the back door
[Norman testified that the two left the front of the building when they
heard that the motorcade was on Main (v3p190) TSBD supe Roy Truly
testified that he saw the two of them, with Charles Givens, go partway
across Houston, then double back, while Givens proceeded away from
Dealey (v7pp385-6)]
12:25pm Norman & Jarman take the stairs to the fifth floor. At the
stairwell there, they meet fellow employee Bonnie Ray Williams. The
latter tells them to wait, & call out if there is a problem, if someone
approaches via stairs or elevator. He takes a few steps back into the
room, looks through stacks of book boxes, & sees another TSBD employee,
Danny Arce, lying motionless, on his stomach, near the extreme
southwest window facing Elm Street. By Arce's side, on the floor, is a
rifle, a Mannlicher-Carcano. The window is wide open.
[Williams, Arce, and Oswald all began working at the Elm Street
depository in October (v3p163; v6p164; & WR p738, resp.). Arce had no
one who could vouch for where he was, exactly--out front--at 12:30
(v6p366). But Williams & Arce were together a lot that day. They took
the same elevator downstairs at lunch time (v6p364), had a (broken)
agreement to meet for lunch on the 6th floor (v3p169), and left the
building in the same police car (Trask, p549) Williams, in fact,
seemed to be getting a little daring when he testified, "This Spanish
boy, by the name of Danny Arce--we had agreed at first to come back up
to the sixth floor (v3p169)." Williams & Jarman both testified that
*Jarman* opened the SW window *after* the shooting, some five minutes
*later*. (v3pp177 & 205, resp.) But Moorman photo #3 shows that this
window was open as early as 12:25, before a shot was fired. The photo
was not published until 1994, after a couple FOIA requests from Richard
Trask (p259). Oswald of course knew that Norman & Jarman were
downstairs about 12:22--as Fritz's notes & FBI agent James Bookhout's
11/25/63 report (WR pp622) suggest--because that was part of the plan.]
Williams hears someone moving around the southeast corner of the room,
though he cannot see him from where he stands. But he knows who it
is--Oswald. Unlike Arce, the latter is bending down into his wide-open
window, & all but waving to the crowd below. His head & body are
angled towards the triple underpass, but he's also checking out the
traffic at Houston & Main, in anticipation of the appearance of the
Presidential limo. For some reason, he seems to discount the fact that
he can easily be seen from below, although a rifle lies near him,
too--another M-C.
[Before 12:30, a man on an upper floor of the TSBD managed to make his
presence known to several people. Witness Howard Brennan perhaps
exaggerated when he said that the very visible man "sat sideways on the
window sill" (v3p144)--perhaps not. Robert Edwards said that he could
see the man from the waist up (v6p203). Ronald Fischer could see the
man's slacks (v19p526), said the man was "in a funny position"
(v24p209), & "held my attention for 10 or 15 seconds, because he
appeared uncomfortable, for one, &, secondly... he didn't look like he
was watching the parade. He looked like he was looking down toward the
Trinity River & the triple underpass...." (v6p193). And Mrs. Carolyn
Walther insisted that the man she saw in that same window was on a
floor no higher than the fifth (v24p523). This man on the fifth
floor--Oswald--can be seen in the Weaver Polaroid, as the limo turns
the corner from Main onto Houston, tho he is too indistinct to be
identified. In the same photo, only boxes seem to occupy the 6th-floor
window directly above. (Trask p244) There is no one apparent in
Jarman's or Williams' windows. Two continuing puzzlements: Whether
Oswald was in the "sniper's nest" (as he was supposed to have been) or
in, as I believe, the corner fifth-floor window, why did no one--or,
that is, at least Brennan, Fischer & Edwards--officially attend a
lineup that afternoon? (Brennan was not in the initial record of the
7:55 lineup--nor was his supposed sponsor, Sorrels [Myers p458]). And
why did the very obvious Oswald seem not to be afraid that someone he
knew, from the depository, might recognize him, before or after the
deed? As it was, no one did, & indeed, logically, his fellow employees
would simply have walked out front & stood on Elm's north sidewalk,
waiting for the motorcade.]
As the Presidential limo turns onto Houston, Oswald begins to move back
a bit, & says one word: "Now!" Williams begins to walk towards the
sound of the voice, while Arce picks up the rifle beside him & wriggles
closer to the window sill. At this point, Oswald stays only close
enough to *his* window to see the progress of the limo, and Williams is
crouching, almost right behind him, but out of view of the crowd below.
Satisfied that the limo is getting within shooting range, as it turns
onto Elm St., Oswald backs around Williams & pats him on the back,
turns & begins walking diagonally across the room, zigzagging around
stacks of boxes, while Williams calls out "Dan!" & falls to the floor
near where Oswald was leaning out. Gingerly, he picks up the rifle
beside him and starts sliding it out onto the sill. Completely out of
view of onlookers, still lying down, he is reaching up with his right
arm & holding it only by the butt, with one hand, as the barrel sticks
a foot or two out the window. He aims, or guides it in the general
direction of the triple underpass. At the stairwell, Oswald just says
"Okay" to Norman & Jarman, & they begin their own zigzag towards the
southeast corner. Arce is now crouching low behind the left frame of
the end window. He is waiting for the limo to come into view. When it
does, he rises slightly & raises the rifle until the end of the barrel
is angled down just beyond the sill. He takes aim at his target and
fires one, two, three shots. Startled, & halfway across the room,
Norman & Jarman halt momentarily. Meanwhile, Arce takes only a
half-second to determine that he has hit the President, and pulls the
rifle back and drops to the floor. After Arce fires his last shot,
Williams pulls his rifle back, wriggles back into the shadows, stands
up, then bends over and stuffs the rifle into the bottom of a long box
loosely filled with books. He takes another box from the floor beside
it, then another, & places them, in turn, on the top of the rifle box.
[Mrs Walther said that she saw two men in the window, about 12:29, the
most prominent holding out a rifle, the second standing semi-obscured
behind him. But no other witness described a rifle sticking out an end
window that early, and it's unlikely that more than one man would have
been visible this early. Which Carcano was used--Oswald's or the other
one? A serial-number match says that it was Oswald's (WR pp118-19),
but researcher Walt Cakebread insists that the Carcano in Oswald's
backyard photos was not the same one taken from the depository &
entered into evidence. The rifle which witnesses Brennan, Euins, &
James Worrell (v2p193) saw above them in the southeast corner of the
TSBD was almost undoubtedly a decoy, like Oswald himself, meant to
distract attention from the real shooter, at the other end of the
building. It was not used to shoot. Brennan admitted that he saw no
smoke, fire, recoil (v3p154). The rifle was a prop. The only possible
indication anywhere that any witness saw Arce's rifle is contained in a
circuitous passage from James Tague's testimony: "We turned around &
looked toward the TSBD, & from the reflection of the sun, it was
something on the window. Not the--well, it is maybe 5 or 6 windows
which were open, which it was not the window that proved to be where
the shots were fired. But it was a different window, like it had
spider webs or dust, & maybe shots had come through the window."
(v7p554). Their respective, delayed statements suggest that whatever
Norman & Jarman had been told about what was happening on the fifth
floor--by Williams, Arce, & Oswald--did not include any mention of
shooting. Neither man would even talk about the events on the fifth
floor until Sunday. Williams' prop rifle was in little danger of being
discovered (however he hid it) before it could be spirited out the
building, at a later date--the signally-less-well-hidden Carcano was
clearly all that was needed, all that was meant to be found.]
At the same time, the gloved Arce collects the three spent shells, then
edges further back into the room, finds a rough enclosure made by
stacks of boxes, and lowers his rifle into the middle of it. A hasty
Oswald is just stepping down to the first floor, & begins fast-walking
to the front. Most unexpectedly--all law-enforcement personnel were
initially supposed to have been directed to the other end of the
plaza--a police officer is entering the building just as Oswald is
leaving it. A rightfully suspicious Patrolman Marrion Baker is about
to frisk the edgy employee when Roy Truly calls off the bulldog by
saying that he's one of theirs. Thus, the two fail to detect the
pistol in his right front pants pocket. Upstairs, Arce hands off the
shells to Williams, who quietly but firmly prompts Norman & Jarman (who
are dawdling) as he comes back to the front windows, drops the shells,
& takes a position at the second window from the east end. A nervous
Norman & Jarman are late taking their assigned, respective positions at
the windows. Arce, hesitating before entering the stairwell, begins to
follow--at a safe distance from the sound of their voices below
him--two other depository employees, Victoria Adams & Sandra Styles,
down the stairs. As the latter reach the first floor, Truly & Baker
stand by the elevators. Truly absently notes their presences, & the
presence also, shortly afterwards, of Arce, just behind them. He knows
that they all work there. Arce stays on the first floor & chats with
Eddie Piper, who doesn't realize that the former should be coming in
from the front rather than down from the stairs. Meanwhile, Norman,
Jarman, & Williams are leaving the fifth floor. Williams says he will
field their questions later. As the three pass Truly & Baker on the
stairs, Williams asks Truly what's going on, then the three mingle with
others on the first floor.
[A stencilled "5" on a pillar near the site of the abandoned rifle &
the elevators (Savage p174) backs Walt Cakebread's suggestion that the
flooring shown in pictures of the rifle find is more likely fifth than
sixth. ATF agent Frank Ellsworth held that the rifle was found on a
floor *lower* than the sixth (Russell p569). And a photo caption in
the WR itself states, "A floor-by-floor search revealed an Italian-made
rifle hurriedly pushed behind some boxes on the fifth floor" (p428k).
DPD Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer's 1:11 radio transmission--"On the
third floor of this book company down here, we found empty rifle
hulls..." (Trask p523)--is most logically translated as "third floor
down", or fifth floor. And he apparently actually used the
interchangeable phrase "fifth floor" with reporters. (Stockton Record
11/22/63 p8) J Edgar Hoover told Lyndon Johnson, "I think that the
bullets were fired from the fifth floor, & the three shells that were
found were found on the fifth floor." ("Taking Chage" p23) Dallas
Secret Service chief Forrest Sorrels testified that he saw Black men at
windows on the 5th floor *before* the shooting started, & that when he
returned to Dealey, about 12:50, he saw the open windows which they had
occupied (v7p349). But there's no evidence that he returned to Dealey
that early, & a picture of a "man of 50 or so who wore dignified
glasses & resembled a preacher or bank president"--as reporter Jim
Lehrer described Sorrels ("On a Bright, Sunny Day in Dallas")--still at
Parkland Hospital, about 1:26, in "The Killing of a President" (p59),
suggests that Sorrels did not return before 1pm. The film of SS agents
swarming Brennan--which Brennan described (v3p150)--have never turned
up, & Sorrels could not corroborate *Brennan* when the latter testified
that he introduced Norman & Jarman to Sorrels (v3p146). And neither
Jarman nor Norman filed a statement that day, though one would think
that a SS agent would be interested in someone who heard rifle shells
hitting the floor above him.... There's no one at Jarman's or Williams'
window in the pre-shooting Hughes film (Trask p272) or the Weaver
photo. Only Sorrels & Brennan reported Black men in the fifth-floor
windows before 12:30, & their Norman-Jarman stories cancel each other
out. At 12:30, both the chief of police & the sheriff ordered their
men to the triple-underpass area (v23p913). Before his 11/23
affidavit, Truly told detectives that he & "a policeman met Oswald as
they charged into the building after the shots were fired" (Biffle p5);
Baker told writer Gary Savage, for "JFK First Day Evidence", "Shortly
after I entered the building I confronted Oswald.... The superintendent
said that Oswald was all right.... We left Oswald there, & the
supervisor showed me the way upstairs." (p365)" An untrusting Oswald
would have had a loaded gun with him at all times, & not just because
it's Texas. The first & only one out of the building--Oswald--is the
patsy. He is under the impression, though, that Arce & Williams are
right behind him. Foreman Bill Shelley, however, may indeed have left
the building--he was supposedly in the same police car, later, out of
the depository, as Williams & Arce (v24p324[Det Senkel]), but Williams
didn't see him (v3p182).]
As Oswald walks across the intersection of Elm & Houston, towards the
County Records Building--after Baker releases him--he looks back & up &
sees Williams, still at his window. He's very relieved--the day is
going as planned. He half-expected a double cross. But Norman &
Jarman showed up, right on time, & Williams at the window was the next
scheduled step of Operation Fifth Floor. Oswald takes bus, then taxi
to 500 N. Beckley, not far from the Texas Theatre (v24p228) (though
cabbie William Whaley later changed the unloading point [WRp162])--and
goes directly to it, on foot. Back at the TSBD, Homicide Captain Fritz
picks up the shells dropped by Williams, pockets them, & later drops
them near the east-corner window of the sixth floor, in the so-called
"sniper's nest". About 1:45, police swarm the theatre. Oswald--who
has been more & more anxiously waiting for no-shows Arce &
Williams--panics, & tries to shoot his way out when he's met, instead,
by cops. The only puzzle is why a suspicious Oswald didn't simply
leave the theatre earlier....
[Williams is the last one at a 5th-floor window, as the Powell picture
shows (Trask p449). As Whaley originally noted, Oswald continued
walking in the direction of the theatre after he got out of the cab
(v24p228). Oswald apparently could have entered the theatre at any
time--witness George Applin said that the *second* feature that day
started about 1:45 (Myers p558), suggesting an unscheduled showing of
the first feature beginning just after noon. Oswald's landlady,
Earlene Roberts, a tall-tale teller (Myers p54), said nothing to the
first detectives to the house re the President's assassin coming back
afterwards, about 1 o'clock, to pick up a coat (or, implicitly, a gun)
(v24pp317,324). Several witnesses at the Tippit murder
scene--including Mrs Markham, the Davises, LJ Lewis--actually saw only
fellow witness WW Scoggins, with Tippit's revolver, chasing the killer
(see my "Mrs Markham & the Second Gunman" series). The police wanted
witnesses to Oswald at the scene, since none in Dealey attended
lineups, at least officially. One witness, at least--Sam
Guinyard--really did see the killer, who roughly resembled Oswald, &
fooled Guinyard. He did not fool Scoggins, however, who was with
authorities for 24 hours before he was convinced to ID Oswald in a
lineup (see my "Tippit & the Second Gunman" series). Oswald had no
reason yet--at the time Tippit was shot--to be nervous about the
clockwork assassination. Deputy Sheriffs Luke Mooney & Jack Faulkner
saw Fritz pick up the shells (v19p511, v3p286).
The fifth-floor/sixth-floor deception was a brilliant scheme, so much
so that it's a little surprising that its authors have still not come
out & taken a bow. I myself did not really understand it until I
realized that the decoy on the fifth floor who looked like Oswald had
to have *been* Oswald. And the east-end decoy had to have been on the
fifth floor. In the official sixth-floor "sniper's nest", a decoy
would have been left high & dry--any photograph of him there could have
been published, & there's your lone gunman. No prospective patsy would
have bought that idea. But any film or photo of Oswald on the *fifth*
floor--below the "nest"--would have exposed not only Oswald, but the
conspiracy. He had his protection, his insurance, he thought. His
handlers couldn't show him at either end window.... But he apparently
did not count on evidence other than photographic tying him to the
murder weapon--it was Arce & Williams who would actually be manning the
guns, taking the chances.
Was Oswald under the impression that the weapon would be traced to
someone else, or not traced at all? Was his Carcano used, or the
second one? Was a rifle switch somehow worked on him? He could
truthfully tell the world that he was a patsy, but he couldn't take the
next step & explain how he was "patsied", without exposing the fact
that his second hat that day was Accomplice. If he had lived & given
up, he could have exposed the ground-level,
mechanical--choreographic--part of the conspiracy, but in the
assassination of a popular President, an accomplice would have been as
good as, or as bad as, a shooter. It's hard to imagine that he would
have gotten much of a deal for turning on Arce & Williams. And he was
probably unaware of the involvement of Fritz. The ultimate aim of the
fifth-floor substitution was not to "protect" Oswald, but to lull him
into thinking that he had gotten away scot-free. He might, finally,
spitefully, have exposed a portion of the conspiracy, but Jack Ruby got
to him first, though his avenging-angel act may have been a lucky break
for the conspirators. He was most probably ticketed to have been
killed at the Texas Theatre: Against all odds, his building panic, in
the theatre, did not get him killed right then & there, as must have
been the quite excellent plan.
Arce's insurance. The concealment of the actual shooter was, in fact,
a triple deception: He was at the *other* end of the building, on the
floor *below*, & he was shooting through a *closed* window. Or so it
would have seemed, until Moorman #3 turned up, in 1994. Was a clear,
usable photo taken of Oswald at the fifth-floor window, either by a
witness or a confederate of Oswald's? If so, it was confiscated. Or
it was taken by someone who could be trusted, someone like Army Intel
Agent James Powell, at the southeast corner of Elm & Houston, who
snapped a long-suppressed photo of *Williams* just after the shooting.
Did he, or anyone else, make an official "record" of the fifth-floor
action *before* the shooting? Or during the shooting itself? I'd say
it's likely Powell made more than one interesting slide that day.
There was only one glitch in the choreography of the fifth-floor
action. Norman & Jarman were late getting to the front windows, and
early leaving the windows. That left Williams there, on his own, for a
half a minute or more. And a TSBD employee, alone at a window that
day, might be mistaken for a sniper. In fact, was. Norman & Jarman
were hardly, apparently, conspirators, but they were essential
(unwitting) ingredients in the conspiracy. A solid phalanx of three
innocent-looking, naturally curious depository employees (including two
who were relative TSBD veterans)--at the windows in the minute or so
after the shooting--was needed for a trompe l'oeil, which would utilize
the famous confusion between the fifth & sixth floors on November 22nd.
Witnesses Fischer, Edwards, Amos Euins, & Walther would all seem to
have suffered this visual confusion, for, at one time or another, all
four seemed to say that their man was on the fifth floor, not the
sixth. (v24p208, v24p207, Trask p421, & v24p523, resp.) Authorities
could buyably suggest that what might have seemed like fifth-floor
activity was really sixth, especially when the deluded were presented
with photos of fifth-floor occupiers Williams, Norman, & Jarman.
The glitch, in fact, underscored the necessity of the presences of
Norman & Jarman. Without their flanking, the lone Williams looked to
two or three witnesses like he was the shooter. Two reporters (James
Underwood & Kent Biffle) heard Euins tell DPD Sgt DV Harkness that the
man with the rifle was a "colored man" (v6p170 & Biffle p2). Clearly,
now, in retrospect, Euins saw the rifle at the end window, then, some
seconds later, Williams at the adjoining window. Ironically, Euins was
of course partially correct: Williams handled a rifle, but did not
shoot, & could not have been seen with the rifle. And Patrolman
Leonard L Hill's 12:37 DPD-radio witness insisted that the shots came
from the "second window from the end" (DPD radio tapes). Again, a
never-identified witness put rifle & Williams together & came up with
"shooter". Brennan was apparently the only witness who saw Oswald, the
prop rifle, & Williams, & it's unclear who he at first thought the
shooter was, but he maintained that whoever he was he shot from a
wide-open, fifth-floor window (v3p153). [There's a suggestion that
Brennan at first thought Williams was the shooter, in Williams'
testimony, when John McCloy asks him, "Did a man named Brennan identify
you downstairs?" ["No, sir"] "No one that you know said, 'This is the
man I have seen on the fifth floor window?' ["No, sir"] (v3p183)] And
a *trompe-l'oreille* made Brennan think that the prop rifle was firing
the shots he heard coming from the *other* end of the building.
Norman & Jarman were doing double duty. Their presences were intended
to lull Oswald as well as any onlookers below. The two would
be--Oswald was led to believe--his alibis. He would be able to say,
with confidence, that he saw them come in the back way. But, after the
betrayal at the Texas Theatre, he was probably less sure of salvation
via Norman & Jarman....
Ultimately, the twin goals of the fifth-floor choreography were to kill
a President and to set up a patsy.
copr 2006 Donald Willis
Kenneth A. Rahn
Ken Rahn
<dcwi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1167632740....@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Oswald--Patsy and Conspirator
>
> On Friday, November 22, 1963, Lee Oswald made no attempt to conceal
> himself in the windows of the Texas School Book Depository. He was, if
> anything, outrageously obvious, but only because he knew that no film
> or photo of him in any window would ever become public....
>
(the rest mercifully snipped)
dcwi...@netscape.net
Mr Rahn -- I blush. I could never hope to rival that fine work of
fiction called The Warren Report....
dw
greg
Don, this is what he said immediately prior to that: "Well, at the time
everybody was talking like they was going to watch from the sixth floor.
I think Billy Lovelady said he wanted to watch from up there."
But as you'd know, there is no mention of any agreement, no mention of
anyone else talking about going back to the 6th, and no mention of his
actually going there, eating his lunch, then going down to the 5th in
his first day statement. In that statement he said: "We rode the
elevator to the 1st floor and got our lunches. I went back up on the 5th
floor with a fellow called Hank and Junior. I don't know his last name."
Jarman made his statement the following day, but his chronology ends
prior to going back upstairs. In his testimony, he said he went up to
the 5th floor with Norman.
If Norman made a statement to the DPD, the dog must have eaten it. In
his testimony, he said he went up to the 5th floor with Jarman because
"I fill quite a few orders from the fifth floor and I figured I could
get, you know, a better view of the parade or motorcade or whatever it
is from the fifth floor because I was more familiar with that floor."
Williams' testimony changed from his original statement to fall into
line with Jarman and Norman. In addition, he added the bs about
agreements to, and hearing talk of, going back to the 6th floor as a
reason for him being there eating lunch. Those lunch scraps had to be
accounted for and Williams obliged, making it sound like he had a
credible reason for being there by changing the blather he'd overheard
about meeting on the 5th floor to an agreement to meet on the 6th.
Obviously, just my take on it, though...
greg
Anthony Marsh
And no mention made by Givens of going up to the sixth floor to sneak a
smoke. That's where he had left his cigarettes.
David Von Pein
Williams makes any difference whatsoever when it comes to a CTer's
opinion that a multi-gun conspiracy existed on 11/22?
Everybody knows that multiple shots WERE fired from just where NJ&W
said they came from....so why the effort to try and destroy NJ&W's
credibility? Why? Makes no sense. (But, then again, what conspiracy
theory ever does?)
You can still believe in your "Shot From The Knoll" (and no doubt
will), even with NJ&W's testimonies being accurate and "non-coerced".
Or is it just a good general rule amongst CTers to point an accusing
finger of guilt (or coercion) at everybody connected with the
case....even when such finger-pointing is totally unneeded to support
the CTer's major bottom-line thesis?
David Von Pein
And, therefore, if every single last second of everyone's activities
that day weren't relayed from memory IMMEDIATELY after the event to the
authorities, this thus means that witness must be telling some
untruths? Is that it?
Chad Zimmerman
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1167757894.4...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David,
It has to do with the mountain of evidence against Oswald. People have
their own reasons for not believing that he did it, such as: not enough
time, the SBT, he said he was a patsy, etc.
Thus, they then believe in their hearts that he didn't do it, thus there
has to be an alternate explanation, however farfetched, to explain away
the testimony and evidence against him. But, as anyone with half a mind
knows, one can explain away anything if given enough time and imagination.
BTW, they like their testimony when it suits them, but don't like the
implication that shots were fired from above their position- although that
doesn't mean that it was Oswald- just that someone was there.
Chad
dcwi...@netscape.net
David Von Pein wrote:
> Can any CTer inform the world HOW the testimony of Norman, Jarman, and
> Williams makes any difference whatsoever when it comes to a CTer's
> opinion that a multi-gun conspiracy existed on 11/22?
>
I guess this is in answer to my initial post, but I myself did not say or
imply "multi-gun", but I--goodness!--did say & show "conspiracy", didn't
I? I leave it to others to say if a gun besides the one on the west end
of the 5th floor was necessary to do all the damage....
dw
> Everybody knows that multiple shots WERE fired from just where NJ&W
> said they came from....so why the effort to try and destroy NJ&W's
> credibility? Why? Makes no sense. (But, then again, what conspiracy
> theory ever does?)
Oh? I seem to recall a recent post in which you yourself pledged undying
belief in Norman's 6th-floor-sounds story. The fact that he began with a
debris-from-above story, then switched to the former suggests (a) both
stories were false, & (b) the general story of shooting from the official
"nest" is weakened a bit. Norman is fulla shit! Or, rather, Norman lacks
uh credibility....
dcwi...@netscape.net
Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1167757894.4...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Can any CTer inform the world HOW the testimony of Norman, Jarman, and
> > Williams makes any difference whatsoever when it comes to a CTer's
> > opinion that a multi-gun conspiracy existed on 11/22?
> >
> > Everybody knows that multiple shots WERE fired from just where NJ&W
> > said they came from....so why the effort to try and destroy NJ&W's
> > credibility? Why? Makes no sense. (But, then again, what conspiracy
> > theory ever does?)
> >
> > You can still believe in your "Shot From The Knoll" (and no doubt
> > will), even with NJ&W's testimonies being accurate and "non-coerced".
> >
> > Or is it just a good general rule amongst CTers to point an accusing
> > finger of guilt (or coercion) at everybody connected with the
> > case....even when such finger-pointing is totally unneeded to support
> > the CTer's major bottom-line thesis?
> >
>
>
> David,
>
> It has to do with the mountain of evidence against Oswald. People have
> their own reasons for not believing that he did it, such as: not enough
> time, the SBT, he said he was a patsy, etc.
>
> Thus, they then believe in their hearts that he didn't do it, thus there
> has to be an alternate explanation, however farfetched, to explain away
> the testimony and evidence against him.
You must be talking about some other "people"--I'm afraid my take on the
thing squarely implicates Oswald--as an integral part of the conspiracy
thing....
dw
Chad Zimmerman
<dcwi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1167800848.7...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
The *they* that I am talking about is *they* that believe that Oswald wasn't
there
or that the shots didn't come from there....
Chad
>
> dw
Anthony Marsh
> "David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1167757894.4...@i12g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Can any CTer inform the world HOW the testimony of Norman, Jarman, and
>> Williams makes any difference whatsoever when it comes to a CTer's
>> opinion that a multi-gun conspiracy existed on 11/22?
>>
>> Everybody knows that multiple shots WERE fired from just where NJ&W
>> said they came from....so why the effort to try and destroy NJ&W's
>> credibility? Why? Makes no sense. (But, then again, what conspiracy
>> theory ever does?)
>>
>> You can still believe in your "Shot From The Knoll" (and no doubt
>> will), even with NJ&W's testimonies being accurate and "non-coerced".
>>
>> Or is it just a good general rule amongst CTers to point an accusing
>> finger of guilt (or coercion) at everybody connected with the
>> case....even when such finger-pointing is totally unneeded to support
>> the CTer's major bottom-line thesis?
>>
>
>
> David,
>
> It has to do with the mountain of evidence against Oswald. People have
> their own reasons for not believing that he did it, such as: not enough
> time, the SBT, he said he was a patsy, etc.
>
All of those things do not prove that he wasn't one of the shooters.
> Thus, they then believe in their hearts that he didn't do it, thus there
> has to be an alternate explanation, however farfetched, to explain away
> the testimony and evidence against him. But, as anyone with half a mind
> knows, one can explain away anything if given enough time and imagination.
>
Start with the physical evidence, then work towards a conclusion. Don't
start with your preconceived conclusion and tailor the evidence to fit it.
dcwi...@netscape.net
Got it. I now believe O *was* there so I'm not one of those *they*, but I
guess I am one of those *they* that think no shots came from the "nest",
but from a well-concealed location nearby. (How well concealed? Until
1994, the real sniper's window was thought to have been *closed* at the
time of the shooting!)
dw
Chad Zimmerman
<dcwi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1167869647.8...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Until 1994? By whom? Certainly not the WC or the HSCA.
BTW, do you disbelieve the multiple witnesses that saw someone either
shooting or sticking something out of a window of the TSBD?
Chad
David Von Pein
shooting or sticking something out of a window of the TSBD?" <<<
Of course Don believes them, Chad. Except that Don thinks that all the
witnesses got the floor wrong....Williams was flaunting his rifle
deliberately out the FIFTH-floor window. And then the plotters decided
they'd go upstairs and plant all the evidence up there, despite the fact
all the stuff was happening on the 5th Floor.
Go figure.
I can't.
Anthony Marsh
He said what HE thinks the REAL sniper's nest is. He did not specify
which window. Neither the WC nor the HSCA looked at any other windows.
Cutler has.
> BTW, do you disbelieve the multiple witnesses that saw someone either
> shooting or sticking something out of a window of the TSBD?
>
Disbelieve. Nothing was sticking out.
Somebody was shooting.
> Chad
>
dcwi...@netscape.net
Chad -- Well, anyone who both saw the available photos (until '94) of
the west-corner window facing Elm *and* read Jarman & Williams'
respective WC testimony would think that, yes, Jarman opened it at
12:30-1, & there it is, open. It was not until Trask published
"Pictures of the Pain", in '94, that one could see Moorman #3, & see
that the corner window was open as early at 12:26, several minutes
before Jarman was supposed to have opened it.
If you go back to my original post here, you'll see that (goodness!) I
posit *two* weapons sticking out the (5th floor) windows, at either end,
tho I think the one at the *east* end was just a prop, waved to attract
attention to that end of the building. The real shooter was at the *west*
end, shooting thru a "closed" window, & was seen by practically & maybe
actually no one....
dw
paulus
In a recent programme on UK TV, I recall seeing a rifle being 'toted'
up high by a plain clothes police officer pushing his way through a
crowd, presumably at the Dallas Police Station; presumably this was the
LHO rifle used in the assassination. Has anyone ever commented on
whether this rifle was indeed the model that the prosecution claimed
was
the weapon used - and do we know how many hours had elapsed between
the tests done on LHO and the last firing of a weapon by him?
Anthony Marsh
You appear to be talking about detective Lt. Carl Day, the DPD's lead
crime scene investigator. I believe that yes, we are satisfied that the
wear marks seen on that rifle being held up by Day in front of the crowd
of reporters matches Oswald's rifle.
I do not remember the timing of the test on Oswald, but you are
presupposing the result that it proves he fired a weapon. I personally
believe he killed Tippit with his revolver, but doubt that he fired the
rifle. The gap was only a few hours, but could other factors in between
affect the results?
dcwi...@netscape.net
Yes, it's a little complicated, I think principally because it was a
double plot: On the surface, it seemed meant merely to conceal the
real shooter, on the west end of the 5th floor. But the more-important
purpose was to set up the patsy, Oswald, who would have been serene in
his belief that he could be seen/photographed on the 5th floor (& he
was photographed, by Weaver), & it wouldn't matter a jot, because
everything was being set up for a phantom 6th-floor shooter. Any
usable photos of the 5th-floor decoy would be confiscated; witnesses
who saw the decoy would be re-educated (Edwards, Fischer, Brennan) into
believing that they saw the guy on the nearly-identical 6th floor.
(Only Mrs Walther refused re-education.) The "nest" of boxes was set
up beforehand, on the 6th floor. Fritz would pick up the hulls from
the 5th & take them up to the 6th, where they could be photographed in
a location--the "nest" boxes--also visible from outside. The rifle
seems to have been photographed right where it lay, on the 5th floor
(stencilled "5" on pillar), but "confusion" sent it up to the 6th
floor, despite demurrers like the ATF man, who insisted it was found on
a floor below the 6th.
And my guess is that the final signal to Oswald that all was well was
the presence of Williams (& perhaps Norman & Jarman, too, depending on
when exactly he left the building & looked up & back) in the window
*after* the shooting. If they hadn't been there, he would have begun
then to suspect a double cross was in the works. As it was, he didn't
know there was a double cross in the works until Williams & Arce failed
to show up at the theatre, & the cops did. Most probably, he was
supposed to have pulled out his gun & got shot right then & there....
dw
Todd W. Vaughan
Tony.
So when Amos Euins testified that he "seen this pipe thing sticking out
the window.", and "I was looking where the barrel was sticking out.",
and "he pulled the gun back in the window", he was lying?
When Mrs. Cabel said "I saw a projection out of one of those windows.",
was she lying?
And when Malcolm Couch said "And I remember glancing up to a
window...and seeing about a foot of a rifle being - the barrel brought
into the window.", he was lying too?
Todd
> Somebody was shooting.
>
> > Chad
> >
Anthony Marsh
Lying? Not quite. Euins was also the kid who originally said the shooter
was a black man. Was that lying? Not quite. Misperceiving. Do not rely
on eyewitness statements. It is the most unreliable form of evidence.
> When Mrs. Cabel said "I saw a projection out of one of those windows.",
> was she lying?
>
Projection? Someone's foot?
> And when Malcolm Couch said "And I remember glancing up to a
> window...and seeing about a foot of a rifle being - the barrel brought
> into the window.", he was lying too?
>
No. Into the window as in hitting the glass? Or into the window as in
putting the muzzle into the plane of the window? The acoustical evidence
seems to indicate that the muzzle was in the plane of the window. From
some angles that may look as though it is sticking out. The physical
mechanics of that tight space make it too difficult to stick the entire
rifle out of the window.
Walt
Tony ...Who do you mean by "we"in the above statement that...." we are
satisfied that the wear marks seen on that rifle being held up by Day in
front of the crowd of reporters matches Oswald's rifle.'
Would that "we" be you and your ego?
The Rifle that Lt J.C.Day is carrying through the corridor on his way to
confront Oswald with the weapon is NOT the rifle Oswald was photographed
holding in the original Back Yard Photo.
Walt
dcwi...@netscape.net
Check back to my original post--there's nothing there to contradict the
above statements--the latter even go a ways to confirm what I wrote. And
note that Couch specifically said he thought he saw the rifle in a *wide
open* window....
dw
PS Or is this in answer to someone/something else?
dcwi...@netscape.net
However, what a witness *thought* he saw is still important. One witness
thought he saw shooting from a "2nd window"--I don't think that's quite
what happened. And Euins saw a fellow black man--in a window quite near
the one at which a rifle was seen. Williams was in a second window from
the SE end; the comparable window on the 6th floor was not open, so it has
to have been Williams' window. But for two witnesses to make the same
apparent mistake means they had to have pretty good reason to suspect
Williams of being the shooter--like, say, the appearance of a rifle in the
*end* window on the 5th floor. And, yes, W was apparently an accomplice,
but that's not quite the same thing as being a shooter....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
Walt -- As I noted in the original post here, I think *both* rifles were
upstairs, tho only one of them was probably used....
dw
Anthony Marsh
The research community. Not Jack White.
> The Rifle that Lt J.C.Day is carrying through the corridor on his way to
> confront Oswald with the weapon is NOT the rifle Oswald was photographed
> holding in the original Back Yard Photo.
>
Your pet theory without any facts.
> Walt
Walt
Why do you believe it's possible to see scratch marks on the rifle in
Oswald's hands in CE 133A but impossible to see the front sling loop
hanging beneath the barrel? Tony it's obvious to most of us who have
posted in the group for years that you only CLAIM to be a
CT.......Behind the facade, yer true color is not hard to see.
Walt
>
> > Walt
Anthony Marsh
Not just scratch marks. Wear marks. Damage unique to that rifle.
Your theory about the front sling loop is loopy.
> Walt
>
>>> Walt
>
>
wig...@xit.net
On Jan 10, 4:29 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Walt wrote:
> > Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> Walt wrote:
> >>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>> paulus wrote:
> >>>>> dcwill...@netscape.net wrote:
> >>>>>> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> >>>>>>> <dcwill...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:1167869647.8...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> <dcwill...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>>news:1167800848.7...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>> Chad Zimmerman wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > CT.......Behind the facade, yer true color is not hard to see.Not just scratch marks. Wear marks. Damage unique to that rifle.
> Your theory about the front sling loop is loopy.
>
> > Walt
>
> >>> Walt
The sling in the BY photos indeed appears to be a piece of rope which is
"tied-off" at both the front & rear portions of the MC. A sling made of
rope is also how those who studied the original BY photos described the
sling during earlier investigations. I would lend to the possibility that
the rope might not have been tied directly to either swivel but rather to
a ring ( or other means) that was then attached to the side-mounted
swivels. The detail in BY photo copies that I have aren't clear enough in
these areas to see what the sling is attached too but it might have been
possible that the diameter of the rope was too large to fit through the
oblong swivels that were designed to accept a flat piece of leather.
Anyone owning a MC, what are the inside height dimensions on the swivels?
Walt
Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>
> >>> The Rifle that Lt J.C.Day is carrying through the corridor on his way to
> >>> confront Oswald with the weapon is NOT the rifle Oswald was photographed
> >>> holding in the original Back Yard Photo.
> >>>
> >> Your pet theory without any facts.
> >
> >
> > Why do you believe it's possible to see scratch marks on the rifle in
> > Oswald's hands in CE 133A but impossible to see the front sling loop
> > hanging beneath the barrel? Tony it's obvious to most of us who have
> > posted in the group for years that you only CLAIM to be a
> > CT.......Behind the facade, yer true color is not hard to see.
> >
>
> Not just scratch marks. Wear marks. Damage unique to that rifle.
> Your theory about the front sling loop is loopy.
You missed my point, any "scratches" or "wear marks" would be much more
difficult to see than the front sling loop hanging beneath the
barrel....You claim you can see "wear marks" on the rifle in Oswald's
hands in CE 133A that match wear marks on the TSBD rifle but you can't see
the sling loop. Yer a liar and a fraud Tony. Yer nothing but a Warren
Commission apologist,pretending to be a CT.
Walt
dcwi...@netscape.net
curtjest...@hotmail.com wrote:
> dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
> > Oswald--Patsy and Conspirator
> >
> > On Friday, November 22, 1963, Lee Oswald made no attempt to conceal
> > himself in the windows of the Texas School Book Depository. He was, if
> > anything, outrageously obvious, but only because he knew that no film
> > or photo of him in any window would ever become public....
> >
> > 12:22pm TSBD employees Harold Norman & James Jarman enter the building
> > through the back door
> >
> > [Norman testified that the two left the front of the building when they
> > heard that the motorcade was on Main (v3p190) TSBD supe Roy Truly
> > testified that he saw the two of them, with Charles Givens, go partway
> > across Houston, then double back, while Givens proceeded away from
> > Dealey (v7pp385-6)]
> >
> > 12:25pm Norman & Jarman take the stairs to the fifth floor. At the
> > stairwell there, they meet fellow employee Bonnie Ray Williams. The
> > latter tells them to wait, & call out if there is a problem, if someone
> > approaches via stairs or elevator. He takes a few steps back into the
> > room, looks through stacks of book boxes, & sees another TSBD employee,
> > Danny Arce, lying motionless, on his stomach, near the extreme
> > southwest window facing Elm Street. By Arce's side, on the floor, is a
> > rifle, a Mannlicher-Carcano. The window is wide open.
> >
> > [Williams, Arce, and Oswald all began working at the Elm Street
> > depository in October (v3p163; v6p164; & WR p738, resp.). Arce had no
> > one who could vouch for where he was, exactly--out front--at 12:30
> > (v6p366). But Williams & Arce were together a lot that day. They took
> > the same elevator downstairs at lunch time (v6p364), had a (broken)
> > agreement to meet for lunch on the 6th floor (v3p169), and left the
> > building in the same police car (Trask, p549) Williams, in fact,
> > seemed to be getting a little daring when he testified, "This Spanish
> > boy, by the name of Danny Arce--we had agreed at first to come back up
> > to the sixth floor (v3p169)." Williams & Jarman both testified that
> > *Jarman* opened the SW window *after* the shooting, some five minutes
> > *later*. (v3pp177 & 205, resp.) But Moorman photo #3 shows that this
> > window was open as early as 12:25, before a shot was fired. The photo
> > was not published until 1994, after a couple FOIA requests from Richard
> > Trask (p259). Oswald of course knew that Norman & Jarman were
> > downstairs about 12:22--as Fritz's notes & FBI agent James Bookhout's
> > 11/25/63 report (WR pp622) suggest--because that was part of the plan.]
> >
> > Williams hears someone moving around the southeast corner of the room,
> > though he cannot see him from where he stands. But he knows who it
> > is--Oswald. Unlike Arce, the latter is bending down into his wide-open
> > window, & all but waving to the crowd below. His head & body are
> > angled towards the triple underpass, but he's also checking out the
> > traffic at Houston & Main, in anticipation of the appearance of the
> > Presidential limo. For some reason, he seems to discount the fact that
> > he can easily be seen from below, although a rifle lies near him,
> > too--another M-C.
> >
> > [Before 12:30, a man on an upper floor of the TSBD managed to make his
> > presence known to several people. Witness Howard Brennan perhaps
> > exaggerated when he said that the very visible man "sat sideways on the
> > window sill" (v3p144)--perhaps not. Robert Edwards said that he could
> > see the man from the waist up (v6p203). Ronald Fischer could see the
> > man's slacks (v19p526), said the man was "in a funny position"
> > (v24p209), & "held my attention for 10 or 15 seconds, because he
> > appeared uncomfortable, for one, &, secondly... he didn't look like he
> > was watching the parade. He looked like he was looking down toward the
> > Trinity River & the triple underpass...." (v6p193). And Mrs. Carolyn
>
>
> > Walther insisted that the man she saw in that same window was on a
> > floor no higher than the fifth (v24p523). This man on the fifth
> > floor--Oswald--can be seen in the Weaver Polaroid, as the limo turns
> > the corner from Main onto Houston, tho he is too indistinct to be
> > identified. In the same photo, only boxes seem to occupy the 6th-floor
>
>
> "This man on the fifth floor--Oswald--can be SEEN in the Weaver
> Polaroid...'thos he is too INDISTINCT to be idenfiied!" Donald, I
> think we need to assign you to the RFK case for awhile.
>
Yes, I know there are some wee small problems with this idea. But (a)
There's no one apparent in the 6th-floor "nest" in this (circa 12:29)
photo, (b) there seems to be someone in the 5th-floor end window, perhaps
lying down in a funny way, it looks like, as per witness Ronald Fischer's
observations, & (c) Fischer, Edwards & Mrs Walther were all looking at
this area, at this time, & all saw a *white* man in a window, & the only
apparent man in a window is in the 5th-floor corner. Big big problems for
all of us there, on either side, any floor....
dw
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>>>> The Rifle that Lt J.C.Day is carrying through the corridor on his way to
>>>>> confront Oswald with the weapon is NOT the rifle Oswald was photographed
>>>>> holding in the original Back Yard Photo.
>>>>>
>>>> Your pet theory without any facts.
>>>
>>> Why do you believe it's possible to see scratch marks on the rifle in
>>> Oswald's hands in CE 133A but impossible to see the front sling loop
>>> hanging beneath the barrel? Tony it's obvious to most of us who have
>>> posted in the group for years that you only CLAIM to be a
>>> CT.......Behind the facade, yer true color is not hard to see.
>>>
>> Not just scratch marks. Wear marks. Damage unique to that rifle.
>> Your theory about the front sling loop is loopy.
>
> You missed my point, any "scratches" or "wear marks" would be much more
> difficult to see than the front sling loop hanging beneath the
Your point is wrong. Wear marks are just as easy to see as the sling
loops. And what you think is a sling loop is nothing more than an
optical illusion.
> barrel....You claim you can see "wear marks" on the rifle in Oswald's
> hands in CE 133A that match wear marks on the TSBD rifle but you can't see
> the sling loop. Yer a liar and a fraud Tony. Yer nothing but a Warren
> Commission apologist,pretending to be a CT.
>
NB: Notice how the moderators allow Walt to call me a liar and a fraud.
Yet I am not allowed to complain that they allow ad hominem remarks.
> Walt
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
Sorry, Tony, but that one slipped through. We would never approve
that had we noticed it.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Walt
John McAdams wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2007 00:03:21 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Walt wrote:
> >> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> barrel....You claim you can see "wear marks" on the rifle in Oswald's
> >> hands in CE 133A that match wear marks on the TSBD rifle but you can't see
<snip>
>
> Sorry, Tony, but that one slipped through. We would never approve
> that had we noticed it.
And I would never have knowingly posted it in your censored N.G.. I
didn't pay attention to the header when I posted my reply to Tony, but
the information is still accurate. The rifle found in the TSBD and the
rifle in Oswald's hand's in the Back Yard photo ( CE 133A) are NOT the
same rifle. They can be compared at this website
http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
The pictures show that the TSBD rifle had the sling mounted on the LEFT
SIDE of the rifle, while the rifle in Oswald's hands had the sling
loops on the BOTTOM of the rifle. The rifle in Oswalds hands has the
bottom sling loops just like the rifle in the illustration in the Klein
Sporting Goods ad. whicj can be seen on that same page.
Walt
Walt
John McAdams wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2007 00:03:21 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Walt wrote:
> >> Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> barrel....You claim you can see "wear marks" on the rifle in Oswald's
> >> hands in CE 133A that match wear marks on the TSBD rifle but you can't see
<snip>
>
> Sorry, Tony, but that one slipped through. We would never approve
> that had we noticed it.
And I would never have knowingly posted anything on your N.G. I
wasn't paying attention to the header when I replied to Tony, but I
still stand bt my words.
Walt
Anthony Marsh
> John McAdams wrote:
>> On 12 Jan 2007 00:03:21 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Walt wrote:
>>>> Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>
>>>> barrel....You claim you can see "wear marks" on the rifle in Oswald's
>>>> hands in CE 133A that match wear marks on the TSBD rifle but you can't see
>
>
> <snip>
>
>> Sorry, Tony, but that one slipped through. We would never approve
>> that had we noticed it.
>
> And I would never have knowingly posted it in your censored N.G.. I
> didn't pay attention to the header when I posted my reply to Tony, but
> the information is still accurate. The rifle found in the TSBD and the
> rifle in Oswald's hand's in the Back Yard photo ( CE 133A) are NOT the
> same rifle. They can be compared at this website
> http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
>
There is nothing wrong with you posting your wacky theory. I am always
here to shoot it down.
The complaint was not about what you said. I expect language like that
from you. I welcome it. The point was that the moderators routinely censor
my messages and tell me what I can't say and then claim that they do not
allow other posters to attack me personally. So your message is just
another example that they do allow personal attacks and violations of the
rules as long as they are against me.
> The pictures show that the TSBD rifle had the sling mounted on the LEFT
> SIDE of the rifle, while the rifle in Oswald's hands had the sling
> loops on the BOTTOM of the rifle. The rifle in Oswalds hands has the
> bottom sling loops just like the rifle in the illustration in the Klein
> Sporting Goods ad. whicj can be seen on that same page.
>
Nope.
BTW, Oswald ordered the carbine, but got the short rifle.