A Disregarded Witness
robcap...@netscape.com
things on 11/22/63 that did not match the official theory, thus, their
testimony was buried or ignored.
One such witness was Ms. Lillian Mooneyham, a Deputy District Court
Clerk, worked for the Records department in a nearby building. She
would give the FBI an affadavit on 1/8/64.
In the affadavit she said she watched the motorcade with colleagues,
Mrs. Rose Clark and Ms. Jeannette Hooker, from a window in Judge Frank
Wilson's courtroom which overlooked Main St. Once the motorcade passed
the the three women ran down to another courtroom, that of Judge Henry
King, and watched from a window which faces Houston St. Ms. Mooneyham
believed another Dept. Court Clerk, Mr. Bob Reid, was in the courtroom
watching with them.
Ms. Mooneyham heard a gunshot and observed the President slump to the
left of the seat of the car. Ms. Mooneyham, like many others,
believed the first shot to be a firecracker. She also matched many
others by saying there was a pause after the first shot and then two
more came rapidly and close together. She noticed the First Lady climb
on the trunck of the car and then was diverted by a man who had fallen
on the ground near the car.
Ms. Mooneyham's benefit comes after the shooting and this is why her
affadavit would be buried in volume XXIV and not easy to find in the
days of no index. After the shots Ms. Mooneyham left with Mrs. Clark
and went to Judge Julien C. Hyer (could be Myer as it is hard to read
in the small print of the affadavit) office on the third floor of the
Records building, where they continued to watch the happenings from
Jugde Hyer's window. Ms. Mooneyham would notice all the people
running to cement pavillion that is between the knoll and the TSBD.
She would estimate it was 4 1/2 to 5 minutes after the shooting that
she would look up to the sixth floor of the TSBD and see a figure of a
man standing behind the sixth floor window behind some cardboard
boxes. This man appeared, to Ms. Mooneyham, to be looking out of the
window, however, the man was NOT close up to the window but was
standing slightly back from it, so that she could NOT make out his
features. She could not describe the man in any fashion, but this is
not what makes her testimony important.
What does is the fact there was a man there at all. Who was this man
5 minutes after the shooting near the SN? We know it was not LHO as
the WC had him in the 2nd floor lunchroom within 90 seconds of the
shooting, so who was this man? Why did the WC not find this
interesting (or the police or FBI) to find out who this could have
been? This is just one more example of no investigation being
conducted, thus, the claim the case is solved or closed is just that -
a claim - NOT a fact. Also, no verdict in a court of law makes this
so as well.
YoHarvey
wrote:
Theory? I don't believe Spiderman would agree with that choice of
words.
cdddraftsman
wrote:
> (((((((((( Snipped ))))))))))))))))
Conspiracy theorists thrive on witness accounts. They can produce
seemingly voluminous testimony of shots from the Grassy Knoll, of Jack
Ruby in Dealey Plaza watching the assassination, of wounds to
Kennedy's body that radically contradict the Warren Commission's
version of the shooting, of Oswald being in places the Warren
Commission said he could not have been associating with very
suspicious people.
Ordinary citizens -- in contrast to social scientists and law
enforcement professionals -- find witness testimony highly compelling.
And why not? Here are sober looking, apparently honest ordinary
citizens saying things with full sincerity. They wouldn't be lying,
would they?
To evaluate witness testimony, we have to keep a few rules in mind.
Discount Tellers of Tall Tales
With the Kennedy assassination, as with other historical events and
criminal cases, the vast majority of witnesses are telling the truth
as they know it. But not all of them are. Around any celebrated event
there gather some people who have especially good stories to tell --
often stories that don't pass muster when examined by serious
historians.
Since these folks have especially "interesting" stories to tell, they
are likely to be favorites of authors who don't care too much whether
the witness is telling the strict truth -- or who find the witness'
account so convenient in making their case that they aren't inclined
to question it. This kind of witness is very much in evidence in
conspiracy books and videos. For example:
Jean Hill, a woman who told of seeing a Grassy Knoll shooter, of
seeing Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza, and of being waylaid and intimidated
by phony "Secret Service agents" in the minutes following the
assassination. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jhill.htm
Roger Craig, who testified to seeing Oswald flee the scene in a
Rambler station wagon with an accomplice, to seeing a Mauser recovered
in the sixth floor of the Depository, and to have witnessed a
confrontation in Dallas Policy headquarters that implicated Ruth Paine
in the assassination. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm
Beverly Oliver, who claims to have seen Oswald and Ruby together in
the Carousel Club, and to have photographed the assassination in
Dealey Plaza (with the FBI confiscating the film).
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oliver.htm
Ed Hoffman, who claimed to have seen a Grassy Knoll shooter.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hoffman.htm
Charles Crenshaw, doctor at Parkland Hospital, who claimed that
President Johnson called while Lee Oswald was being treated and
demanded that a confession be extracted. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
Robert Morrow, who claims to have been a CIA agent, and to have
supplied weapons for the shooters in Dealey Plaza. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/morrow.htm
John Elrod, who claimed to have shared a cell in the Dallas jail with
Lee Oswald. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/laf.htm
James Files, who claims to have been the Grassy Knoll shooter in
Dealey Plaza. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/files.htm
Gordon Novel, who claimed to be a CIA agent, first worked with the
Garrison investigation and then turned into a Garrison suspect.
http://www.jfk-online.com/novelpost.html
Judyth Vary Baker, a fellow employee of Oswald's at the Reily Coffee
Company in the summer of 1963, claims to have been Oswald girlfriend,
and involved with him in a secret bioweapons project that intended to
kill Castro but ended up killing Kennedy. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/judyth.htm
Richard Case Nagell, who claimed to have worked for the CIA and the
KGB, and to have had "foreknowledge" of the JFK assassination.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nagell1.htm
Robert Knudsen, Navy photographer who claimed to have photographed
Kennedy's autopsy. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/knudsen.txt
Tom Tilson, who claims to have seen a man with a gun (presumably a
Grassy Knoll shooter) scramble down the slope behind the Knoll in the
minutes following the assassination. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/tilson.htm
Madeleine Brown, who claimed to have been LBJ's lover, and to have
attended a very suspicious party on the eve of the assassination.
http://davesjfk.com/browns.html
Gordon Arnold claimed to have been on the Grassy Knoll during the
shooting, to have heard a shot whiz past his left ear, and to have
been confronted by a man who confiscated his camera.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arnold1.htm
Marita Lorenz who told of a "caravan" of cars driving assassins from
Miami to Dallas on the eve of the assassination. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm#marita
It's striking that this is only a very partial list!
Watch For Selectivity
It might seem obvious that if we eliminate witnesses who are making up
tall tales that we could believe the others. And if all truthful
witnesses agreed with each other, then we should indeed believe any
truthful witness we see.
Alas, truthful witnesses don't always agree with each other.
"Truthful" doesn't necessarily mean "accurate." Quite often, their
accounts are all over the place. So by simply picking certain truthful
witnesses, and ignoring other truthful witnesses, one can usually
support one's pet theory.
Mark Lane's video "Plot to Kill JFK : Rush To Judgment" shows viewers
several witnesses who believed they heard shots from the Grassy Knoll.
Lane never tells his viewers that a majority of witnesses who had an
opinion about the direction of the shots thought they came from the
direction of the Depository, rather than the Knoll. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shots.htm
Gary Aguliar has produced a compendium of witnesses from Parkland
Hospital and the the Bethesda Naval Hospital (where Kennedy's autopsy
was done) who testified to the back of Kennedy's head being blown out
-- presumably by a shot from the front. For Aguilar, these witnesses
show that the autopsy photos and x-rays (which show Kennedy being shot
from behind) are faked. But Aguilar is highly selective in how he
quotes his witnesses. He stresses testimony that fits his theory, and
ignores testimony from the same witnesses that contradicts it.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar
Witnesses Make Wild and Wacky Statements
Anybody who reads the unfiltered and unselected witness testimony will
quickly find that even honest sober witnesses have wild, wacky, and
often downright bizarre elements in their testimony.
Consider, for example:
J.C. Price, who thought that Kennedy and Connally were in different
cars in the motorcade, and that a final shot was fired at the
motorcade as much as five minutes after the first shots.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jcprice2.gif
Sam Holland, who thought that after Kennedy was shot Jackie "jumped up
and tried to get over in the back seat to him." http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/holland.gif
Bill Newman, who thought that the President, after the first shot rang
out, "jumped up in his seat" and "was standing up."
Austin Miller http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/newman.gif
, who thought the sound of shots during the shooting came from inside
the President's limo.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0118a.htm
Mrs. Joseph Eddie Dean, who said that after the first shot she saw
Kennedy "reach to the back of his neck" before slumping down.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0435a.htm
Jack Franzen, who said he saw Secret Service agents in the car behind
the presidential limousine"unloading from the car, some with firearms
in their hands . . . ."
Marvin Faye Chism, who said:
The President's wife immediately stood over him, and she pulled him
up, and lay him down in the seat, and she stood up over him in the
car. The President was standing and waving and smiling at the people
when the shot happened. . . . The two men in the front of the car
stood up, and then when the second shot was fired, they all fell down
and the car took off just like that. (Decker Exhibit 5323, 19H472)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/chism.gif
A. J. Millican, who testified that:
Just after the President's car passed, I heard three shots come from
up toward Houston and Elm right by the Book Depository Building, and
then immediately I heard two more shots come from the Arcade between
the Book Store and the Underpass, and then three more shots came from
the same direction only sounded further back. (Decker Exhibit 5323,
19H486)
Millican also testified that: "A man standing on the South side of Elm
Street, was either hit in the foot, or the ankle and fell
down." (ibid.)
Sometimes, it's easy to see how the witness might have been wrong.
Jack Franzen, for example, probably saw reporters and photographers
leaving the various press cars (several cars behind the Presidential
limo), and perhaps also got a glance of Agent Hickey in the follow-up
car brandishing an AR-15. Millican may well have seen someone like
Malcolm Summers hit the ground and assumed he had been shot.
But in other cases, heaven knows where the witness got that piece of
testimony.
Cop Drove Cycle Up Grassy Slope: A Mass Delusion?
About a minute after the shooting, motorcycle officer Clyde Haygood,
who was far back in the motorcade, reached the point on Elm Street in
front of the Grassy Knoll, and tried to jump the curb with his cycle
and ride up the grassy slope. He was unable to jump the curb and
parked his cycle in the street, got off, and ran up the Knoll toward
the corner of the Triple Underpass and the Stockade Fence.
So what did the witnesses say? Several said he drove the cycle part
way up the slope!
James Simmons said a motorcycle cop "drove up the grassy slope toward
the Texas School Book Depository Building, jumped off his motorcycle
and then ran up the hill toward the Memorial Arches."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/simmons.gif
Nolan Potter said that he noticed a policeman drive his motorcycle up
the slope towards the Texas School Book Depository Building.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/potter.gif
Sam Holland said a motorcycle cop "tried to ride up the embankment on
his motorcycle and it tuned over about halfway up the embankment."
Holland reported he then saw the officer "run on over to the fence
with the gun in his hand." (Source: Mark Lane video "The Plot to Kill
JFK: Rush to Judgment")
Curtis Freeman Bishop, according to an FBI report "recalls seeing a
motorcycle policeman drive up the grassy slope near the Texas School
Book Depository Building." http://www.jfkassassination.net/russ/exhibits/ce1419.htm
Lee Bowers said he saw a cop who "rode a motorcycle up the incline
coming up from the lower portion of Elm Street, and he rode perhaps
two-thirds of the way up or more before he deserted his
motorcycle." (Source: Mark Lane video, "The Plot of Kill JFK: Rush to
Judgment")
All this would be sufficient to cause one to believe that indeed a cop
rode his cycle up the grassy slope, except for the fact that both
Clyde Haygood's testimony and copious photographic evidence from
Dealey Plaza shows he did no such thing.
Tricks Memory Plays
If witness perceptions are often problematic, the problems are
multiplied by the issue of memory. Even assuming absolutely accurate
intitial perceptions, over time witness accounts come to have less and
less of the literal truth, and more and more things that have been
added as witnesses think about what happened, talk about it, and hear
about it. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm
A Scholarly Perspective
Dennis Ford and Mark Zaid are two assassination researchers who have
read the scholarly literature on witness testimony and applied it to
the Kennedy assassination witnesses. Their essay, "Eyewitness
Testimony, Memory, and Assassination Research" is "must" reading for
any researcher. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zaid.htm
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Feb 12, 3:01 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > (((((((((( Snipped ))))))))))))))))
>
> Conspiracy theorists thrive on witness accounts. They can produce
> seemingly voluminous testimony of shots from the Grassy Knoll, of Jack
> Ruby in Dealey Plaza watching the assassination, of wounds to
> Kennedy's body that radically contradict the Warren Commission's
> version of the shooting, of Oswald being in places the Warren
> Commission said he could not have been associating with very
> suspicious people.
> Ordinary citizens -- in contrast to social scientists and law
> enforcement professionals -- find witness testimony highly compelling.
> And why not? Here are sober looking, apparently honest ordinary
> citizens saying things with full sincerity. They wouldn't be lying,
> would they?
SNIP
Why is it only witnesses that saw or heard things contrary to the
official theory had these issues? Why is it the FEW witnesses for the
WC had no problems at all? In fact, they did, because if you knew the
case, which you don't, you would know the WC had to dismantle their
testimony or ignore much of it to make even them agree with their
crazy theory. I notice all the witnesses I glanced at below (the
snipped part) are not official theory believers, why? The WC
witnesses are the most fun because 90% of what they say even the WC
had to alter to make it fit.
cdddraftsman
wrote:
> why? The WC
> witnesses are the most fun because 90% of what they say even the WC
> had to alter to make it fit.
>
>
What was their original testimony that they altered ? How do you know
it was altered ? Why would they want to alter it if it indicated that
LHO was guilty ? We know CTer's have altered witness testimony and
evidence , that's a given from the very beginning :
THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY
by Historians DeLloyd J. Guth and David R. Wrone .
Published in 1980. BTW it is subtitled :
A COMPREHENSIVE AND LEGAL BIBLIORAPHY, 1963-1979
On p. viii of the preface they write :
"We wish to lift the subject out of the quagmire of often bizarre
speculations and exploitation by the likes of Mark Lane."
And on p. xxii
" Lane's RUSH TO JUDGMENT provides a classic example of
subjective gimmickry , with it scholarly cosmetic of 4,500 foot
notes , containing hundreds of substantial errors and repetitions .
Quotations within the text have been quietly changed in over two
hundred instances from original documented versions , important
material has been excised from the evidence in order to highlight
the trivial or to mislead ."
Cite something like this to show us what your talking about . Ir are
you just talking through your Robocrap hat again ?
tl
cdddraftsman
> official theory had these issues?
Good question . They did it for monetary profit which is
understandable
seeing that you bought it hook , line and stinker . Why if you know
it
was purely for profit in the beginning do you repeat their bullshit ?
You have issues with your personal loyalty to this country I take
it ?
Perhaps a scout for OBL that should be reported to homeland
security ?
Lets all think about it ?
tl
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Feb 12, 4:46 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > why? The WC
> > witnesses are the most fun because 90% of what they say even the WC
> > had to alter to make it fit.
>
"What was their original testimony that they altered ? How do you know
it was altered ? Why would they want to alter it if it indicated that
LHO was guilty ? We know CTer's have altered witness testimony and
evidence , that's a given from the very beginning :"
Thanks for proving my point for me, you don't know the case or the
testimony of your star witnesses. No altering on the CT side, just on
the WC side as their testimony did NOT match the required details for
the official theory. For example, your star witness in the JDT
shooting, Helen Markham, was at odds with every other witness who saw
anything. She also NEVER idendified LHO as the shooter, go read her
testimony, you'll see for yourself. They pointed her in the direction
of LHO, but she never ID'd him on her own. The cab driver, William
Whaley, was so at odds with the WC they threw out about 90% of what he
said and changed it to make it work. Read their testimony for
yourself.
>
> THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY
> by Historians DeLloyd J. Guth and David R. Wrone .
> Published in 1980. BTW it is subtitled :
> A COMPREHENSIVE AND LEGAL BIBLIORAPHY, 1963-1979
>
> On p. viii of the preface they write :
>
> "We wish to lift the subject out of the quagmire of often bizarre
> speculations and exploitation by the likes of Mark Lane."
>
> And on p. xxii
>
> " Lane's RUSH TO JUDGMENT provides a classic example of
> subjective gimmickry , with it scholarly cosmetic of 4,500 foot
> notes , containing hundreds of substantial errors and repetitions .
> Quotations within the text have been quietly changed in over two
> hundred instances from original documented versions , important
> material has been excised from the evidence in order to highlight
> the trivial or to mislead ."
>
"Cite something like this to show us what your talking about . Ir are
you just talking through your Robocrap hat again ?"
Look above, but in fact, all you have to do is read your star witness
testimonies to see they don't really match what all other witnesses
said for the most part. You really should learn the case before you
support a theory so vehemently.
robcap...@netscape.com
This is malarky. The majority of witnesses did NOT support the WC's
theory, and we know they were not all paid off. In fact, the only
ones who profited and advanced their standing or careers where the
ones who backed the lies of the WC. Go and ahead and report me, but I
served my country, did you? It is not being unloyal to question your
government, in fact, this is the role of every citizen in a democracy,
your blind loyalty is better suited in a dictatorship than a
democracy. You should go back to school to learn the difference.
curtjester1
wrote:
I think there was another witness who saw boxes moving a few minutes
after the shooting. I don't think they could have misID'd the floor
as there wasn't anything like that on the fifth floor to my
recollection. It's too long of a time for shooter(s) to hang around.
Of course it's open to speculating. I think most if not all in the
TSBD were accounted for. Jack Dougherty was up there and after Truly
and Baker went on up to the roof with the stuck elevators, he ended up
taking one that (must have got itself going again when the power came
back on), and went down to the first floor. His testimony is
disjointed, but he seems to have been up there when he heard a shot.
He was working the fifth and sixth floor. Sinister-wise, it could
have been somebody up there to be an abettor, who maybe would hide the
rifle, who would know how to blend in as somebody that they wouldn't
suspect. It could possibly have been the man in the sports coat, as
he wasn't seen leaving the back door until 3 minutes after the
shooting, if Mrs.Mooneyham's time element was off. If it was really
off, it could have been the first people in law enforcement that were
first in looking in the 6th floor.
CJ
robcap...@netscape.com
CJ"
I agree with you, the person Ms. Mooneyham saw could have been an
innocent person who worked at the depository, or it could have been
someone who was finishing the famous SN. The main issue is that we
don't know because the WC found it unimportant to find out for us.
With leads like this unexplored how can anyone think they did a full
"investigation?"
Robert