More WC Dishonesty
Ben Holmes
The Warren Commission seemed to often deal with unwanted testimony by
simply not taking it. Or, when they were forced to take it, to simply
not ask the obvious questions. For example, Mr. Spector knew very
well not to pin down anyone on the location of the neck wound with
regards to JFK's clothing, and the only reason that we know today that
it was ABOVE the tie, is Mr. Dulles not understanding the program, and
jumping in with an inconvenient question. (See the Carrico WC
testimony)
But more often, we have witnesses who had things to testify to that
could be brushed off by not having them testify. Many of the closest
of witnesses saw things that were not in the interest of the WC to
explore, so many of them simply weren't called.
The WC had the following information from a witness interview
apparently conducted on 12/4/63, submitted to the WC on 12/10/63, and
couldn't be bothered to either have her testify, or to have the FBI
conduct any follow up interviews. Mrs. Walthers saw *two* people, one
holding a rifle... and rather inconveniently, also apparently heard
more than three shots.
Note to Jean: Notice that if the shot scenario that Mrs. Walthers
describes is correct, it could be MATCHED to Mrs. Connally's testimony
that the first two shots were closer together than the second and
third - by the simple understanding that Mrs. Connally didn't hear the
*real* first shot. Just a thought...
"...Shortly after the ambulance left, she looked back toward the TSBD
building and saw a man standing on either the fourth or fifth floor in
the southeast corner window. This would be the most easterly window
of either the fourth or fifth floor, of the windows on the south side
of the building, which faces towards Elm street. This man had the
window open and was standing up leaning out the window with both his
hands extended outside the window ledge. In his hands, this man was
holding a rifle with the barrel pointed downward, and the man was
looking south on Houston Street. The man was wearing a white shirt
and had blond or light hair. She recalled at the time that she had
not noticed the man there a few moments previously when she looked
towards the building and thought that apparently there were guards
everywhere. The rifle had a short barrel and seemed large around the
stock or end of the rifle. Her impression was that the gun was a
machine gun. She noticed nothing like a telescopic sight on the rifle
or a leather strap or a sling on the rifle. She said she knows
nothing about rifles or guns of any type, but thought the rifle was
different from any she had ever seen. This man was standing in or
about the middle of the window. In the same window, to the left of
this man, she could see a portion of another man standing by the side
of this man with a rifle. The other man was standing erect and his
head was above the open portion of the window. As the window was very
dirty she could not see the head of this second man. She is positive
this window was not as high as the sixth floor. This second man was
apparently wearing a brown suit coat, and the only thing she could see
was the right side of the man, from about the waist to the shoulders.
Almost immediately after noticing this man with the rifle and the
other man standing beside him, someone in the crowd said 'Here they
come," and she looked to her left, looking south on Houston Street, to
see the Presidential Party. As soon as President KENNEDY's car passed
where she was standing, she and Mrs. Springer turned away and started
walking north towards Elm Street. At about the time they reached the
curb at Elm Street, she heard a loud report, and thought it was
fireworks. There was a pause after this first report, then a second
and a third report almost at the same time, and then a pause followed
by at least one and possibly more reports The noise seemed to come
from up in the air, but she never looked up in any direction. When
the second report sounded, she decided it was gunfire, so she and Mrs.
Springer started diagonally across the street towards the TSBD
building. About the time she got across the street, she heard someone
yell that the President had been hit. She stopped a moment and
listened to the police radio on a motorcycle, then returned to the
building across the street where she works. [Daltex Building] She
returned to her job at about 12:45 pm."
The complete interview can be read here:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0270b.htm
Jean Davison
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:2jc4jusjgvtfanpok...@4ax.com...
>
> The Warren Commission seemed to often deal with unwanted testimony by
> simply not taking it. Or, when they were forced to take it, to simply
> not ask the obvious questions. For example, Mr. Spector knew very
> well not to pin down anyone on the location of the neck wound with
> regards to JFK's clothing, and the only reason that we know today that
> it was ABOVE the tie, is Mr. Dulles not understanding the program, and
> jumping in with an inconvenient question. (See the Carrico WC
> testimony)
I'm always amazed at how some CTs can read
minds. If Specter truly didn't want Carrico to pin down the
location of the throat wound then he shouldn't have asked
open-ended questions like this one:
QUOTE:
>>>
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in
the anterior third of the neck which you have just described, could
you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound?
[VI, 3]
<<<
UNQUOTE
Besides, Weisberg didn't give the full story on
Carrico's testimony. In one of the Whitewash books,
he wrote:
QUOTE:
>>>
Dulles interrupted the Carrico questioning to try to learn
exactly what was being testified to about his anterior
neck wound (3H361-2).
"Will you show us about where it was?" he asked.
Carrico showed by placing his hand on his own throat
while speaking, his rejoinder ending, "This was a small
wound here."
To this demonstration of "here," Dulles responded, "I
see. And you put your hand *right about where your
tie is?*" (Emphasis added) <<<
UNQUOTE
But look at this passage in context. Carrico first
answered Dulles' question by saying, "Just about where
your tie would be." Weisberg left that out.
QUOTE
>>>
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe, as specifically as you can then,
the neck wounds which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
Dr. CARRICO. There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size,
located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage,
the Adams apple.
Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.
Mr. DULLES. Where did it enter?
Dr. CARRICO. It entered?
Mr. DULLES. Yes.
Dr. CARRICO. At the time we did not know
Mr. DULLES. I see.
Dr. CARRICO. The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Mr. DULLES. I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. CARRICO. Yes, sir; just where the tie--
Mr. DULLES. A little bit to the left.
Dr. CARRICO. To the right.
Mr. DULLES. Yes; to the right.
Dr. CARRICO. Yes. And this wound was fairly round, had no
jagged edges, no evidence of powder burns, and so forth.
Representative FORD. No evidence of powder burns?
Dr. CARRICO. So far as I know.
Representative FORD. In the front?
Dr. CARRICO. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described that wound as
specifically as based upon your observations at the time?
Dr. CARRICO. I believe so.
[3H361-362]
The location of the wound, below the Adam's apple,
is in fact "just about where your tie would be." Do you
disagree? Compare any photo of JFK wearing a tie with the autopsy shot of
the throat wound. How could the tie have possibly been
worn that low?
I'll tackle Walthers in another post. Also owe you
one on Connally. Jean
Jean Davison
Ben Holmes
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:2jc4jusjgvtfanpok...@4ax.com...
>>
>> The Warren Commission seemed to often deal with unwanted testimony by
>> simply not taking it. Or, when they were forced to take it, to simply
>> not ask the obvious questions. For example, Mr. Spector knew very
>> well not to pin down anyone on the location of the neck wound with
>> regards to JFK's clothing, and the only reason that we know today that
>> it was ABOVE the tie, is Mr. Dulles not understanding the program, and
>> jumping in with an inconvenient question. (See the Carrico WC
>> testimony)
>
> I'm always amazed at how some CTs can read
>minds. If Specter truly didn't want Carrico to pin down the
>location of the throat wound then he shouldn't have asked
>open-ended questions like this one:
>
> QUOTE:
>>>>
> Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in
>the anterior third of the neck which you have just described, could
>you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound?
>[VI, 3]
><<<
> UNQUOTE
It may have *seemed* open ended, but I'm quite sure that most of the
witnesses knew *exactly* what was being asked of them. They'd all
undergone pre-testimony discussion with Spector... as Spector's
questions themselves make very clear.
Gems such as these make clear that the witnesses must have known what
they were *supposed* to be testifying to:
MR BELIN: "How many shots did you hear, if you remember?"
MR EDWARDS: "Well, I heard one more than was fired, I believe."
Or:
Mr. Fischer. At first, I thought there were four, but as I think
about it more, there must have been just three.
> Besides, Weisberg didn't give the full story on
>Carrico's testimony. In one of the Whitewash books,
>he wrote:
While it's nice to point out Mr. Weisberg's contractions, I *never*
rely on secondary sources if it's possible for me to read the primary
sources. (Other than the minor fact that I don't *own* any of his
"Whitewash" series... they are, however, on my 'want to own' list,
and I'll almost certainly get around to purchasing more of his books
in the future. I currently only have his "Never Again", and "Case
Opened". I think "Post Mortem" is going to be my next pick to get...)
It's simply not possible to give total quotes, or any book would be 28
volumes long.
For example, where I ran across a comment about Mrs. Walthers
testimony, what was quoted didn't bother to say anything at all about
what she *heard*... and that's at least as important in my mind as her
testimony of seeing two people in the window.
Why should I agree or disagree? Others have *asked* Dr. Carrico in
person just what he meant, and he's made it quite clear that the wound
was above the tie.
Exactly as he *testified*. (Or pointed, and agreed with Mr. Dulles
description of his pointing finger...)
I'll grant you that Weisberg (as I recall) was one who asked... but if
LN'ers aren't willing to ask the questions, they'll have to live with
the answers we *do* get.
>Compare any photo of JFK wearing a tie with the autopsy shot of
>the throat wound. How could the tie have possibly been
>worn that low?
Ask Carrico - it's *his* testimony that the shot was above the tie.
And I might point out that you are now trying to take advantage of the
refusal to allow the prosectors to examine the clothes.
Carrico saw it, Carrico *testified* to it, and Carrico confirmed it to
people who asked.
>I'll tackle Walthers in another post.
I'll be *most* interested in how you justify not taking her testimony,
or at least re-questioning her about her statement.
Jean Davison
GMcNally
Please repost. Your reply didn't make it and all we have is the
message you replied to.
Jerry
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote in message news:<ah0ad...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
John McAdams
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
Good post, Jean.
It seems that Weisberg, and not the WC, was the one who omitted key
information.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Jean Davison
hit the wrong button. Jean
"GMcNally" <jer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:a163e09.02071...@posting.google.com...
John McAdams
wrote:
OIC. First it was Specter who was asking leading questions and
refusing to ask questions that might have inconvenient answers.
But then Jean corrected you on what the questioning actually looked
like.
You hadn't read it, had you? Just accepted Weisberg's word on how it
went, hadn't you?
So now it's "well . . . he may have asked what *seems* like a good
question, but really Carrico had been briefed on what to answer."
>
>Gems such as these make clear that the witnesses must have known what
>they were *supposed* to be testifying to:
>
>MR BELIN: "How many shots did you hear, if you remember?"
>MR EDWARDS: "Well, I heard one more than was fired, I believe."
>
How does this show any WC dishonesty? The fellow had heard plenty of
news reports.
>Or:
>
>Mr. Fischer. At first, I thought there were four, but as I think
>about it more, there must have been just three.
>
>
Same here.
>> Besides, Weisberg didn't give the full story on
>>Carrico's testimony. In one of the Whitewash books,
>>he wrote:
>
>While it's nice to point out Mr. Weisberg's contractions, I *never*
>rely on secondary sources if it's possible for me to read the primary
>sources. (Other than the minor fact that I don't *own* any of his
>"Whitewash" series... they are, however, on my 'want to own' list,
>and I'll almost certainly get around to purchasing more of his books
>in the future. I currently only have his "Never Again", and "Case
>Opened". I think "Post Mortem" is going to be my next pick to get...)
>It's simply not possible to give total quotes, or any book would be 28
>volumes long.
>
You mean you, and not Weisberg, edited out key parts of Carrico's
testimony?
Is "above the tie" in the lower third of the neck?
Are you saying that the bullet entered at the Adam's Apple and
shattered the thyroid cartilage?
>Exactly as he *testified*. (Or pointed, and agreed with Mr. Dulles
>description of his pointing finger...)
>
>I'll grant you that Weisberg (as I recall) was one who asked... but if
>LN'ers aren't willing to ask the questions, they'll have to live with
>the answers we *do* get.
>
Translations: Weisberg mangled this entire bit of testimony.
>>Compare any photo of JFK wearing a tie with the autopsy shot of
>>the throat wound. How could the tie have possibly been
>>worn that low?
>
>Ask Carrico - it's *his* testimony that the shot was above the tie.
>
>And I might point out that you are now trying to take advantage of the
>refusal to allow the prosectors to examine the clothes.
>
The clothes exist to this day, and show a defect right below the knot
in the tie.
Why are you pretending they don't?
GMcNally
John,
We see Weisberg at his worst in the passage Ben cited:
1. Although Carrico stated explicitly that the wound was where we see
it in the photo - "... in the lower third of the neck, below the
thyroid cartilage,
> >the Adams apple," Weisberg twists his words to try to create the impression that Carrico said that the wound was ABOVE the shirt and tie.
2. Although Carrico did not spend one second examining JFK's clothing,
his statement that he didn't notice the small slits and the nicked
tie, is used by Weisberg to "prove" that there was no damage to JFK's
clothing, shirt or tie, caused by a bullet!
Jerry
> .John
Ben Holmes
says...
Looks like John isn't the only one who cannot read. I cited *NO* passages from
Weisberg.
>1. Although Carrico stated explicitly that the wound was where we see
>it in the photo - "... in the lower third of the neck, below the
>thyroid cartilage,
>>>the Adams apple," Weisberg twists his words to try to create the impression
>>that Carrico said that the wound was ABOVE the shirt and tie.
No need to "twist" the words... that's what Carrico agreed with in his
testimony.
>2. Although Carrico did not spend one second examining JFK's clothing,
>his statement that he didn't notice the small slits and the nicked
>tie, is used by Weisberg to "prove" that there was no damage to JFK's
>clothing, shirt or tie, caused by a bullet!
Cart before the horse, seems like. Carrico pointed above his tie, and agreed in
the written testimony with Dulles statement that the wound was *right above*
where the tie was. If it seems unclear in the testimony, Carrico has been asked
to clarify his position - he STILL states that the wound was above the tie.
But it sure seems silly that everyone is 'latching' on to this quick example,
and *ignoring* my main post concerning Walther's statement. I wonder why?
>Jerry
>
>> .John
Ben Holmes
>><dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>>>news:2jc4jusjgvtfanpok...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> The Warren Commission seemed to often deal with unwanted testimony by
>>>> simply not taking it. Or, when they were forced to take it, to simply
>>>> not ask the obvious questions. For example, Mr. Spector knew very
>>>> well not to pin down anyone on the location of the neck wound with
>>>> regards to JFK's clothing, and the only reason that we know today that
>>>> it was ABOVE the tie, is Mr. Dulles not understanding the program, and
>>>> jumping in with an inconvenient question. (See the Carrico WC
>>>> testimony)
>>>
>>> I'm always amazed at how some CTs can read
>>>minds. If Specter truly didn't want Carrico to pin down the
>>>location of the throat wound then he shouldn't have asked
>>>open-ended questions like this one:
>>>
>>> QUOTE:
>>>>>>
>>> Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in
>>>the anterior third of the neck which you have just described, could
>>>you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that wound?
>>>[VI, 3]
>>><<<
>>> UNQUOTE
>>
>>witnesses knew *exactly* what was being asked of them. They'd all
>>undergone pre-testimony discussion with Spector... as Spector's
>>questions themselves make very clear.
>
>OIC. First it was Specter who was asking leading questions and
>refusing to ask questions that might have inconvenient answers.
>
>But then Jean corrected you on what the questioning actually looked
>like.
>
>You hadn't read it, had you? Just accepted Weisberg's word on how it
>went, hadn't you?
Actually, John... to anyone who could read, I made it quite clear that I prefer
primary source material. Jean couldn't correct a problem that simply didn't
exist.
Since I don't *have* the book that Jean referred to, it makes it rather
difficult for me to accept Weisberg's word on the subject. Or did you bother to
read that particular paragraph of mine?
Spector DID NOT ask questions he should have. And if you don't know that, then
perhaps *you* should try reading the primary testimony of the witnesses...
>So now it's "well . . . he may have asked what *seems* like a good
>question, but really Carrico had been briefed on what to answer."
Nope... my statement still stands, John. I *explained* it for someone who
didn't seem clear on my meaning. I gave *examples* of my explanation.
>>Gems such as these make clear that the witnesses must have known what
>>they were *supposed* to be testifying to:
>>
>>MR BELIN: "How many shots did you hear, if you remember?"
>>MR EDWARDS: "Well, I heard one more than was fired, I believe."
>>
>
>How does this show any WC dishonesty? The fellow had heard plenty of
>news reports.
If you would bother to read, John, you'd understand that I just gave those
examples to demonstrate that the witnesses *knew* what they were supposed to be
testifying to. This is standard procedure in any courtroom, John. It's a
principle that any lawyer is familiar with - that you never ask a question you
don't already know the answer to.
Or do you just want to make false implications of my meaning just for the fun of
it? Or, what seems likely, you can't be bothered to follow the thread, and just
jump in with both feet whenever you feel like you'd like to spread a few lies,
eh, John?
>>Or:
>>
>>Mr. Fischer. At first, I thought there were four, but as I think
>>about it more, there must have been just three.
>
>
>Same here.
>
>
>>> Besides, Weisberg didn't give the full story on
>>>Carrico's testimony. In one of the Whitewash books,
>>>he wrote:
>>
>>While it's nice to point out Mr. Weisberg's contractions, I *never*
>>rely on secondary sources if it's possible for me to read the primary
>>sources. (Other than the minor fact that I don't *own* any of his
>>"Whitewash" series... they are, however, on my 'want to own' list,
>>and I'll almost certainly get around to purchasing more of his books
>>in the future. I currently only have his "Never Again", and "Case
>>Opened". I think "Post Mortem" is going to be my next pick to get...)
>>It's simply not possible to give total quotes, or any book would be 28
>>volumes long.
>>
>
>You mean you, and not Weisberg, edited out key parts of Carrico's
>testimony?
No John, I mean that when Jean mistakenly thought I was using Weisberg's book
for an example, I pointed out that I don't even *HAVE* the book referred to.
The key part that you keep missing is that Carrico's testimony points out that
the neck wound was "right above" the tie. Corroboration by Carrico to those who
ask that he *did* mean above the tie. Can't deal with that?
And, to anyone who's competent enough to read usenet postings, it's quite clear
that it was Jean, not I, who posted Weisberg's version. What do you need, John?
A mallet to jog your brain?
>>Why should I agree or disagree? Others have *asked* Dr. Carrico in
>>person just what he meant, and he's made it quite clear that the wound
>>was above the tie.
>>
>
>Is "above the tie" in the lower third of the neck?
>
>Are you saying that the bullet entered at the Adam's Apple and
>shattered the thyroid cartilage?
I'm saying, John, that Carrico's testimony demonstrates that Spector didn't ask
key questions - and the only reason that we know that the first doctor to see
the neck wound places it's location "right above" the tie is because Mr. Dulles
didn't know the game plan, and asked a question that Spector *should have
asked*.
It's interesting that everyone is jumping on this sideline example, and ignoring
my main post - Walther's statement.
>>Exactly as he *testified*. (Or pointed, and agreed with Mr. Dulles
>>description of his pointing finger...)
>>
>>I'll grant you that Weisberg (as I recall) was one who asked... but if
>>LN'ers aren't willing to ask the questions, they'll have to live with
>>the answers we *do* get.
>>
>
>Translations: Weisberg mangled this entire bit of testimony.
Heh, John, translate it any way you want to. You somehow miss the point that
Carrico has been asked, and given an answer that you don't want to hear.
Just for fun, John, give us the testimony of a witness who saw the wound on
JFK's clothed body, and states that the bullet went *through* the clothes and
tie.
>>>Compare any photo of JFK wearing a tie with the autopsy shot of
>>>the throat wound. How could the tie have possibly been
>>>worn that low?
>>
>>Ask Carrico - it's *his* testimony that the shot was above the tie.
>>
>>And I might point out that you are now trying to take advantage of the
>>refusal to allow the prosectors to examine the clothes.
>>
>
>The clothes exist to this day, and show a defect right below the knot
>in the tie.
>
>Why are you pretending they don't?
Why would you accuse me of pretending something doesn't exist? Throwing out
strawmen, John?
Or, more likely - just a lie to divert attention.
>.John
Jean Davison
> The WC had the following information from a witness interview
> apparently conducted on 12/4/63, submitted to the WC on 12/10/63, and
> couldn't be bothered to either have her testify, or to have the FBI
> conduct any follow up interviews. Mrs. Walthers saw *two* people, one
> holding a rifle... and rather inconveniently, also apparently heard
> more than three shots.
>
> Note to Jean: Notice that if the shot scenario that Mrs. Walthers
> describes is correct, it could be MATCHED to Mrs. Connally's testimony
> that the first two shots were closer together than the second and
> third - by the simple understanding that Mrs. Connally didn't hear the
> *real* first shot. Just a thought...
So if Nellie Connally was "mistaken" about the number
of shots, her testimony would match Walther's? But that's *my* point,
Ben. Since the testimony is contradictory, some of it HAS TO BE
rejected, no matter which side of the fence you're on.
Walther is a good case in point, because at the same time
she was looking at "two men" in the TSBD window, other
witnesses were looking at the very same window, and they didn't
see this "second man." Somebody's going to have to be
"mistaken," the only question is who.
Here's Walther's statement:
>
>
> "...Shortly after the ambulance left, she looked back toward the TSBD
> building and saw a man standing on either the fourth or fifth floor in
> the southeast corner window. This would be the most easterly window
> of either the fourth or fifth floor, of the windows on the south side
> of the building, which faces towards Elm street. This man had the
> window open and was standing up leaning out the window with both his
> hands extended outside the window ledge. In his hands, this man was
> holding a rifle with the barrel pointed downward, and the man was
> looking south on Houston Street. The man was wearing a white shirt
> and had blond or light hair. She recalled at the time that she had
> not noticed the man there a few moments previously when she looked
> towards the building and thought that apparently there were guards
> everywhere. The rifle had a short barrel and seemed large around the
> stock or end of the rifle. Her impression was that the gun was a
> machine gun. She noticed nothing like a telescopic sight on the rifle
> or a leather strap or a sling on the rifle. She said she knows
> nothing about rifles or guns of any type, but thought the rifle was
> different from any she had ever seen. This man was standing in or
> about the middle of the window. In the same window, to the left of
> this man, she could see a portion of another man standing by the side
> of this man with a rifle. The other man was standing erect and his
> head was above the open portion of the window. As the window was very
> dirty she could not see the head of this second man. She is positive
> this window was not as high as the sixth floor.
I'm assuming that you agree with me that she was wrong
about that, and it *was* the sixth floor.
Back to Walther's statment:
>This second man was
> apparently wearing a brown suit coat, and the only thing she could see
> was the right side of the man, from about the waist to the shoulders.
> Almost immediately after noticing this man with the rifle and the
> other man standing beside him, someone in the crowd said 'Here they
> come," and she looked to her left, looking south on Houston Street, to
> see the Presidential Party.
Robert Edwards and Ronald Fischer were standing on the southwest
corner of Elm and Houston, and they happened to be looking at the 6th
floor window at the same time Walther was, right before the motorcade
arrived, but they saw only ONE man there and they saw no weapon.
QUOTE:
>>>
Mr. FISCHER. .... about 10 or 15 seconds before the first car came around that
corner, Bob punched me and said, "Look at that guy there in that window." And he made
some remark---said, "He looks like he's uncomfortable"--or something.
And I looked up and I watched the man for, oh, I'd say, 10 or 15 seconds. It was
until the first car came around the corner of Houston and Main. And, then, when that car
did come around the corner, I took my attention off of the man in the window and started
watching the parade. The man held my attention for 10 or 15 seconds, because he appeared
uncomfortable for one, and, secondly, he wasn't watching-uh---he didn't look like he was
watching for the parade. He looked like he was looking down toward the Trinity River and
the triple underpass down at the end-toward the end of Ell Street. And--uh--all the time I
watched him, he never moved his head, he never-he never moved anything. Just was there
transfixed.
Mr. BELIN. In what window did you see the man ?
Mr. FISCHER. It was the corner window on Houston Street facing Elm, in the fifth or sixth
floor. <<<
[VI, 193]
QUOTE:
>>>
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. EDWARDS. Nothing of importance except maybe one individual who was up there in
the corner room of the sixth floor which was crowded in among boxes.
Mr. BELIN. You say on the sixth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes. [VI, 203]
>>>
QUOTE:
>>>>
Mr. BELIN. Could you see his hands?
Mr. FISCHER. No.
Mr. BELIN. Could you see whether or not he was holding anything?
Mr. FISCHER No; I couldn't see.
Mr. BELIN. Could you see any other objects in the window?
Mr. FISCHER. There were boxes and cases stacked all the way from the bottom to the
top and from the left to the right behind him. It looked---uh---it's possible that there
weren't cases directly behind him because I couldn't see because of him. But---uh---all
the rest of the window---a portion behind the window--- there were boxes. It looked like
there was space for a man to walk through there between the window and the boxes. But
there were boxes in the window, or close to the window there.
[IV, 194]
<<<<<
>>>>
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any other people on the sixth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS. No.
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice whether or not there were any, or just did you look and see
any?
Mr. EDWARDS. I notice that there---I just didn't see any.
[VI, 204]
>>>>
<<<<
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand at all that you could see?
Mr. EDWARDS. No.
[VI, 203]
<<<<<
>
>
> The complete [Walther] interview can be read here:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0270b.htm
It was nice of the WC to publish that for you, wasn't it?
Again, Edwards and Fischer saw one man in the window,
and no weapon. Brennan also saw only one man up there before
the motorcade arrived and no weapon until after the shooting started.
And significantly, all three saw something else in the window that Walthers
later denied seeing -- boxes. Josiah Thompson quoted her as saying in a 1966
interview, "... I did not see any boxes in the building. I saw no boxes
at all in the building." But there certainly *were* boxes there, including
a stack in exactly the spot where she placed the "second man" --
just to the left of the man with the rifle. Take a look at this Dillard
closeup, and tell me if you see anything that looks like a "brown suit
coat" of a man "standing erect [with] his head ... above the open
portion of the window":
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0292a.htm
Jean
GMcNally
You have posted passages from Weisberg and Jean Davison has shown you
that Weisberg left out important parts of the testimony.
> >1. Although Carrico stated explicitly that the wound was where we see
> >it in the photo - "... in the lower third of the neck, below the
> >thyroid cartilage,
> >>>the Adams apple," Weisberg twists his words to try to create the impression
> >>that Carrico said that the wound was ABOVE the shirt and tie.
>
> No need to "twist" the words... that's what Carrico agreed with in his
> testimony.
I don't think so. As I've written many times, you guys just can't
figure things out.
And as Jeanne has further written, when testimony conflicts, then you
have to reject some. And this is a good example.
Carrico is very clear in saying:
Carrico showed by placing his hand on his own throat
> >> >while speaking, his rejoinder ending, "This was a small
> >> >wound here."
> >> > To this demonstration of "here," Dulles responded, "I
> >> >see. And you put your hand *right about where your
> >> >tie is?*" (Emphasis added) UNQUOTE > >> >
But look at this passage in context. Carrico first
> >> >answered Dulles' question by saying, "Just about where
> >> >your tie would be." Weisberg left that out.
> >> > QUOTE
> >> > Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe, as specifically as you can then,
> >> >the neck wounds which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
> >> > Dr. CARRICO. There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size,
> >> >located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage,
> >> >the Adams apple.
This description is incompatible with a wound above the shirt and tie;
with one, one's Adam's apple is exposed - in the middle of the neck,
not the "lower third ... below the Adams apple".
And it is fully compatable with the wound being where the damage to
the shirt and tie is visible.
And fully compatable with Perry and with the photo.
> >2. Although Carrico did not spend one second examining JFK's clothing,
> >his statement that he didn't notice the small slits and the nicked
> >tie, is used by Weisberg to "prove" that there was no damage to JFK's
> >clothing, shirt or tie, caused by a bullet!
>
> Cart before the horse, seems like. Carrico pointed above his tie, and agreed in
> the written testimony with Dulles statement that the wound was *right above*
> where the tie was.
No he did not. He said it was *right about* where your tie is. And he
said it was in the lower third, below the Adam's apple.
You CT say the silliest things!
You're a bunch of confused people ... terminally confused.
On this issue the WC, a bunch of smart and logical people, got it
right. Yet you
who get it wrong claim "WC Dishonesty"; that's a joke.
If it seems unclear in the testimony, Carrico has been asked
> to clarify his position - he STILL states that the wound was above the tie.
No he doesn't. He said several times that it was about where the tie
was - not above, not below.
> But it sure seems silly that everyone is 'latching' on to this quick example,
> and *ignoring* my main post concerning Walther's statement. I wonder why?
It's obvious that since she saw no cartons she mistook a stack of them
for a man
in a jacket - the color of boxes.
You've got to learn how to figure things out.
Jerry
>
> >Jerry
> >
> >> .John
Ben Holmes
Once again, Jerry, let me spell it out for you. I did NOT cite any Weisberg
passages, Jean did. Every Weisberg quote in this post was put there by Jean.
Why can't you just admit you made a mistake and move on? John at least has the
courtesy of shutting up on the subject... you just keep pointing out something
that is not true.
>> >1. Although Carrico stated explicitly that the wound was where we see
>> >it in the photo - "... in the lower third of the neck, below the
>> >thyroid cartilage,
>>>>>the Adams apple," Weisberg twists his words to try to create the impression
>> >>that Carrico said that the wound was ABOVE the shirt and tie.
>>
>> No need to "twist" the words... that's what Carrico agreed with in his
>> testimony.
>
>I don't think so. As I've written many times, you guys just can't
>figure things out.
>
>And as Jeanne has further written, when testimony conflicts, then you
>have to reject some. And this is a good example.
The testmony is not in conflict. You merely wish it were so. Carrico has been
quite clear in corroborating that he meant what he said.
It's clear that Spector should have done a *real* job in searching out the
truth, but the sad fact is, that if it weren't for Dulles jumping in, we'd not
have it on the record *anywhere* the location of the neck wound with relation to
the clothing.
>Carrico is very clear in saying:
>
>Carrico showed by placing his hand on his own throat
>> >> >while speaking, his rejoinder ending, "This was a small
>> >> >wound here."
>> >> > To this demonstration of "here," Dulles responded, "I
>> >> >see. And you put your hand *right about where your
>> >> >tie is?*" (Emphasis added) UNQUOTE > >> >
> But look at this passage in context. Carrico first
>> >> >answered Dulles' question by saying, "Just about where
>> >> >your tie would be." Weisberg left that out.
>
>> >> > QUOTE
>
>> >> > Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe, as specifically as you can then,
>> >> >the neck wounds which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
>> >> > Dr. CARRICO. There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size,
>> >> >located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage,
>> >> >the Adams apple.
>
>This description is incompatible with a wound above the shirt and tie;
>with one, one's Adam's apple is exposed - in the middle of the neck,
>not the "lower third ... below the Adams apple".
>
>And it is fully compatable with the wound being where the damage to
>the shirt and tie is visible.
>
>And fully compatable with Perry and with the photo.
I completely understand your desire to force the testimony in the direction you
want. However, those who've *asked* Dr. Carrico have gotten his corroboration
that he did indeed, mean that the wound was where he pointed... *above* the tie.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the eyewitnesses were *there*,
and *saw* what they saw... and testified to it?
>> >2. Although Carrico did not spend one second examining JFK's clothing,
>> >his statement that he didn't notice the small slits and the nicked
>> >tie, is used by Weisberg to "prove" that there was no damage to JFK's
>> >clothing, shirt or tie, caused by a bullet!
>>
>>Cart before the horse, seems like. Carrico pointed above his tie, and agreed in
>> the written testimony with Dulles statement that the wound was *right above*
>> where the tie was.
>
>No he did not.
Why do you lie about the testimony when it's included in this post for anyone to
read? Do you really think that others reading this will just take your
statement as true based on your previous record, and not bother to cursor up to
where *JEAN* posted the relevant testimony?
Or is it that you are simply so blinded by your biases that you cannot read
straight?
>He said it was *right about* where your tie is. And he
>said it was in the lower third, below the Adam's apple.
He who? Are you talking about what Carrico *said*??? I really do wish you'd
learn to read. Go back to my previous statement, and read it again.
Slowly.
Then, if you're man enough, you can apologize for your mistake. But, I won't be
holding my breath.
I might point out, however, that you really don't do yourself or the LN cause
any good when you keep fighting strawmen. You need to deal with the actual
issues and testimony.
>You CT say the silliest things!
>
>You're a bunch of confused people ... terminally confused.
>
>On this issue the WC, a bunch of smart and logical people, got it
>right. Yet you
>who get it wrong claim "WC Dishonesty"; that's a joke.
>
> If it seems unclear in the testimony, Carrico has been asked
>> to clarify his position - he STILL states that the wound was above the tie.
>
>No he doesn't. He said several times that it was about where the tie
>was - not above, not below.
This is REALLY getting stupid. You're now disputing what people have said that
Carrico said in response to their personal questions to him. Are you an idiot?
When are you going to learn to read, Jerry?
May I suggest that you RE-READ the entire post, and your responses to it,
*before* hitting the send key?
>> But it sure seems silly that everyone is 'latching' on to this quick example,
>> and *ignoring* my main post concerning Walther's statement. I wonder why?
>
>It's obvious that since she saw no cartons she mistook a stack of them
>for a man in a jacket - the color of boxes.
Must have been a common mistake... how many others reported two men there,
Jerry? And you somehow missed the point... why wasn't Mrs. Walthers
re-questioned or asked to testify?
And just how *obvious* was this ploy of yours concerning the cartons? I don't
recall any mention one way or the other in her statement. Was the WC
omnipotent?
>You've got to learn how to figure things out.
And you, Jerry, have got to learn how to read.
>Jerry
>
>> >Jerry
>> >
>> >> .John
Ben Holmes
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:2jc4jusjgvtfanpok...@4ax.com...
>>
> Okay, Carolyn Walther.
>
>> The WC had the following information from a witness interview
>> apparently conducted on 12/4/63, submitted to the WC on 12/10/63, and
>> couldn't be bothered to either have her testify, or to have the FBI
>> conduct any follow up interviews. Mrs. Walthers saw *two* people, one
>> holding a rifle... and rather inconveniently, also apparently heard
>> more than three shots.
>>
>> Note to Jean: Notice that if the shot scenario that Mrs. Walthers
>> describes is correct, it could be MATCHED to Mrs. Connally's testimony
>> that the first two shots were closer together than the second and
>> third - by the simple understanding that Mrs. Connally didn't hear the
>> *real* first shot. Just a thought...
>
> So if Nellie Connally was "mistaken" about the number
>of shots, her testimony would match Walther's? But that's *my* point,
>Ben. Since the testimony is contradictory, some of it HAS TO BE
>rejected, no matter which side of the fence you're on.
What do you mean "rejected"??? John Connally only heard two shots,
should we now deny his testimony? Or lower the shot count to two?
Of *course* there's a reasonable understanding of the evidence.
That's why when a number of people describe more than one person at
the SN, I start getting the idea that there may have *been* more than
one.
Now... back to *my* point... why did the WC feel it unnecessary to
re-question or take the testimony of Mrs. Walthers?
It's quite easy to understand this particular mistake. Count the
windows...
This is all well and good that you can produce testimony of people who
*support* the LN scenario. Why can't I point to the testimony of Mrs.
Walthers???
Oh, that's right, nobody bothered to re-question or ask for her
testimony!!!
This is STILL the point that I'm making... and if you had all members
of the the Supreme Court, standing just 50 feet away with binoculars,
and all of them testified that they only saw one man - it STILL
wouldn't explain the apparent disregard of a witness with a contrary
bit of testimony to give.
Unless the WC were dishonestly trying to paint a picture with false
colors.
>> The complete [Walther] interview can be read here:
>>
>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0270b.htm
>
> It was nice of the WC to publish that for you, wasn't it?
>
> Again, Edwards and Fischer saw one man in the window,
>and no weapon. Brennan also saw only one man up there before
>the motorcade arrived and no weapon until after the shooting started.
>And significantly, all three saw something else in the window that Walthers
>later denied seeing -- boxes. Josiah Thompson quoted her as saying in a 1966
>interview, "... I did not see any boxes in the building. I saw no boxes
>at all in the building." But there certainly *were* boxes there, including
>a stack in exactly the spot where she placed the "second man" --
>just to the left of the man with the rifle. Take a look at this Dillard
>closeup, and tell me if you see anything that looks like a "brown suit
>coat" of a man "standing erect [with] his head ... above the open
>portion of the window":
>
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0292a.htm
>
> Jean
Now that you have been so kind as to quote witnesses who only saw one
person, will you ALSO be so kind as to quote the witnesses who saw
*more* than one person where only LHO was supposed to be???
Jean Davison
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:08:35 -0400, "Jean Davison"
> <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>
> >"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> >news:2jc4jusjgvtfanpok...@4ax.com...
> >>
> > Okay, Carolyn Walther.
> >
> >> The WC had the following information from a witness interview
> >> apparently conducted on 12/4/63, submitted to the WC on 12/10/63, and
> >> couldn't be bothered to either have her testify, or to have the FBI
> >> conduct any follow up interviews. Mrs. Walthers saw *two* people, one
> >> holding a rifle... and rather inconveniently, also apparently heard
> >> more than three shots.
> >>
> >> Note to Jean: Notice that if the shot scenario that Mrs. Walthers
> >> describes is correct, it could be MATCHED to Mrs. Connally's testimony
> >> that the first two shots were closer together than the second and
> >> third - by the simple understanding that Mrs. Connally didn't hear the
> >> *real* first shot. Just a thought...
> >
> > So if Nellie Connally was "mistaken" about the number
> >of shots, her testimony would match Walther's? But that's *my* point,
> >Ben. Since the testimony is contradictory, some of it HAS TO BE
> >rejected, no matter which side of the fence you're on.
>
> What do you mean "rejected"??? John Connally only heard two shots,
> should we now deny his testimony? Or lower the shot count to two?
Connally testified to *three* shots, not two -- two that he heard
and another one that he felt hit him in the back but did not hear. If you
think there were more than three shots, aren't you disagreeing with the
vast majority of the witnesses who said there were three?
>
> Of *course* there's a reasonable understanding of the evidence.
> That's why when a number of people describe more than one person at
> the SN, I start getting the idea that there may have *been* more than
> one.
And when a number of people describe only one person
in the SN, what then?
>
> Now... back to *my* point... why did the WC feel it unnecessary to
> re-question or take the testimony of Mrs. Walthers?
How should I know what the WC "felt"? Why do no
CT authors ever mention that Walther's account is contradicted by at
least three other witnesses-- Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan?
>
> > Walther is a good case in point, because at the same time
> >she was looking at "two men" in the TSBD window, other
> >witnesses were looking at the very same window, and they didn't
> >see this "second man." Somebody's going to have to be
> >"mistaken," the only question is who.
So, have you decided that Edwards, Fischer, and
Brennan were all "mistaken"?
I never said you couldn't, Ben. I'm just pointing out
that she mistook a stack of boxes for a brown coat. That's
my conclusion, anyway. What's yours?
> Oh, that's right, nobody bothered to re-question or ask for her
> testimony!!!
No matter how many times she said she saw a second
man, there are still three witnesses who contradict her.
>
> This is STILL the point that I'm making... and if you had all members
> of the the Supreme Court, standing just 50 feet away with binoculars,
> and all of them testified that they only saw one man - it STILL
> wouldn't explain the apparent disregard of a witness with a contrary
> bit of testimony to give.
>
> Unless the WC were dishonestly trying to paint a picture with false
> colors.
The WC published Walther's statement in the 26 volumes, and if
it hadn't, it's possible you would never have known about her, isn't that so?
The WC heard from 552 witnesses, including many "conspiracy
witnesses" such as Jean Hill and S.M. Holland. There were about
as many WC witnesses who said they thought the shots came
from the knoll area as said they thought they came from the TSBD
(see Josiah Thompson's list, e.g.).
>
> >> The complete [Walther] interview can be read here:
> >>
> >> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0270b.htm
> >
> > It was nice of the WC to publish that for you, wasn't it?
> >
> > Again, Edwards and Fischer saw one man in the window,
> >and no weapon. Brennan also saw only one man up there before
> >the motorcade arrived and no weapon until after the shooting started.
> >And significantly, all three saw something else in the window that Walthers
> >later denied seeing -- boxes. Josiah Thompson quoted her as saying in a 1966
> >interview, "... I did not see any boxes in the building. I saw no boxes
> >at all in the building." But there certainly *were* boxes there, including
> >a stack in exactly the spot where she placed the "second man" --
> >just to the left of the man with the rifle. Take a look at this Dillard
> >closeup, and tell me if you see anything that looks like a "brown suit
> >coat" of a man "standing erect [with] his head ... above the open
> >portion of the window":
> >
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0292a.htm
> >
> > Jean
>
> Now that you have been so kind as to quote witnesses who only saw one
> person, will you ALSO be so kind as to quote the witnesses who saw
> *more* than one person where only LHO was supposed to be???
No one else, to my knowledge, saw a man standing next
to a gunman holding a weapon out the window right before the
motorcade arrived. At one point there *was* a second man
on the 6th floor, but that was Bonnie Ray Williams, an African-
American in his shirt sleeves, not a suit coat.
Anyway, I'd really like to know how you explain the testimony
by Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan. They all gave statements on
11/22/63, incidentally. Jean
Jean Davison
Ah, so first you had Specter being careful about what
he asked, and now you have Carrico being coached on his
answers. And you think "most of the witnesses" just went
along and said whatever the WC wanted? You seem to have
a very low opinion of these witnesses, and I thoroughly disagree
with you.
>
> Gems such as these make clear that the witnesses must have known what
> they were *supposed* to be testifying to:
>
> MR BELIN: "How many shots did you hear, if you remember?"
> MR EDWARDS: "Well, I heard one more than was fired, I believe."
Well, let's see some more of that:
QUOTE:
>>>
Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear, if you remember?
Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I heard one more then than was fired, I believe.
Mr. BELIN. You mean you said on the affidavit you heard four shots?
Mr. EDWARDS. I still right now don't know how many was fired. If I
said four, then I thought I heard four.
[Gee, was he SUPPOSED to say that?]
MORE of the QUOTE:
>>>
Mr. BELIN. If you said four, you mean the affidavit-maybe we'd better
introduce it into the record as Edward's Deposition Exhibit A.
Where do you think the shots came from?
Mr. EDWARDS. I have no idea.
[Oops, I don't think he was SUPPOSED to say that, either.]
>>>
Mr. BELIN. In the affidavit you stated that the shots seemed to come
from the building there. Did you really say that or not?
Mr. EDWARDS. No; I didn't say that.
<<<<<
[Another big "oops"!]
>
> Or:
>
> Mr. Fischer. At first, I thought there were four, but as I think
> about it more, there must have been just three.
>
Fischer, too, did not simply say what he was
"SUPPOSED" to say:
QUOTE:
>>>
Mr. BELIN. Where did the shots appear to be coming from?
Mr. FISCHER. They appeared to be coming from just west of
the School Book Depository Building. There were some railroad
tracks and there were some railroad cars back in there.
Mr. BELIN. And they appeared to be coming from those railroad cars?
Mr. FISCHER. Well, that area somewhere.
<<<
Golly, I don't think that's what he was "supposed"
to say. I think you shouldn't accuse these guys of
"playing along."
> > Besides, Weisberg didn't give the full story on
> >Carrico's testimony. In one of the Whitewash books,
> >he wrote:
>
> While it's nice to point out Mr. Weisberg's contractions, I *never*
> rely on secondary sources if it's possible for me to read the primary
> sources. (Other than the minor fact that I don't *own* any of his
> "Whitewash" series... they are, however, on my 'want to own' list,
> and I'll almost certainly get around to purchasing more of his books
> in the future. I currently only have his "Never Again", and "Case
> Opened". I think "Post Mortem" is going to be my next pick to get...)
> It's simply not possible to give total quotes, or any book would be 28
> volumes long.
Come on, Ben. Weisberg quoted out of context.
He quoted Dulles' question, but OMITTED Carrico's
direct answer:
>>>
Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.
>>>
But I'm puzzled. Would you explain to me what this
argument is really all about? Are you (and other CTs) claiming
that the wound was *higher* than the autopsy photos
show it?
<snip of old>
> >
> > The location of the wound, below the Adam's apple,
> >is in fact "just about where your tie would be." Do you
> >disagree?
>
> Why should I agree or disagree? Others have *asked* Dr. Carrico in
> person just what he meant, and he's made it quite clear that the wound
> was above the tie.
I'm not sure it matters, but for the sake of the argument,
what exactly was Carrico asked by others and what was his
exact reply? You see, I'm very hesitant to rely on any author's
paraphase, and I've learned that the hard way.
>
> Exactly as he *testified*. (Or pointed, and agreed with Mr. Dulles
> description of his pointing finger...)
>
His testimony is ambiguous or contradictory, at best.
> I'll grant you that Weisberg (as I recall) was one who asked... but if
> LN'ers aren't willing to ask the questions, they'll have to live with
> the answers we *do* get.
Sorry, but I'll "live with" the autopsy photos showing where
the wound was, or even with testimony by Carrico and others
that the wound was in the lower neck below the Adam's apple,
i.e., where the photos show it. If he actually *did* see it above
the tie, which I doubt, it could only mean that the shirt was lower
on JFK's chest when Carrico saw it that it was when the bullet hit him.
I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way, unless you're
arguing that the photos are fake (among other things).
>
> >Compare any photo of JFK wearing a tie with the autopsy shot of
> >the throat wound. How could the tie have possibly been
> >worn that low?
>
> Ask Carrico - it's *his* testimony that the shot was above the tie.
Carrico's not available, so I'm asking *you*.<g>
>
> And I might point out that you are now trying to take advantage of the
> refusal to allow the prosectors to examine the clothes.
Huh? Sorry, I don't follow that.
>
> Carrico saw it, Carrico *testified* to it, and Carrico confirmed it to
> people who asked.
>
Addressed above. Kindly take a gander at the
left profile autopsy photo and tell me if you think JFK wore
his tie below the top edge of this throat wound (in other words,
down on his breast bone!).
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/left.jpg
Still owe you one on Connally, but tomorrow's a busy day,
so it may be a while. Have a good one!
Jean
Ben Holmes
If you aren't already aware that Spector was *very* careful in what he asked,
and what he avoided asking, then perhaps you should delve into the testimony
some more. It's quite obvious once you study it. Although, from a LN
persuasion, I'd guess that Spector did a fine job.
>> Gems such as these make clear that the witnesses must have known what
>> they were *supposed* to be testifying to:
>>
>> MR BELIN: "How many shots did you hear, if you remember?"
>> MR EDWARDS: "Well, I heard one more than was fired, I believe."
>
> Well, let's see some more of that:
>
>QUOTE:
>>>>
> Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear, if you remember?
> Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I heard one more then than was fired, I believe.
> Mr. BELIN. You mean you said on the affidavit you heard four shots?
> Mr. EDWARDS. I still right now don't know how many was fired. If I
>said four, then I thought I heard four.
>
> [Gee, was he SUPPOSED to say that?]
If you are trying to argue that the questioning was not biased, you have a much
longer row to hoe than the above example.
Many of the witnesses did exactly that. A very few witnesses stuck to their
guns... (one of the nurses did, for example, but I cannot recall her name at the
moment). Dr. Perry, for one example, practically rolled over and died on
command.
>> > Besides, Weisberg didn't give the full story on
>> >Carrico's testimony. In one of the Whitewash books,
>> >he wrote:
>>
>> While it's nice to point out Mr. Weisberg's contractions, I *never*
>> rely on secondary sources if it's possible for me to read the primary
>> sources. (Other than the minor fact that I don't *own* any of his
>> "Whitewash" series... they are, however, on my 'want to own' list,
>> and I'll almost certainly get around to purchasing more of his books
>> in the future. I currently only have his "Never Again", and "Case
>> Opened". I think "Post Mortem" is going to be my next pick to get...)
>> It's simply not possible to give total quotes, or any book would be 28
>> volumes long.
>
> Come on, Ben. Weisberg quoted out of context.
>He quoted Dulles' question, but OMITTED Carrico's
>direct answer:
>
>>>>
>Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?
> Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.
>>>>
A wound that was just above the tie WOULD be "about where your tie would be".
You use an imprecise statement, and when he actually points out the location,
and Dulles announces it, and Carrico agrees with it, you ignore that bit of
testimony - and jump on the more imprecise one.
And then ignore the fact that he *continues* to maintain that the wound was over
the tie.
> But I'm puzzled. Would you explain to me what this
>argument is really all about? Are you (and other CTs) claiming
>that the wound was *higher* than the autopsy photos
>show it?
Nope. I *will* argue that apparently nobody on the LN side ever wears a tie.
To listen to all of you, one would think that the tie goes over the Adam's
apple.
><snip of old>
>> >
>> > The location of the wound, below the Adam's apple,
>> >is in fact "just about where your tie would be." Do you
>> >disagree?
>>
>> Why should I agree or disagree? Others have *asked* Dr. Carrico in
>> person just what he meant, and he's made it quite clear that the wound
>> was above the tie.
>
> I'm not sure it matters, but for the sake of the argument,
>what exactly was Carrico asked by others and what was his
>exact reply? You see, I'm very hesitant to rely on any author's
>paraphase, and I've learned that the hard way.
I don't have any source in front of me, but I doubt if it really matters. Same
thing as Dr. Perry, who to this day, and to multiple people, attests his belief
that the neck wound was an entry... but short of you standing in front of the
man, and hearing it for yourself, you cannot allow yourself to take notice of
it.
>>
>> Exactly as he *testified*. (Or pointed, and agreed with Mr. Dulles
>> description of his pointing finger...)
>>
> His testimony is ambiguous or contradictory, at best.
>
>> I'll grant you that Weisberg (as I recall) was one who asked... but if
>> LN'ers aren't willing to ask the questions, they'll have to live with
>> the answers we *do* get.
>
> Sorry, but I'll "live with" the autopsy photos showing where
>the wound was, or even with testimony by Carrico and others
>that the wound was in the lower neck below the Adam's apple,
>i.e., where the photos show it. If he actually *did* see it above
>the tie, which I doubt, it could only mean that the shirt was lower
>on JFK's chest when Carrico saw it that it was when the bullet hit him.
>I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way, unless you're
>arguing that the photos are fake (among other things).
Actually, they are... but not the location of the neck wound.
GMcNally
Ben,
> >> >We see Weisberg at his worst in the passage Ben cited:
> >>
> >>Looks like John isn't the only one who cannot read. I cited *NO* passages from
> >>Weisberg.
> >
> >You have posted passages from Weisberg and Jean Davison has shown you
> >that Weisberg left out important parts of the testimony.
>
> Once again, Jerry, let me spell it out for you. I did NOT cite any Weisberg
> passages, Jean did. Every Weisberg quote in this post was put there by Jean.
> Why can't you just admit you made a mistake and move on? John at least has the
> courtesy of shutting up on the subject... you just keep pointing out something
> that is not true.
OK, fine. You never mentioned Weisberg interviewing Carrico. I just
dreamed that one up.
Since you're such an expert reader, you might have noticed that I was
commenting directly on what WEISBERG BELIEVES and his reasoning and
evidence cited for his conclusions and faulting his conclusions and
entire approach.
> >> >1. Although Carrico stated explicitly that the wound was where we see
> >> >it in the photo - "... in the lower third of the neck, below the
> >> >thyroid cartilage,
> >>>>>the Adams apple," Weisberg twists his words to try to create the impression
> >> >>that Carrico said that the wound was ABOVE the shirt and tie.
> >>
> >> No need to "twist" the words... that's what Carrico agreed with in his
> >> testimony.
> >
> >I don't think so. As I've written many times, you guys just can't
> >figure things out.
> >
> >And as Jeanne has further written, when testimony conflicts, then you
> >have to reject some. And this is a good example.
>
> The testmony is not in conflict. You merely wish it were so. Carrico has been
> quite clear in corroborating that he meant what he said.
>
> It's clear that Spector should have done a *real* job in searching out the
> truth, but the sad fact is, that if it weren't for Dulles jumping in, we'd not
> have it on the record *anywhere* the location of the neck wound with relation to the clothing.
I think Spector did a fine job. We see things differently.
In fact, I think that the location of the bullet - and its
relationship to the clothing - is not an issue. Not debatable. The
testimony of Carrico and Perry AND the photos show that it was where
Carrico said many times: it was right about where the tie is.
Take a look at the photos and you'll see that it's not possible for a
tie to be below that wound.
Thus that exchange with Dulles is not the gold you think it is but
merely an ambiguous and contradictory exchange. Worthless.
> >Carrico is very clear in saying:
> >
> >Carrico showed by placing his hand on his own throat
> >> >> >while speaking, his rejoinder ending, "This was a small
> >> >> >wound here."
> >> >> > To this demonstration of "here," Dulles responded, "I
> >> >> >see. And you put your hand *right about where your
> >> >> >tie is?*" (Emphasis added) UNQUOTE > >> >
> But look at this passage in context. Carrico first
> >> >> >answered Dulles' question by saying, "Just about where
> >> >> >your tie would be." Weisberg left that out.
>
> >> >> > QUOTE
>
> >> >> > Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe, as specifically as you can then,
> >> >> >the neck wounds which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
> >> >> > Dr. CARRICO. There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size,
> >> >> >located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage,
> >> >> >the Adams apple.
> >
> >This description is incompatible with a wound above the shirt and tie;
> >with one, one's Adam's apple is exposed - in the middle of the neck,
> >not the "lower third ... below the Adams apple".
> >
> >And it is fully compatable with the wound being where the damage to
> >the shirt and tie is visible.
> >
> >And fully compatable with Perry and with the photo.
>
> I completely understand your desire to force the testimony in the direction you want. However, those who've *asked* Dr. Carrico have gotten his corroboration that he did indeed, mean that the wound was where he pointed... *above* the tie.
If so, then his opinion conflicts with better evidence and is wrong.
And we reject wrong evidence. And in his testimony, I guess you think
he was perjuring himself when he said three times that the wound was
"just about where your tie would be" or words to those effect.
This is what a researcher has to do: when conflicts in testimony exist
- like the Walther's vs Fischer, Edwards, Brennen issue, or like the
Carrico issue here: he has to be able to figure things out. Determine
the best evidence, weigh it, resolve conflict. Ditto with amibiguous
and contradictory testimony.
And in this case the autopsy photos are the best evidence.
> Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the eyewitnesses were *there*, and *saw* what they saw... and testified to it?
He made it clear in his testimony that the location of the would
corresponded to the area on the lower neck where the tie lies. And in
fact we note that JFK's tie did have a nick in that area.
You want to seize on one exchange and ignore the rest. To move the
case in the direction you insist it go in.
> >> >2. Although Carrico did not spend one second examining JFK's clothing,
> >> >his statement that he didn't notice the small slits and the nicked
> >> >tie, is used by Weisberg to "prove" that there was no damage to JFK's
> >> >clothing, shirt or tie, caused by a bullet!
> >>
> >>Cart before the horse, seems like. Carrico pointed above his tie, and agreed in
> >> the written testimony with Dulles statement that the wound was *right above*
> >> where the tie was.
> >
> >No he did not.
>
> Why do you lie about the testimony when it's included in this post for anyone to
> read? Do you really think that others reading this will just take your
> statement as true based on your previous record, and not bother to cursor up to where *JEAN* posted the relevant testimony?
I have posted it too: he said three times that the location of the
wound was in the lower throat, below the Adam's apple and where one's
tie would be.
> Or is it that you are simply so blinded by your biases that you cannot read
> straight?
You can argue that I and John McAdams and Jean Davison are just
dummies who can't read straight.
Jean described the passage you fix on and ignore the rest as ambiguous
and unclear and in conflict with the rest of his testimony. I agree.
If that makes me "just [a dummy who] cannot read straight" that so be
it.
Pardon me for relying on the best evidence: the autopsy photos.
> >He said it was *right about* where your tie is. And he
> >said it was in the lower third, below the Adam's apple.
>
> He who? Are you talking about what Carrico *said*??? I really do wish you'd
> learn to read. Go back to my previous statement, and read it again.
That's what Carrico testified to: the wound was in the lower third of
the throat, below the Adam's apple, about where your tie lies.
And that is consistent with the other testimony - Perry, the
autopsists - and with the autopsy photos.
Apparently you'd like to move the wound up to where it suits you.
That's a bias I don't have.
As I've told you: the question of where the wound was located is not
in dispute.
> Slowly.
>
> Then, if you're man enough, you can apologize for your mistake. But, I won't be holding my breath.
You should apologize for trying to tendentiously twist evidence to
"move up" the wound on the basis of a confused and contradictory
exchange.
> I might point out, however, that you really don't do yourself or the LN cause
> any good when you keep fighting strawmen. You need to deal with the actual
> issues and testimony.
There is no open issue; the location of the wound is established.
> >You CT say the silliest things!
> >
> >You're a bunch of confused people ... terminally confused.
> >
> >On this issue the WC, a bunch of smart and logical people, got it
> >right. Yet you
> >who get it wrong claim "WC Dishonesty"; that's a joke.
> >
> > If it seems unclear in the testimony, Carrico has been asked
> >> to clarify his position - he STILL states that the wound was above the tie.
> >
> >No he doesn't. He said several times that it was about where the tie
> >was - not above, not below.
>
> This is REALLY getting stupid. You're now disputing what people have said that
> Carrico said in response to their personal questions to him. Are you an idiot?
IF Carrico said that then he would be in conflict with his own sworn
testimony and in conflict with the other testimony and in conflict
with the photos and physical evidence.
So if he did say it, then, he would be wrong and we would reject the
claim.
Or else, perhaps some conspiracy writers have twisted his words. I too
would like to see transcripts of the questions he was asked and the
wording of his replies.
Because guys like Weisberg are not credible folks and you can't take
their word for what they claim.
> When are you going to learn to read, Jerry?
I can both read and think - evaluate evidence. You can do neither.
> May I suggest that you RE-READ the entire post, and your responses to it,
> *before* hitting the send key?
I'll say it one more time: you guys just can't figure things out and
are doomed to failure when you try to figure out who killed JFK.
You especially reject the best evidence and hunt for any bit of
confused or ambiguous testimony to reach totally illegitimate
conclusions. We see this in your conclusions based on what Carrico, or
Walthers or Finck had to say.
Jerry
Ben Holmes
No, Jerry, I never stated that I never *mentioned* Weisberg... Why do you have
such a hard time with this?
Twice now, you've stated that I posted a passage from Weisberg...
"We see Weisberg at his worst in the passage Ben cited"
"You have posted passages from Weisberg..."
Twice now... I've TOLD you that I did no such thing. Actually, I think you
really and truly understand this time, since you *changed* your statement to me
"mentioning" Weisberg...
>Since you're such an expert reader, you might have noticed that I was
>commenting directly on what WEISBERG BELIEVES and his reasoning and
>evidence cited for his conclusions and faulting his conclusions and
>entire approach.
And you will notice that I don't *dispute* that you did.
Why can't you acknowledge that YOU made a stupid reading mistake, (twice) and
move on?
>> >> >1. Although Carrico stated explicitly that the wound was where we see
>> >> >it in the photo - "... in the lower third of the neck, below the
>> >> >thyroid cartilage,
>>>>>>>the Adams apple," Weisberg twists his words to try to create the impression
>> >> >>that Carrico said that the wound was ABOVE the shirt and tie.
>> >>
>> >> No need to "twist" the words... that's what Carrico agreed with in his
>> >> testimony.
>> >
>> >I don't think so. As I've written many times, you guys just can't
>> >figure things out.
>> >
>> >And as Jeanne has further written, when testimony conflicts, then you
>> >have to reject some. And this is a good example.
>>
>>The testmony is not in conflict. You merely wish it were so. Carrico has been
>> quite clear in corroborating that he meant what he said.
>>
>> It's clear that Spector should have done a *real* job in searching out the
>>truth, but the sad fact is, that if it weren't for Dulles jumping in, we'd not
>>have it on the record *anywhere* the location of the neck wound with relation to
>>the clothing.
>
>I think Spector did a fine job. We see things differently.
>
>In fact, I think that the location of the bullet - and its
>relationship to the clothing - is not an issue. Not debatable. The
>testimony of Carrico and Perry AND the photos show that it was where
>Carrico said many times: it was right about where the tie is.
Why do you bring in Perry? He never saw the wound in relation to the clothing.
Thus, he has zilch to say on the topic.
There are only Carrico, the nurses who cut away the tie and removed the shirt,
and, in a correctly done autopsy, the prosectors, who would be able to comment
on this. Spector did not ask this question of the nurses. We are left with the
Dulles/Carrico exchange, and Carrico's corroborations.
>Take a look at the photos and you'll see that it's not possible for a
>tie to be below that wound.
Opinion, speculation... and others disagree with you. Including the doctor who
*saw* the wound.
>Thus that exchange with Dulles is not the gold you think it is but
>merely an ambiguous and contradictory exchange. Worthless.
To you, perhaps. But then, true of much of the eyewitness testimony for LN'ers.
Better evidence? Please *cite* what you believe the better evidence is that a
bullet went through the shirt and nicked the tie.
>And we reject wrong evidence. And in his testimony, I guess you think
>he was perjuring himself when he said three times that the wound was
>"just about where your tie would be" or words to those effect.
No... he was entirely accurate. You just confuse a general location with a
precise one. (Much like the occipital 'region' debate)
>This is what a researcher has to do: when conflicts in testimony exist
>- like the Walther's vs Fischer, Edwards, Brennen issue,
Don't think that nobody noticed that you didn't bother to mention the other
witnesses who saw two people.
Or face the fact that they *aren't* contradictory. One person can look up and
see two people, the next person can look up 10 seconds later, and see only one,
if one person has stepped back from the window.
>or like the
>Carrico issue here: he has to be able to figure things out. Determine
>the best evidence, weigh it, resolve conflict. Ditto with amibiguous
>and contradictory testimony.
Again, you're going to have to *cite* the evidence that you believe contradict's
Carrico's eyewitness testimony and corroboration.
>And in this case the autopsy photos are the best evidence.
The LN'ers have long maintained this, yes, I know.
Legally speaking, of course you're wrong. The law holds photographs in the same
regard as they hold written notes. Something that can be useful as far as they
corroborate eyewitness testimony.
>>Why is it so difficult for you to understand that the eyewitnesses were *there*,
>>and *saw* what they saw... and testified to it?
>
>He made it clear in his testimony that the location of the would
>corresponded to the area on the lower neck where the tie lies. And in
>fact we note that JFK's tie did have a nick in that area.
>
>You want to seize on one exchange and ignore the rest. To move the
>case in the direction you insist it go in.
Nah, don't have to insist on anything... merely point out the many flaws and
errors of the WC.
When are you going to drop this side example of mine, and deal with the actual
post itself? I *was* talking about the dishonest way the WC handled Walther's
statement.
Can't deal with it?
>> >> >2. Although Carrico did not spend one second examining JFK's clothing,
>> >> >his statement that he didn't notice the small slits and the nicked
>> >> >tie, is used by Weisberg to "prove" that there was no damage to JFK's
>> >> >clothing, shirt or tie, caused by a bullet!
>> >>
>>>>Cart before the horse, seems like. Carrico pointed above his tie, and agreed
>>in
>>>> the written testimony with Dulles statement that the wound was *right above*
>> >> where the tie was.
>> >
>> >No he did not.
>>
>>Why do you lie about the testimony when it's included in this post for anyone to
>> read? Do you really think that others reading this will just take your
>>statement as true based on your previous record, and not bother to cursor up to
>>where *JEAN* posted the relevant testimony?
>
>I have posted it too: he said three times that the location of the
>wound was in the lower throat, below the Adam's apple and where one's
>tie would be.
You ALSO just lied about the testimony. I said: "Carrico pointed above his tie,
and agreed in the written testimony with Dulles statement that the wound was
*right above* where the tie was."
And although each and every element of that statement is absolutely correct, you
replied: "No he did not."
You lied.
"Carrico pointed above his tie"
Mr. DULLES. I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
"and agreed in the written testimony with Dulles statement that the wound was
*right above* where the tie was."
Mr. DULLES. I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie is?
Dr. CARRICO. Yes, sir; just where the tie--
There it is... you lied. Carrico did and spoke EXACTLY as my sentence
indicated. When you said "No, he did not." - You lied.
>> Or is it that you are simply so blinded by your biases that you cannot read
>> straight?
>
>You can argue that I and John McAdams and Jean Davison are just
>dummies who can't read straight.
Nope. Although both you and John have demonstrated an inability to read, Jean
Davison has yet to misinterpret anything other than statements of mine that
*could* be misunderstood.
So you can amend your statement to what I've ALREADY stated on this newsgroup.
Tossing Jean in when I've made no such statement is just a strawman.
>Jean described the passage
No, actually, Jean QUOTED the passage... still haven't figured that out?
>you fix on and ignore the rest as ambiguous
>and unclear and in conflict with the rest of his testimony. I agree.
I don't see a general statement as in conflict with a specific one. But you
have a right to your opinion.
>If that makes me "just [a dummy who] cannot read straight" that so be
>it.
No. It's your specific lack of understanding when I continuously correct your
factual mistakes. After I told you once that I did not post the quoted material
from Weisberg, and indeed, don't even own the book it was quoted from, most
people would have caught on. It apparently takes two times with you. And even
now, I'm not sure you've got it.
>Pardon me for relying on the best evidence: the autopsy photos.
The autopsy photo's have *never* been the "best evidence". If you're going to
use a term that has legal implications, you should know what the law thinks
about photos.
>> >He said it was *right about* where your tie is. And he
>> >said it was in the lower third, below the Adam's apple.
>>
>> He who? Are you talking about what Carrico *said*??? I really do wish you'd
>> learn to read. Go back to my previous statement, and read it again.
>
>That's what Carrico testified to: the wound was in the lower third of
>the throat, below the Adam's apple, about where your tie lies.
>
>And that is consistent with the other testimony - Perry, the
>autopsists - and with the autopsy photos.
I've not discussed the location of the wound, merely where it was *in relation*
to the clothing.
>Apparently you'd like to move the wound up to where it suits you.
>That's a bias I don't have.
Strawman.
>As I've told you: the question of where the wound was located is not
>in dispute.
Strawman
>> Slowly.
>>
>>Then, if you're man enough, you can apologize for your mistake. But, I won't be
>>holding my breath.
>
>You should apologize for trying to tendentiously twist evidence to
>"move up" the wound on the basis of a confused and contradictory
>exchange.
Yeah, I didn't think so...
You might be honest enough to also admit that I'm ALSO basing it on the personal
recollections of Carrico, when the question was put to him later.
You know, just like Dr. Perry still believing that it was an entry wound?
>> I might point out, however, that you really don't do yourself or the LN cause
>> any good when you keep fighting strawmen. You need to deal with the actual
>> issues and testimony.
>
>There is no open issue; the location of the wound is established.
Then you'll have no problem *citing* the evidence that a bullet traveled through
the shirt, and nicked the tie.
Please cite.
>> >You CT say the silliest things!
>> >
>> >You're a bunch of confused people ... terminally confused.
>> >
>> >On this issue the WC, a bunch of smart and logical people, got it
>> >right. Yet you
>> >who get it wrong claim "WC Dishonesty"; that's a joke.
>> >
>> > If it seems unclear in the testimony, Carrico has been asked
>>>> to clarify his position - he STILL states that the wound was above the tie.
>> >
>> >No he doesn't. He said several times that it was about where the tie
>> >was - not above, not below.
>>
>> This is REALLY getting stupid. You're now disputing what people have said
>> that Carrico said in response to their personal questions to him. Are you
>> an idiot?
>
>IF Carrico said that then he would be in conflict with his own sworn
>testimony and in conflict with the other testimony and in conflict
>with the photos and physical evidence.
Since you were of the opinion above that Carrico's testimony was "amibiguous
and contradictory..." now you want to say that another statement is in conflict
with his testimony??? Poor argument there, Jerry.
>So if he did say it, then, he would be wrong and we would reject the
>claim.
Wrong on what basis, Jerry? Please *cite* the evidence that Carrico was wrong
in pointing above the tie.
>Or else, perhaps some conspiracy writers have twisted his words. I too
>would like to see transcripts of the questions he was asked and the
>wording of his replies.
>
>Because guys like Weisberg are not credible folks and you can't take
>their word for what they claim.
LOL!! Have you *ever* run across a 'credible' CT'er?
>> When are you going to learn to read, Jerry?
>
>I can both read and think - evaluate evidence. You can do neither.
Sure you can.... sure you can... we just saw above the evidence of it.
>> May I suggest that you RE-READ the entire post, and your responses to it,
>> *before* hitting the send key?
>
>I'll say it one more time: you guys just can't figure things out and
>are doomed to failure when you try to figure out who killed JFK.
Since there was no real attempt to investigate, for once you're absolutely
correct. It would be impossible (short of a confession) to find the killers
now. The FBI and the Dallas PD made a concerted effort to not investigate
anything that did NOT lead to LHO. I've previously given an example of a lead
that was closed out by the Dallas PD (with, apparently, no investigation at all)
on 11/22 before LHO was even charged with a crime.
And, as this thread STARTED, the Walther's statement that was not re-questioned
or testimony taken.
>You especially reject the best evidence
The best evidence, Jerry, are the eyewitnesses. And any physical evidence that
has an intact chain of custody.
>and hunt for any bit of confused or ambiguous testimony to reach totally
>illegitimate conclusions. We see this in your conclusions based on what
>Carrico, or Walthers or Finck had to say.
Yep... you see me quoting their actual words, and taking those words at face
value. Something impossible for a LN to do. For the WCR to be correct, the
eyewitnesses have to be wrong. It's really just as simple as that.
Had a *real* investigation been performed, we'd have even *MORE* evidence of
what happened that day. Even as things stand, however, there's much that shows
the coverup conspiracy, and some that shows the conspiracy to assassinate.
Now, would you like to deal with the subject of the ORIGINAL post I made? You
remember, Walther's statement?
>Jerry
>>
>>>> But it sure seems silly that everyone is 'latching' on to this quick example,
>> >> and *ignoring* my main post concerning Walther's statement. I wonder why?
>> >
>> >It's obvious that since she saw no cartons she mistook a stack of them
>> >for a man in a jacket - the color of boxes.
>>
>> Must have been a common mistake... how many others reported two men there,
>> Jerry? And you somehow missed the point... why wasn't Mrs. Walthers
>> re-questioned or asked to testify?
Did you just miss this question, Jerry? Or just not want to answer it?
>> And just how *obvious* was this ploy of yours concerning the cartons? I
>> don't recall any mention one way or the other in her statement. Was the WC
>> omnipotent?
Another refutation of your statement that you can't deal with?
Mitch Todd
> >> While it's nice to point out Mr. Weisberg's contractions, I *never*
> >> rely on secondary sources if it's possible for me to read the primary
> >> sources. (Other than the minor fact that I don't *own* any of his
> >> "Whitewash" series... they are, however, on my 'want to own' list,
> >> and I'll almost certainly get around to purchasing more of his books
> >> in the future. I currently only have his "Never Again", and "Case
> >> Opened". I think "Post Mortem" is going to be my next pick to get...)
> >> It's simply not possible to give total quotes, or any book would be 28
> >> volumes long.
> > Come on, Ben. Weisberg quoted out of context.
> >He quoted Dulles' question, but OMITTED Carrico's
> >direct answer:
> >>>>
> >Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?
> > Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.
> >>>>
> A wound that was just above the tie WOULD be "about where your tie would be".
> You use an imprecise statement, and when he actually points out the location,
> and Dulles announces it, and Carrico agrees with it, you ignore that bit of
> testimony - and jump on the more imprecise one.
> And then ignore the fact that he *continues* to maintain that the wound was over
> the tie.
Where does he do that?
BTW, you are aware that Dr Baxter, who assisted Perry with the tracheotomy,
placed the wound "where the knot of the tie would be"...
MST
Ben Holmes
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
Governor, you have described hearing a first shot and a third shot.
Did you hear a second shot?
Governor CONNALLY. No; I did not.
Governor CONNALLY: ...and I never heard the second shot, didn't hear
it. I didn't hear but two shots. I think I heard the first shot and
the third shot.
Dr. SHAW. He says that he did not hear a second shot, but did
hear---no, wait a minute, I shouldn't say that. He heard only two
shots so that he doesn't know which shot other than the first one he
did not hear. He only remembers hearing two shots, his wife says
distinctly she heard three.
Mr. SPECTER. Mrs. Connally said she heard three?
Dr. SHAW. Mrs. Connally distinctly remembered three shots.
Mr. SPECTER. And, Governor Connally said he heard two shots?
Dr. SHAW. Two shots.
Mr. SPECTER. Would that not be consistent with a situation where he
was hit by the second shot and lost consciousness?
Dr. SHAW. Yes; the shock of the wounding might have prevented him from
hearing the rifle report.
Connally didn't *testify* of his own knowledge to the number of shots.
Because the WC was one-sided in it's questioning, there was no defense
counsel to correct the record in this regard. I was quite precise in
my language ("John Connally only heard two shots,") to try avoiding
this difficulty, but it *is* a fact that Connally, of his *own*
knowledge, can only testify to two shots. He can hypothesize all he
wishes - regarding the shot that struck him, but it is *NOT* in the
same ballpark as witnesses who are capable of testifying to the number
of shots.
And yes, I *do* disagree with the "vast majority" of witnesses.
Unfortunately, the record is incomplete, as the FBI and Secret Service
made positive efforts to eliminate any record of more than three
shots. Witnesses were told that only three shots had been fired. If
a *real* investigation had been made, it would certainly have been a
larger number of people who'd have testified to four or more shots.
I'm sure you're aware of the people who reported four or more shots,
but I'll be happy to supply quotes if you're unaware of them.
(Hmmm... just ran across *another* four shot witness, who testified
that he'd given a report to the FBI... wonder where it is??? Richard
Carr - also reports the threats he received from the FBI to keep his
mouth shut. Read his Shaw trial testimony.)
And again, it's far easier to understand how people would report just
three shots when there *had* been four, than to explain how people
heard four shots when there had only been three.
>> Of *course* there's a reasonable understanding of the evidence.
>> That's why when a number of people describe more than one person at
>> the SN, I start getting the idea that there may have *been* more than
>> one.
>
> And when a number of people describe only one person
>in the SN, what then?
It's easy to explain why some people saw only one person if there were
two, it's far more difficult to explain why some people saw two people
if there were only one.
>> Now... back to *my* point... why did the WC feel it unnecessary to
>> re-question or take the testimony of Mrs. Walthers?
>
> How should I know what the WC "felt"? Why do no
>CT authors ever mention that Walther's account is contradicted by at
>least three other witnesses-- Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan?
It doesn't matter how many people contradicted the statement...
That's NOT the way you do an investigation. If you decide in advance
that you're not going to re-question, or ask for someone's testimony,
then you have made a judgement on their statement without a solid
foundation. This *is* what happened. There's no excuse for it, and
that's why I pointed it out as a good example of WC dishonesty.
And, as I've pointed out before, her testimony was NOT contradicted by
anyone - far from it, she actually has others who's statements support
hers in both multiple persons, and more shots.
Instead of taking this testimony, and *explaining* it in reference to
other testimony, the WC quite obviously decided to avoid the situation
altogether. How many others have simply been lost to history?
*I* say I can't. Her testimony was NEVER TAKEN.
>I'm just pointing out that she mistook a stack of boxes for a brown
>coat. That's my conclusion, anyway. What's yours?
That while your conclusion would be a possible hypothesis if only one
person were involved, when three *other* people saw the same thing,
your hypothesis grows extremely weak.
I figured you were already familiar with the other testimony about two
people on the 6th floor, but I've included the information below.
>> Oh, that's right, nobody bothered to re-question or ask for her
>> testimony!!!
>
> No matter how many times she said she saw a second
>man, there are still three witnesses who contradict her.
Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say they had seen anything--such as a rifle?
Mr. CRAIG. Yes; later on. A few minutes after that--I had taken this
girl to one of our criminal investigators---and was talking to some
other people. I talked to a young couple and the boy said he saw two
men on the uh--sixth floor of the Book Depository Building over
there; one of them had a rifle with the telescopic sight on it--but he
thought they were Secret Service agents on guard and didn't report it.
This was about--uh---oh, he said, 15 minutes before the motorcade ever
arrived.
You can read Rowland's testimony, this is who is being referred to.
Ruby Henderson (CE 2089) is also a witness to two people, although she
cannot positively state that it was the 6th floor. But her
description of the two people matches Rowland's, and Powell's, and
the time that she saw this can be timed by the ambulance she mentioned
as roughly the same time that Walther's was viewing the two.
Then there was John Powell... he described how he and his cellmates
watched two men with a gun... "He claims he could see them so clearly
that he even recalls them 'fooling with the scope' on the gun." You
can read his account in "Conspiracy" by Anthony Summers, pages 74-75.
Interestingly, Rowland, Henderson, and Powell all *agree* that one man
was white, and one was darker complexioned... either Mexican or Black.
Now... I've listed three witnesses who support Walther's story, and
contrary to your assertion, testimony of seeing only one man is NOT
contradictory.
The question STILL remains... why didn't the WC ask the FBI to
re-question Walthers? Or ask for her testimony?
>> This is STILL the point that I'm making... and if you had all members
>> of the the Supreme Court, standing just 50 feet away with binoculars,
>> and all of them testified that they only saw one man - it STILL
>> wouldn't explain the apparent disregard of a witness with a contrary
>> bit of testimony to give.
>>
>> Unless the WC were dishonestly trying to paint a picture with false
>> colors.
>
> The WC published Walther's statement in the 26 volumes, and if
>it hadn't, it's possible you would never have known about her, isn't that so?
Publishing a statement, and publishing *testimony* - is two different
things. Would you like to try supporting virtually any position based
*solely* on 11/22 statements?
And until fairly recently - few people had access to the 26 volumes.
>The WC heard from 552 witnesses, including many "conspiracy
>witnesses" such as Jean Hill and S.M. Holland. There were about
>as many WC witnesses who said they thought the shots came
>from the knoll area as said they thought they came from the TSBD
>(see Josiah Thompson's list, e.g.).
Yep... thought provoking, isn't it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had
eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10
or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was.
Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.
Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of
November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon
with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no
one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end
of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up
there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.
Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up
there?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.
Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to
Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to
the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were
watching the Presidential parade. Now, do you remember telling them
you went down there about 12:05 p.m.?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I remember telling the fellows that--they asked me
first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I
said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes." Just like I said
here. I don't remember saying for a definite answer that it was 5
minutes.
Mr. BALL. Well, is it fair to say that you do not remember the exact
time now?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
This doesn't match up very well with Powells statement that the two
men were *together*, or with Walther's statement that the two men were
close together, or with Henderson's statement. Only Rowland reports
two men in such a way as to allow the possibility that they weren't
together.
> Anyway, I'd really like to know how you explain the testimony
>by Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan. They all gave statements on
>11/22/63, incidentally. Jean
Do you know the distance that a person can be seen from the ground
looking up at a 6th floor window? Moving just a few feet back from
the window, the person wouldn't be seen at all. It's easy to explain
someone sighting just one person when there were two, it's not quite
so easy to explain a two person sighting when there was only one.
Bonnie Ray Williams is simply not the answer, as he specifically
stated that the time he came back to the 6th floor to eat his lunch,
he *saw nobody*. His earliest statements - if transcribed accurately,
would have had him down on the 5th floor by the time the ambulance
came around, which was when several people saw the two on the 6th
floor. No matter *how* you judge the evidence, Williams was gone when
the ambulance came around... (which according to Brennan was *after*
12:18) And several of the sightings came *after* the ambulance left.
Ben Holmes
"The first doctor available was Charles Carrico, by then on the
surgery teaching staff. He confirmed all I have written that relates
to him and what happened in his presence and added that which Specter
did not want and had not asked for."
"Carrico was the first doctor to see the President. He saw the
anterior neck wound immediately. It was above the shirt collar.
Carrico was definite on this. The reader will remember that Dulles
had blundered into asking Carrico to locate that wound when Specter
failed to probe this essential matter. It is not by accident or from
stupidity that Specter did not ask this fundamental question. The
only qualification Carrico stipulated in my interview is that the
President's body was prone when he saw it. However, when I asked if
he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying
'No.' I asked if he recalled Dulles's question and his own pointing
to *above* his own shirt collar as the location of the bullet hole.
He does remembers this, and does remember confirming that the hole
*was* above the collar, a fact hidden with such care from the Report."
(pages 241-242 of "Never Again", quoted from his earlier book "Post
Mortem, pages 375-376)
>BTW, you are aware that Dr Baxter, who assisted Perry with the tracheotomy,
>placed the wound "where the knot of the tie would be"...
No, I'm not. You'll have to cite where he states this. In neither
his WC or ARRB testimony did he even *use* the word "tie".
And if he *did* state this, it was a statement that isn't supported by
his own knowledge. In his *first* statement, here being read by Dr.
Baxter:
Dr. Baxter - "I was contacted at approximately 12:40 that the
President was on the way to the Emergency Room, having been shot. On
arrival there, I found an endotracheal tube in place with assisted
respirations, a left chest tube being inserted, and cutdowns going in
one leg and in the left arm.
it clearly states that a left chest tube was being inserted. Now, I
don't know the medical procedures where you're from, but I'm going to
take a wild-eyed guess, and assume that JFK's SHIRT WAS OFF at this
point in time. If Dr. Baxter is being accurate in his statement, then
he NEVER saw the neck wound *in relation to* the shirt and tie.
>MST
GMcNally
Before I get into this reply, I'd like to point out that Jean wrote:
>No one else, to my knowledge, saw a man standing next
>to a gunman holding a weapon out the window right before the
>motorcade arrived.
And you ducked that one and did not provide the name of anybody who
saw a person who had two hands outside the window, holding what looked
like a machinegun OUTSIDE THE WINDOW, just before Kennedy arrived.
You had to duck that one because NOBODY ELSE saw anything like that.
And in fact the statement is so highly implausible that one has to
wonder about Ms Walters!
This thread is unwieldy so I'll be doing a lot of snipping.
> >Since you're such an expert reader, you might have noticed that I was
> >commenting directly on what WEISBERG BELIEVES and his reasoning and
> >evidence cited for his conclusions and faulting his conclusions and
> >entire approach.
>
> And you will notice that I don't *dispute* that you did.
>
> Why can't you acknowledge that YOU made a stupid reading mistake, (twice) and
> move on?
Consider it done. > Why do you bring in Perry? He never saw the wound
in relation to the clothing.
> Thus, he has zilch to say on the topic.
He confirms this statement by Carrico:
> >> >> >> > Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe, as specifically as you can then,
> >> >> >> >the neck wounds which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
> >> >> >> > Dr. CARRICO. There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size,
> >> >> >> >located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage,
> >> >> >> >the Adams apple.
> >> >> >> > Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?
> >> >> >> > Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.
Lower third - below the Adam's apple - where the knot of your tie
lies.
And what the photos show.
> There are only Carrico, the nurses who cut away the tie and removed the shirt,
> and, in a correctly done autopsy, the prosectors, who would be able to comment
> on this. Spector did not ask this question of the nurses. We are left with >the Dulles/Carrico exchange, and Carrico's corroborations.
Which I reject because there is better evidence.
> >Take a look at the photos and you'll see that it's not possible for a
> >tie to be below that wound.
> Opinion, speculation... and others disagree with you. Including the doctor who *saw* the wound.
He was there to try to save JFK's life - nothing else. That was his
focus. On that he is expert. On everything else, there is better
evidence.
A would ABOVE the tie would not be in the lower third of the throat
below the Adam's apple - as Carrico testified to.
> >> >> >> > Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe, as specifically as you can then,
> >> >> >> >the neck wounds which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
> >> >> >> > Dr. CARRICO. There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size,
> >> >> >> >located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage,
> >> >> >> >the Adams apple.
> >> >> >> > Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?
> >> >> >> > Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.
Therefore, there's some confusion that occurred with the Dulles
exchange. Which happens when testimony is given.
Anyway, I think you get the idea that I'm sticking with what the
autopsy photos show and rejecting any attempt to move the wound
higher.
Obvious, when you look at the photos, the tie could not be BELOW that
very low
wound.
So, if Carrico said it and if Carrico keeps on saying it, then, I
reject that statement, knowing full well that he was there in TR1.
I chuckle at CT attempts to use the Dallas Docs as pawns in their war
against the WC.
The WC was absolutely correct on this point of the wound corresponding
to the location of the damage to the shirt and to the tie.
And, as you know the autopsy docs, including forensic pathologist
Finck, saw the clothing before testifying and testified that it
corroborated their finding that a bullet had exited the lower third of
the throat.
And Humes acknowledged two errors: 1) that he should have asked for
the clothing and 2) that he should have called Dallas prior to the
conclusion of the autopsy.
I'll apologize for interrupting the exchange you were having with
Jean.
She is the one you should be exchanging with, not me. She has far more
knowledge and much better manners than I do! ;)
Jerry
Ben Holmes
>
>Before I get into this reply, I'd like to point out that Jean wrote:
>
>>No one else, to my knowledge, saw a man standing next
>>to a gunman holding a weapon out the window right before the
>>motorcade arrived.
>
>And you ducked that one and did not provide the name of anybody who
>saw a person who had two hands outside the window, holding what looked
>like a machinegun OUTSIDE THE WINDOW, just before Kennedy arrived.
>
>You had to duck that one because NOBODY ELSE saw anything like that.
>
>And in fact the statement is so highly implausible that one has to
>wonder about Ms Walters!
Then perhaps you need to keep reading. I posted statements and information
about Ruby Henenderson, Rowland, and Powell(?) who ALL corroborate what Walthers
saw. To pretend that there were no witnesses who saw two men on the 6th floor
just minutes before the assassination is to close your eyes to the available
statements. Had the FBI done a real investigation, instead of threatening
people who had inconvenient things to say, we'd probably have much *more*
evidence that there were two people on the 6th floor.
As for the number of shots, I'm sure you're aware of a number of people who
reported four shots or more, rather than three. If you wish to dispute that
part of Walther's statement, I can supply statements and testimony with regard
to the number of shots as well. So what's implausible?
>This thread is unwieldy so I'll be doing a lot of snipping.
>
>> >Since you're such an expert reader, you might have noticed that I was
>> >commenting directly on what WEISBERG BELIEVES and his reasoning and
>> >evidence cited for his conclusions and faulting his conclusions and
>> >entire approach.
>>
>> And you will notice that I don't *dispute* that you did.
>>
>> Why can't you acknowledge that YOU made a stupid reading mistake, (twice) and
>> move on?
>
>Consider it done.
>>Why do you bring in Perry? He never saw the wound
>>in relation to the clothing.
>
>> Thus, he has zilch to say on the topic.
>
>He confirms this statement by Carrico:
>
>> >> >> >> > Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe, as specifically as you can then,
>> >> >> >> >the neck wounds which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
>> >> >> >> > Dr. CARRICO. There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size,
>>>> >> >> >located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage,
>> >> >> >> >the Adams apple.
>> >> >> >> > Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?
>> >> >> >> > Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.
>
>Lower third - below the Adam's apple - where the knot of your tie
>lies.
>And what the photos show.
Have not disputed where the wound *is*. I dispute that it went though the shirt
and tie.
>>There are only Carrico, the nurses who cut away the tie and removed the shirt,
>>and, in a correctly done autopsy, the prosectors, who would be able to comment
>>on this. Spector did not ask this question of the nurses. We are left with
>>>the Dulles/Carrico exchange, and Carrico's corroborations.
>
>Which I reject because there is better evidence.
>
>> >Take a look at the photos and you'll see that it's not possible for a
>> >tie to be below that wound.
>
>>Opinion, speculation... and others disagree with you. Including the doctor who
>>*saw* the wound.
>
>He was there to try to save JFK's life - nothing else. That was his
>focus. On that he is expert. On everything else, there is better
>evidence.
Just guessing here, but it seems to me that you'd remember whether you saw the
wound before or after the clothing were cut off. If seen before the clothing
were cut off, it would be quite clear where the wound is in relation to the
clothing.
>A would ABOVE the tie would not be in the lower third of the throat
>below the Adam's apple - as Carrico testified to.
Speculation and opinion.
>> >> >> >> > Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe, as specifically as you can then,
>> >> >> >> >the neck wounds which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
>> >> >> >> > Dr. CARRICO. There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size,
>>>> >> >> >located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage,
>> >> >> >> >the Adams apple.
>> >> >> >> > Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?
>> >> >> >> > Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.
>
>Therefore, there's some confusion that occurred with the Dulles
>exchange. Which happens when testimony is given.
>
>Anyway, I think you get the idea that I'm sticking with what the
>autopsy photos show and rejecting any attempt to move the wound
>higher.
>
>Obvious, when you look at the photos, the tie could not be BELOW that
>very low wound.
>
>So, if Carrico said it and if Carrico keeps on saying it, then, I
>reject that statement, knowing full well that he was there in TR1.
>
>I chuckle at CT attempts to use the Dallas Docs as pawns in their war
>against the WC.
Keep this statement in mind the next time you try to justify a belief in the WC
and any sort of reliance on eyewitness testimony.
I've said a dozen times that you cannot believe in the WCR and the eyewitnesses
at the same time.
Can you name any other case where the "verdict" was so out of line with the
eyewitnesses to the event?
>The WC was absolutely correct on this point of the wound corresponding
>to the location of the damage to the shirt and to the tie.
>
>And, as you know the autopsy docs, including forensic pathologist
>Finck, saw the clothing before testifying and testified that it
>corroborated their finding that a bullet had exited the lower third of
>the throat.
No it didn't. Please cite any testimony demonstrating that a bullet *exited*
through the clothing. (Check the FBI testimony)
>And Humes acknowledged two errors: 1) that he should have asked for
>the clothing and 2) that he should have called Dallas prior to the
>conclusion of the autopsy.
>
>I'll apologize for interrupting the exchange you were having with
>Jean.
>
>She is the one you should be exchanging with, not me. She has far more
>knowledge and much better manners than I do! ;)
Agreed.
>Jerry
Jean Davison
So are you again saying Specter was careful about
what he asked, instead of claiming that Carrico was coached?
Specter repeatedly asked Carrico to describe the wound *specifically,*
so I don't know what you mean by being "careful." Instead of trying
to guess what these people were thinking, why don't we just deal with
the actual testimony?
>
>
> >> Gems such as these make clear that the witnesses must have known what
> >> they were *supposed* to be testifying to:
> >>
> >> MR BELIN: "How many shots did you hear, if you remember?"
> >> MR EDWARDS: "Well, I heard one more than was fired, I believe."
> >
> > Well, let's see some more of that:
> >
> >QUOTE:
> >>>>
> > Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear, if you remember?
> > Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I heard one more then than was fired, I believe.
> > Mr. BELIN. You mean you said on the affidavit you heard four shots?
> > Mr. EDWARDS. I still right now don't know how many was fired. If I
> >said four, then I thought I heard four.
> >
> > [Gee, was he SUPPOSED to say that?]
Although you didn't comment on this, I will. This witness
obviously didn't say "*exactly* what was being asked of him."
The CT books never seem to quote this part of his testimony, or
the part below.
>
> If you are trying to argue that the questioning was not biased, you have a much
> longer row to hoe than the above example.
>
No, I'm arguing that you were mistaken to suggest that
Edwards and Fischer said whatever the WC wanted them to say.
>
> >MORE of the QUOTE:
> >
> >>>>
> > Mr. BELIN. If you said four, you mean the affidavit-maybe we'd better
> >introduce it into the record as Edward's Deposition Exhibit A.
> >Where do you think the shots came from?
> > Mr. EDWARDS. I have no idea.
> >
> > [Oops, I don't think he was SUPPOSED to say that, either.]
> >
> >>>>
> > Mr. BELIN. In the affidavit you stated that the shots seemed to come
> >from the building there. Did you really say that or not?
> > Mr. EDWARDS. No; I didn't say that.
> ><<<<<
> >
> > [Another big "oops"!]
> >
See what I mean?
> >>
> >> Or:
> >>
> >> Mr. Fischer. At first, I thought there were four, but as I think
> >> about it more, there must have been just three.
> >>
> >
> > Fischer, too, did not simply say what he was
> >"SUPPOSED" to say:
> >
> >QUOTE:
> >>>>
> > Mr. BELIN. Where did the shots appear to be coming from?
> > Mr. FISCHER. They appeared to be coming from just west of
> >the School Book Depository Building. There were some railroad
> >tracks and there were some railroad cars back in there.
> > Mr. BELIN. And they appeared to be coming from those railroad cars?
> > Mr. FISCHER. Well, that area somewhere.
> ><<<
> >
> > Golly, I don't think that's what he was "supposed"
> >to say. I think you shouldn't accuse these guys of
> >"playing along."
>
> Many of the witnesses did exactly that. A very few witnesses stuck to their
> guns... (one of the nurses did, for example, but I cannot recall her name at the
> moment). Dr. Perry, for one example, practically rolled over and died on
> command.
It appears that if you don't like what "many witnesses" say you
assume they're lying. It seems to me that the typical CT view of the
witnesses is that they are absolutely reliable (if they support
a conspiracy) -- after all, "they were there." But it they don't
support a conspiracy, they're mendacious tools of the coverup.
Is that about it?
>
>
> >> > Besides, Weisberg didn't give the full story on
> >> >Carrico's testimony. In one of the Whitewash books,
> >> >he wrote:
> >>
> >> While it's nice to point out Mr. Weisberg's contractions, I *never*
> >> rely on secondary sources if it's possible for me to read the primary
> >> sources. (Other than the minor fact that I don't *own* any of his
> >> "Whitewash" series... they are, however, on my 'want to own' list,
> >> and I'll almost certainly get around to purchasing more of his books
> >> in the future. I currently only have his "Never Again", and "Case
> >> Opened". I think "Post Mortem" is going to be my next pick to get...)
> >> It's simply not possible to give total quotes, or any book would be 28
> >> volumes long.
> >
> > Come on, Ben. Weisberg quoted out of context.
> >He quoted Dulles' question, but OMITTED Carrico's
> >direct answer:
> >
> >>>>
> >Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?
> > Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.
> >>>>
>
> A wound that was just above the tie WOULD be "about where your tie would be".
> You use an imprecise statement, and when he actually points out the location,
> and Dulles announces it, and Carrico agrees with it, you ignore that bit of
> testimony - and jump on the more imprecise one.
Not fair. I've already quoted Carrico's complete
testimony on this point, and now you're accusing me of
doing exactly what Weisberg did -- quoting out of context.
Weisberg (and other CTs) also left out Carrico's explicit
description of where the wound was *ON THE BODY*.
QUOTE:
>>
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe, as specifically as you can then, the neck
wounds which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
Dr. CARRICO. There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size,
located in the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams apple.
>>>
UNQUOTE
If you know where it was *ON THE BODY*, who cares where
it was in relation to a piece of clothing that can move up or down? The
WOUND didn't move up or down, did it?
>
> And then ignore the fact that he *continues* to maintain that the wound was over
> the tie.
Even assuming that Carrico saw it over the tie (which I still
doubt), it stays in the same location on the body, wouldn't you agree?
>
>
> > But I'm puzzled. Would you explain to me what this
> >argument is really all about? Are you (and other CTs) claiming
> >that the wound was *higher* than the autopsy photos
> >show it?
>
> Nope. I *will* argue that apparently nobody on the LN side ever wears a tie.
> To listen to all of you, one would think that the tie goes over the Adam's
> apple.
Huh? No, it's the CT side that's trying to move this
wound *up*. I agree that it was where the photos show it and
where the witnesses said it was -- in the lower third of the neck below
the Adam's apple. If you agree that the autopsy photos show the
location of the wound, what are we arguing about?? I think this "above
the tie" bit is much ado about nothing. If I'm missing something,
explain it to me.
>
> ><snip of old>
> >> >
> >> > The location of the wound, below the Adam's apple,
> >> >is in fact "just about where your tie would be." Do you
> >> >disagree?
> >>
> >> Why should I agree or disagree? Others have *asked* Dr. Carrico in
> >> person just what he meant, and he's made it quite clear that the wound
> >> was above the tie.
> >
> > I'm not sure it matters, but for the sake of the argument,
> >what exactly was Carrico asked by others and what was his
> >exact reply? You see, I'm very hesitant to rely on any author's
> >paraphase, and I've learned that the hard way.
>
> I don't have any source in front of me, but I doubt if it really matters. Same
> thing as Dr. Perry, who to this day, and to multiple people, attests his belief
> that the neck wound was an entry... but short of you standing in front of the
> man, and hearing it for yourself, you cannot allow yourself to take notice of
> it.
Here we go again with the attempted mindreading, Ben.
Honestly, how could you possibly know what I will or will not
"allow myself"? I'm certainly willing to believe that Perry thought,
and still thinks, it was an entry wound. But as he testified, with a FMJ
bullet, it could've been either, and the other evidence convinces me
that it wasn't an entry, no matter what Perry thinks. I believe Perry
is honest, but no human being is *infallible*.
>
> >>
> >> Exactly as he *testified*. (Or pointed, and agreed with Mr. Dulles
> >> description of his pointing finger...)
> >>
> > His testimony is ambiguous or contradictory, at best.
> >
> >> I'll grant you that Weisberg (as I recall) was one who asked... but if
> >> LN'ers aren't willing to ask the questions, they'll have to live with
> >> the answers we *do* get.
> >
> > Sorry, but I'll "live with" the autopsy photos showing where
> >the wound was, or even with testimony by Carrico and others
> >that the wound was in the lower neck below the Adam's apple,
> >i.e., where the photos show it. If he actually *did* see it above
> >the tie, which I doubt, it could only mean that the shirt was lower
> >on JFK's chest when Carrico saw it that it was when the bullet hit him.
> >I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way, unless you're
> >arguing that the photos are fake (among other things).
>
> Actually, they are... but not the location of the neck wound.
We agree on the neck wound location, then. That's good! Now, what
does it matter whether it was over or under the tie when Carrico saw it?
It didn't *move*, did it?
Jean
Mitch Todd
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message news:ba3fjucgfhrn670m3...@4ax.com...
Notice that Weisberg never actually _quotes_ Carrico; we have it only on
Weisberg's say-so what Carrico said. In light of other statements by Carrico
concerning the location of the throat wound (see below), I wouldn't put too
much stock in Weisberg's assertions.
> >BTW, you are aware that Dr Baxter, who assisted Perry with the tracheotomy,
> >placed the wound "where the knot of the tie would be"...
> No, I'm not. You'll have to cite where he states this. In neither
> his WC or ARRB testimony did he even *use* the word "tie".
> And if he *did* state this, it was a statement that isn't supported by
> his own knowledge. In his *first* statement, here being read by Dr.
> Baxter:
> Dr. Baxter - "I was contacted at approximately 12:40 that the
> President was on the way to the Emergency Room, having been shot. On
> arrival there, I found an endotracheal tube in place with assisted
> respirations, a left chest tube being inserted, and cutdowns going in
> one leg and in the left arm.
> it clearly states that a left chest tube was being inserted. Now, I
> don't know the medical procedures where you're from, but I'm going to
> take a wild-eyed guess, and assume that JFK's SHIRT WAS OFF at this
> point in time. If Dr. Baxter is being accurate in his statement, then
> he NEVER saw the neck wound *in relation to* the shirt and tie.
My apologies. It was Dr Kemp Clark who placed the throat wound at the
knot of the tie, not Baxter.
As for Carrico, his WC testimony contains a very interesting description of the order of examination
of the President:
Mr. SPECTER: What did you observe as to the President's condition upon his arrival?
Dr. CARRICO: He was lying on a carriage, his respirations were slow, spasmodic, described as agonal.
[...]
His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he was an ashen, bluish, grey, cyanotic,
he was making no spontaneous movements, I mean, no voluntary movements at all. We
opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of
the neck, listened very briefly, heard a few cardiac beats, felt the President's back, and
detected no large or sucking chest wounds, and then proceeded to the examination of his head.
Notice that the throat wound was not seen until the coat and tie were opened. If the neck wound was
above the collar, why was it not spotted _before_ the coat and tie were removed?
MST
Ben Holmes
<jere...@earthlink.com> wrote:
Normal response. It seems that only CT'ers are interested in talking
with the eyewitnesses, and getting more information on their
testimony.
>> >BTW, you are aware that Dr Baxter, who assisted Perry with the tracheotomy,
>> >placed the wound "where the knot of the tie would be"...
>
>> No, I'm not. You'll have to cite where he states this. In neither
>> his WC or ARRB testimony did he even *use* the word "tie".
>
>> And if he *did* state this, it was a statement that isn't supported by
>> his own knowledge. In his *first* statement, here being read by Dr.
>> Baxter:
>
>> Dr. Baxter - "I was contacted at approximately 12:40 that the
>> President was on the way to the Emergency Room, having been shot. On
>> arrival there, I found an endotracheal tube in place with assisted
>> respirations, a left chest tube being inserted, and cutdowns going in
>> one leg and in the left arm.
>
>> it clearly states that a left chest tube was being inserted. Now, I
>> don't know the medical procedures where you're from, but I'm going to
>> take a wild-eyed guess, and assume that JFK's SHIRT WAS OFF at this
>> point in time. If Dr. Baxter is being accurate in his statement, then
>> he NEVER saw the neck wound *in relation to* the shirt and tie.
>
>My apologies. It was Dr Kemp Clark who placed the throat wound at the
>knot of the tie, not Baxter.
You really *should* read the testimony before you rely on it.
Dr. CLARK - I remember using the phrase to describe the location of a
wound in the President's throat as being at the point of his knot of
his necktie. I do not recall ever specifically stating that this was
an entrance wound, as has been said before. I was not present when the
President arrived and did not see this wound.
If Dr. Clark wasn't present at the time JFK's clothing was still on,
and he never saw the neck wound, how can his testimony be used to
refute someone who did?
>As for Carrico, his WC testimony contains a very interesting description of the order of examination
>of the President:
>
> Mr. SPECTER: What did you observe as to the President's condition upon his arrival?
> Dr. CARRICO: He was lying on a carriage, his respirations were slow, spasmodic, described as agonal.
> [...]
> His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he was an ashen, bluish, grey, cyanotic,
> he was making no spontaneous movements, I mean, no voluntary movements at all. We
> opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of
> the neck, listened very briefly, heard a few cardiac beats, felt the President's back, and
> detected no large or sucking chest wounds, and then proceeded to the examination of his head.
>
>
>Notice that the throat wound was not seen until the coat and tie were opened. If the neck wound was
>above the collar, why was it not spotted _before_ the coat and tie were removed?
So Carrico lied? Is this your opinion?
>MST
Ben Holmes
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
I do. That's why I enjoy quoting it so much. That's also how you can
get a real good sense of what they were trying to achieve in their
questioning.
>> >> Gems such as these make clear that the witnesses must have known what
>> >> they were *supposed* to be testifying to:
>> >>
>> >> MR BELIN: "How many shots did you hear, if you remember?"
>> >> MR EDWARDS: "Well, I heard one more than was fired, I believe."
>> >
>> > Well, let's see some more of that:
>> >
>> >QUOTE:
>> >>>>
>> > Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear, if you remember?
>> > Mr. EDWARDS. Well, I heard one more then than was fired, I believe.
>> > Mr. BELIN. You mean you said on the affidavit you heard four shots?
>> > Mr. EDWARDS. I still right now don't know how many was fired. If I
>> >said four, then I thought I heard four.
>> >
>> > [Gee, was he SUPPOSED to say that?]
>
> Although you didn't comment on this, I will. This witness
>obviously didn't say "*exactly* what was being asked of him."
>The CT books never seem to quote this part of his testimony, or
>the part below.
>
>>
>> If you are trying to argue that the questioning was not biased, you have a much
>> longer row to hoe than the above example.
>>
>
> No, I'm arguing that you were mistaken to suggest that
>Edwards and Fischer said whatever the WC wanted them to say.
Please!! Don't pull a Jerry on me! I gave both of them as examples
that the witnesses KNEW what they were supposed to be testifying to.
And I *said* that.
Although it's *also* quite clear that many witnesses did *exactly*
that - say what was expected of them. But I've not tried to show
that, and Edwards & Fisher were NOT quoted in an effort to demonstrate
that.
>> >MORE of the QUOTE:
>> >
>> >>>>
>> > Mr. BELIN. If you said four, you mean the affidavit-maybe we'd better
>> >introduce it into the record as Edward's Deposition Exhibit A.
>> >Where do you think the shots came from?
>> > Mr. EDWARDS. I have no idea.
>> >
>> > [Oops, I don't think he was SUPPOSED to say that, either.]
>> >
>> >>>>
>> > Mr. BELIN. In the affidavit you stated that the shots seemed to come
>> >from the building there. Did you really say that or not?
>> > Mr. EDWARDS. No; I didn't say that.
>> ><<<<<
>> >
>> > [Another big "oops"!]
>> >
>
> See what I mean?
Strawman... I have no intention of arguing something I didn't
maintain. (With those quotes.)
>> >> Or:
>> >>
>> >> Mr. Fischer. At first, I thought there were four, but as I think
>> >> about it more, there must have been just three.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Fischer, too, did not simply say what he was
>> >"SUPPOSED" to say:
>> >
>> >QUOTE:
>> >>>>
>> > Mr. BELIN. Where did the shots appear to be coming from?
>> > Mr. FISCHER. They appeared to be coming from just west of
>> >the School Book Depository Building. There were some railroad
>> >tracks and there were some railroad cars back in there.
>> > Mr. BELIN. And they appeared to be coming from those railroad cars?
>> > Mr. FISCHER. Well, that area somewhere.
>> ><<<
>> >
>> > Golly, I don't think that's what he was "supposed"
>> >to say. I think you shouldn't accuse these guys of
>> >"playing along."
>>
>> Many of the witnesses did exactly that. A very few witnesses stuck to their
>> guns... (one of the nurses did, for example, but I cannot recall her name at the
>> moment). Dr. Perry, for one example, practically rolled over and died on
>> command.
>
> It appears that if you don't like what "many witnesses" say you
>assume they're lying.
Some of them did. If you can't see which ones, it's not worth the
time to debate it. But "many witnesses"... no.
>It seems to me that the typical CT view of the
>witnesses is that they are absolutely reliable (if they support
>a conspiracy) -- after all, "they were there." But it they don't
>support a conspiracy, they're mendacious tools of the coverup.
>Is that about it?
Good strawman. Not interested.
This also assumes a false dichotomy... just because a particular
witness gives what for the WC was perfect testimony does *NOT* mean
that it's not *also* perfectly valid 'CT' testimony.
And, if you enjoy reading the testimony, you'll discover that far
fewer people than you might imagine manage to avoid giving *any*
testimony that supports a conspiracy.
Why are you now discussing the location on the body? Let's go back to
my *original* comment:
"For example, Mr. Spector knew very well not to pin down anyone on the
location of the neck wound with regards to JFK's clothing, and the
only reason that we know today that it was ABOVE the tie, is Mr.
Dulles not understanding the program, and jumping in with an
inconvenient question. (See the Carrico WC testimony)"
Notice that I even referred to the WC testimony of Carrico - not
Weisberg's rendition as you have discussed, and both Jerry and John
have accused me of using.
>> And then ignore the fact that he *continues* to maintain that the wound was over
>> the tie.
>
> Even assuming that Carrico saw it over the tie (which I still
>doubt), it stays in the same location on the body, wouldn't you agree?
Not relevant to my point.
>> > But I'm puzzled. Would you explain to me what this
>> >argument is really all about? Are you (and other CTs) claiming
>> >that the wound was *higher* than the autopsy photos
>> >show it?
>>
>> Nope. I *will* argue that apparently nobody on the LN side ever wears a tie.
>> To listen to all of you, one would think that the tie goes over the Adam's
>> apple.
>
> Huh? No, it's the CT side that's trying to move this
>wound *up*. I agree that it was where the photos show it and
>where the witnesses said it was -- in the lower third of the neck below
>the Adam's apple. If you agree that the autopsy photos show the
>location of the wound, what are we arguing about?? I think this "above
>the tie" bit is much ado about nothing. If I'm missing something,
>explain it to me.
Try reading my original statement again.
>> ><snip of old>
>> >> >
>> >> > The location of the wound, below the Adam's apple,
>> >> >is in fact "just about where your tie would be." Do you
>> >> >disagree?
>> >>
>> >> Why should I agree or disagree? Others have *asked* Dr. Carrico in
>> >> person just what he meant, and he's made it quite clear that the wound
>> >> was above the tie.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure it matters, but for the sake of the argument,
>> >what exactly was Carrico asked by others and what was his
>> >exact reply? You see, I'm very hesitant to rely on any author's
>> >paraphase, and I've learned that the hard way.
>>
>> I don't have any source in front of me, but I doubt if it really matters. Same
>> thing as Dr. Perry, who to this day, and to multiple people, attests his belief
>> that the neck wound was an entry... but short of you standing in front of the
>> man, and hearing it for yourself, you cannot allow yourself to take notice of
>> it.
>
> Here we go again with the attempted mindreading, Ben.
>Honestly, how could you possibly know what I will or will not
>"allow myself"? I'm certainly willing to believe that Perry thought,
>and still thinks, it was an entry wound.
"willing to believe"??? He's stated that on numerous occasions to
various other people, some of whom post here. I seem to recall
someone here discussing this (Gary Aguilar?)
You're "willing to believe", but just how much evidence is it going to
take?
>But as he testified, with a FMJ
>bullet, it could've been either, and the other evidence convinces me
>that it wasn't an entry, no matter what Perry thinks. I believe Perry
>is honest, but no human being is *infallible*.
I've dealt with this one before. No need to start another 'Perrry'
discussion...
>> >> Exactly as he *testified*. (Or pointed, and agreed with Mr. Dulles
>> >> description of his pointing finger...)
>> >>
>> > His testimony is ambiguous or contradictory, at best.
>> >
>> >> I'll grant you that Weisberg (as I recall) was one who asked... but if
>> >> LN'ers aren't willing to ask the questions, they'll have to live with
>> >> the answers we *do* get.
>> >
>> > Sorry, but I'll "live with" the autopsy photos showing where
>> >the wound was, or even with testimony by Carrico and others
>> >that the wound was in the lower neck below the Adam's apple,
>> >i.e., where the photos show it. If he actually *did* see it above
>> >the tie, which I doubt, it could only mean that the shirt was lower
>> >on JFK's chest when Carrico saw it that it was when the bullet hit him.
>> >I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way, unless you're
>> >arguing that the photos are fake (among other things).
>>
>> Actually, they are... but not the location of the neck wound.
>
> We agree on the neck wound location, then. That's good! Now, what
>does it matter whether it was over or under the tie when Carrico saw it?
>It didn't *move*, did it?
> Jean
Read my initial statement.
>> >> >Compare any photo of JFK wearing a tie with the autopsy shot of
>> >> >the throat wound. How could the tie have possibly been
>> >> >worn that low?
>> >>
>> >> Ask Carrico - it's *his* testimony that the shot was above the tie.
>> >
>> > Carrico's not available, so I'm asking *you*.<g>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> And I might point out that you are now trying to take advantage of the
>> >> refusal to allow the prosectors to examine the clothes.
>> >
>> > Huh? Sorry, I don't follow that.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Carrico saw it, Carrico *testified* to it, and Carrico confirmed it to
>> >> people who asked.
>> >>
>> > Addressed above. Kindly take a gander at the
>> >left profile autopsy photo and tell me if you think JFK wore
>> >his tie below the top edge of this throat wound (in other words,
>> >down on his breast bone!).
>> >
>> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/left.jpg
>> >
>> > Still owe you one on Connally, but tomorrow's a busy day,
>> >so it may be a while. Have a good one!
>> >Jean
Actually, I'm waiting for a response to my post giving corroborating
witnesses for Walther.
John McAdams
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
My guess is that Ben will decide the autopsy photos are faked, if it's
necessary to do so.
My guess is that Carrico was really holding his hand direction in
front of the tie, and Dulles said "above the tie" meaning that the
place where Carrico was holding his hand would have been directly
above the tie if he were lying on his back -- as Kennedy was.
It's either "explain away" the "above the tie" comment, or ignore all
the other evidence, including *Carrico's* testimony.
This whole issue is a classic of buff selectivity.
.John
--
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:39:52 -0400, "Jean Davison"
><dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> If you aren't already aware that Spector was *very* careful in what he asked,
>>> and what he avoided asking, then perhaps you should delve into the testimony
>>> some more. It's quite obvious once you study it. Although, from a LN
>>> persuasion, I'd guess that Spector did a fine job.
>>
>> So are you again saying Specter was careful about
>>what he asked, instead of claiming that Carrico was coached?
>>Specter repeatedly asked Carrico to describe the wound *specifically,*
>>so I don't know what you mean by being "careful." Instead of trying
>>to guess what these people were thinking, why don't we just deal with
>>the actual testimony?
>
>I do. That's why I enjoy quoting it so much. That's also how you can
>get a real good sense of what they were trying to achieve in their
>questioning.
>
>
Ben, Jean has caught you flatly contradicting yourself. You first
accused Specter of engaging in tendentious and leading questioning.
Jean then posted the passage that makes it clear that Specter in fact
pressed Carrico to describe the wound as precisely as he could.
QUOTE:
>>>
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in
the anterior third of the neck which you have just described, could
you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that
wound?
[VI, 3]
<<<
UNQUOTE
So you fell back to the "that doesn't matter, since Carrico had been
coached" argument.
Of course, you had no evidence he had been.
But now you *again* return to "Spector was *very* careful in what he
asked."
You keep contradicting yourself. When one claim is proven flatly
wrong, but trot out another one. But then you fall back to the first
one, having apparently been unable to accept that Weisberg just flat
mislead you.
Ben Holmes
No need to guess, I'm on record as stating exactly that.
A rather simple example is the 6.5 mm almost round object in the AP
xray. *Never* seen prior to 1966.
The other evidence is persuasive to you, fine.
> including *Carrico's* testimony.
LOL!! This is a slight contradiction.
>This whole issue is a classic of buff selectivity.
And lack of official investigation.
>.John
Ben Holmes
McAdams) wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 22:51:12 -0700, Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:39:52 -0400, "Jean Davison"
>><dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> If you aren't already aware that Spector was *very* careful in what he asked,
>>>> and what he avoided asking, then perhaps you should delve into the testimony
>>>> some more. It's quite obvious once you study it. Although, from a LN
>>>> persuasion, I'd guess that Spector did a fine job.
>>>
>>> So are you again saying Specter was careful about
>>>what he asked, instead of claiming that Carrico was coached?
>>>Specter repeatedly asked Carrico to describe the wound *specifically,*
>>>so I don't know what you mean by being "careful." Instead of trying
>>>to guess what these people were thinking, why don't we just deal with
>>>the actual testimony?
>>
>>I do. That's why I enjoy quoting it so much. That's also how you can
>>get a real good sense of what they were trying to achieve in their
>>questioning.
>>
>>
>
>Ben, Jean has caught you flatly contradicting yourself. You first
>accused Specter of engaging in tendentious and leading questioning.
Absolutely true. One of the *best* examples is his repeated "what if"
scenario he used a number of times to elicit the answer he wanted with
respect to the direction of the neck wound.
>Jean then posted the passage that makes it clear that Specter in fact
>pressed Carrico to describe the wound as precisely as he could.
>
> QUOTE:
>>>>
> Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in
>the anterior third of the neck which you have just described, could
>you be any more specific in defining the characteristics of that
>wound?
>[VI, 3]
><<<
> UNQUOTE
>
>
>So you fell back to the "that doesn't matter, since Carrico had been
>coached" argument.
Are you now trying to assert that the witnesses had *not* been
coached? It's quite clear that before the official testimony was
given, Specter went over with each witness, exactly the questions he'd
be asking, and finding out how they would be answering those
questions. Specter doesn't hide this fact, indeed, he makes it quite
clear that this is exactly what happened.
And while this would be perfectly legitimate in a *normal* courtroom
proceeding, it's use is just slightly dishonest in a setting where the
truth is being sought. Denying that the WC didn't try to tailor the
testimony they received is just silly, and no sillier than me trying
to assert that they always succeeded at that task.
>Of course, you had no evidence he had been.
Mr. SPECTER - Prior to the time we went on the record here before you
were sworn in, did you and I have a brief conversation about the
purpose of this disposition, and the general nature of the questions
which I would ask you?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER - And was the information which you gave me at that time
the same as that to which you have testified here on the record?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes; it was.
>But now you *again* return to "Spector was *very* careful in what he
>asked."
>
>You keep contradicting yourself. When one claim is proven flatly
>wrong, but trot out another one. But then you fall back to the first
>one, having apparently been unable to accept that Weisberg just flat
>mislead you.
>
>.John
You seem to have the impression that a man can have only one single
attribute to his arsenal. If Specter was "careful" not to ask certain
questions, then he couldn't have coached his witnesses earlier.
That's just a silly position to take, John, and it amazes me that
you'd not understand that Jean simply used a particular part of
Specter's questioning to illustrate a point.
You cannot be expected to understand that Specter was biased in a
particular direction, and used his God-given talents to do his job in
furtherance of his bias. But it's clear from reading his questioning
of the witnesses.
You really have to do better than this, John, if you want to represent
the LN side adequately.
Jean Davison
Back to Carolyn Walther...
>
> >"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> >news:7h5cjukmpnahae52i...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:08:35 -0400, "Jean Davison"
> >> <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> >> >news:2jc4jusjgvtfanpok...@4ax.com...
> >> >>
> >> > Okay, Carolyn Walther.
> >> >
> >> >> The WC had the following information from a witness interview
> >> >> apparently conducted on 12/4/63, submitted to the WC on 12/10/63, and
> >> >> couldn't be bothered to either have her testify, or to have the FBI
> >> >> conduct any follow up interviews. Mrs. Walthers saw *two* people, one
> >> >> holding a rifle... and rather inconveniently, also apparently heard
> >> >> more than three shots.
> >> >>
<snipping non-Walther stuff, for now>
> >> Of *course* there's a reasonable understanding of the evidence.
> >> That's why when a number of people describe more than one person at
> >> the SN, I start getting the idea that there may have *been* more than
> >> one.
> >
> > And when a number of people describe only one person
> >in the SN, what then?
>
> It's easy to explain why some people saw only one person if there were
> two, it's far more difficult to explain why some people saw two people
> if there were only one.
No. Three witnesses saw one man and brown boxes
on all sides of that man. Walthers saw one man and a "brown
suit coat." She was about 50 feet further away from window than the
other witnesses.
Look at her description again:
QUOTE:
>> In the same window, to the left of this man, she
could see a portion of another man standing by the side of this man
with a rifle. This other man was standing erect, and his head was above
the opened portion of the window. As the window was very dirty, she
could not see the head of this second man.... This second man was
apparently wearing a brown suit coat, and the only thing she could
see was the right side of the man, from about the waist to the
shoulders. << [XXIV, 522]
UNQUOTE
Now please compare that description with the Dillard photo:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0291a.htm
Seems obvious to me what happened here.
>
>
> >> Now... back to *my* point... why did the WC feel it unnecessary to
> >> re-question or take the testimony of Mrs. Walthers?
> >
> > How should I know what the WC "felt"? Why do no
> >CT authors ever mention that Walther's account is contradicted by at
> >least three other witnesses-- Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan?
>
> It doesn't matter how many people contradicted the statement...
It doesn't?!
> That's NOT the way you do an investigation. If you decide in advance
> that you're not going to re-question, or ask for someone's testimony,
> then you have made a judgement on their statement without a solid
> foundation. This *is* what happened. There's no excuse for it, and
> that's why I pointed it out as a good example of WC dishonesty.
You're making assumptions, I think -- how can you
know what was "decided in advance"? I'm not sure if she was
requestioned or not, but the woman she was with, Pearl Springer,
was questioned the same day. Ms. Springer reported that
Ms. Walther didn't mention anything about seeing a man with
a gun to *her*. Walther herself said that after hearing someone say
that the President had been hit, she "stopped for a moment
and listened to the police radio on a motorcycle," but she
evidently didn't mention seeing a gunman to the police, either, and
instead walked back to work with Springer. Kinda strange,
don't you think? Maybe this is one of the reasons the WC
didn't call her.
These two ladies' statements can be found here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0270b.htm
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0271a.htm
>
> And, as I've pointed out before, her testimony was NOT contradicted by
> anyone - far from it, she actually has others who's statements support
> hers in both multiple persons, and more shots.
Her testimony certainly WAS contradicted by others--
e.g., Fischer and Edwards, who were looking at a man
in this window at the same time she was. They saw *nothing* in his hands.
Walther claimed that he was "leaning out the window
with both his hands extended outside the window ledge"
and that in his hands was a strange-looking rifle. NOBODY
ELSE saw this.
>
> Instead of taking this testimony, and *explaining* it in reference to
> other testimony, the WC quite obviously decided to avoid the situation
> altogether. How many others have simply been lost to history?
The WC published Walther's statement, and if they'd
called her, what difference do you think it would make?
As for witnesses "lost to history," nice speculation.
Your three other people did NOT see the same
things Walther described.
>
> I figured you were already familiar with the other testimony about two
> people on the 6th floor, but I've included the information below.
>
> >> Oh, that's right, nobody bothered to re-question or ask for her
> >> testimony!!!
> >
> > No matter how many times she said she saw a second
> >man, there are still three witnesses who contradict her.
>
>
> Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say they had seen anything--such as a rifle?
> Mr. CRAIG. Yes; later on. A few minutes after that--I had taken this
> girl to one of our criminal investigators---and was talking to some
> other people. I talked to a young couple and the boy said he saw two
> men on the uh--sixth floor of the Book Depository Building over
> there; one of them had a rifle with the telescopic sight on it--but he
> thought they were Secret Service agents on guard and didn't report it.
> This was about--uh---oh, he said, 15 minutes before the motorcade ever
> arrived.
>
> You can read Rowland's testimony, this is who is being referred to.
Rowland didn't describe a gunman hanging out the
SN window, he described an elderly African-American
wearing a plaid shirt there, and no one in a brown suit coat.
Possibly he saw Bonnie Ray Williams up there, and Oswald
at the other end of the building. (Even Rowland wasn't sure
it wasn't Oswald: "I just couldn't identify him... because I
couldn't get a good enough look at his face.")
>
> Ruby Henderson (CE 2089) is also a witness to two people, although she
> cannot positively state that it was the 6th floor. But her
> description of the two people matches Rowland's, and Powell's, and
> the time that she saw this can be timed by the ambulance she mentioned
> as roughly the same time that Walther's was viewing the two.
Ruby Henderson described two men "on one of the upper
floors," neither of them wearing a "brown suit coat," and she saw
no weapon. So once again, this witness does NOT corroborate
Walther's story. No weapon, no "brown suit coat." Possibly she
saw two of the guys on the 5th floor, since she didn't seem quite
certain about the race of the second man she described.
>
> Then there was John Powell... he described how he and his cellmates
> watched two men with a gun... "He claims he could see them so clearly
> that he even recalls them 'fooling with the scope' on the gun." You
> can read his account in "Conspiracy" by Anthony Summers, pages 74-75.
I'm not as familiar with Powell, but I take it
that he too failed to mention the "brown suit coat" in
the left side of the SN window. And no other witness
you've named said anything about two men "fooling
with the scope."
>
> Interestingly, Rowland, Henderson, and Powell all *agree* that one man
> was white, and one was darker complexioned... either Mexican or Black.
>
> Now... I've listed three witnesses who support Walther's story, and
> contrary to your assertion, testimony of seeing only one man is NOT
> contradictory.
None of them corroborates her story.
That won't work here, with Walther, since she placed
"brown coat man" close to the window, beside the guy she
said was holding a weapon. She thought his face was obscured
by the dirty window.
>It's easy to explain
> someone sighting just one person when there were two, it's not quite
> so easy to explain a two person sighting when there was only one.
Of course there is -- she didn't see any boxes, instead
she saw a "brown coat."
> Bonnie Ray Williams is simply not the answer, as he specifically
> stated that the time he came back to the 6th floor to eat his lunch,
> he *saw nobody*. His earliest statements - if transcribed accurately,
> would have had him down on the 5th floor by the time the ambulance
> came around, which was when several people saw the two on the 6th
> floor. No matter *how* you judge the evidence, Williams was gone when
> the ambulance came around... (which according to Brennan was *after*
> 12:18) And several of the sightings came *after* the ambulance left.
Right, I didn't mean to imply that Walther saw Williams --
Williams wasn't wearing a suit coat, and the time was wrong, as
you say. I was thinking of Rowlands there. Sorry I wasn't clear.
Jean
Ben Holmes
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
This isn't rocket science, Jean... nor were all the witnesses looking
at the same place in the same 5 second period.
If they all saw something, and described it *identically*, you could
even suspect a little information sharing between friends. But all of
these witnesses saw two people, and the time (nor closeness of the
people) cannot be matched to Bonnie Ray Williams - or some boxes.
It's really just that simple.
> Look at her description again:
>
>QUOTE:
> >> In the same window, to the left of this man, she
>could see a portion of another man standing by the side of this man
>with a rifle. This other man was standing erect, and his head was above
>the opened portion of the window. As the window was very dirty, she
>could not see the head of this second man.... This second man was
>apparently wearing a brown suit coat, and the only thing she could
>see was the right side of the man, from about the waist to the
>shoulders. << [XXIV, 522]
>UNQUOTE
>
> Now please compare that description with the Dillard photo:
>
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0291a.htm
>
> Seems obvious to me what happened here.
By completely ignoring the other witnesses, you can accept this
conclusion.
I think it's a real stretch to ignore the other witnesses, and assume
that Walther's managed to visualize boxes into a person. It's not a
mistake normally made.
>> >> Now... back to *my* point... why did the WC feel it unnecessary to
>> >> re-question or take the testimony of Mrs. Walthers?
>> >
>> > How should I know what the WC "felt"? Why do no
>> >CT authors ever mention that Walther's account is contradicted by at
>> >least three other witnesses-- Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan?
>>
>> It doesn't matter how many people contradicted the statement...
>
> It doesn't?!
Of course not. Because they don't contradict the statement in the
first place. And as I continued, a perception that statements were in
conflict with each other DOESN'T EXCUSE THE NON-COLLECTION OF THAT
TESTIMONY.
Are you now going to argue that Brennan's testimony is wrong because
Edwards and Fischer didn't see a rifle?
Are you going to argue that Norman Williams and Jarman weren't on the
fifth floor because Edwards and Fischer didn't see them?
>> That's NOT the way you do an investigation. If you decide in advance
>> that you're not going to re-question, or ask for someone's testimony,
>> then you have made a judgement on their statement without a solid
>> foundation. This *is* what happened. There's no excuse for it, and
>> that's why I pointed it out as a good example of WC dishonesty.
>
> You're making assumptions, I think -- how can you
>know what was "decided in advance"? I'm not sure if she was
>requestioned or not,
She was not. There is no record of it.
>but the woman she was with, Pearl Springer,
>was questioned the same day. Ms. Springer reported that
>Ms. Walther didn't mention anything about seeing a man with
>a gun to *her*. Walther herself said that after hearing someone say
>that the President had been hit, she "stopped for a moment
>and listened to the police radio on a motorcycle," but she
>evidently didn't mention seeing a gunman to the police, either, and
>instead walked back to work with Springer. Kinda strange,
>don't you think? Maybe this is one of the reasons the WC
>didn't call her.
Don't you think that this is just a little "Monday morning
quarterbacking"? The importance of what she saw may never have struck
her at all. Notice that *all* of the witnesses to a gun on the 6th
floor assumed that they were Secret Service, or guards of some sort.
If *you* saw a policeman standing on a corner at a parade, would you
automatically point them out to your friends??
> These two ladies' statements can be found here:
>
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0270b.htm
>
>http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0271a.htm
>
>>
>> And, as I've pointed out before, her testimony was NOT contradicted by
>> anyone - far from it, she actually has others who's statements support
>> hers in both multiple persons, and more shots.
>
> Her testimony certainly WAS contradicted by others--
>e.g., Fischer and Edwards, who were looking at a man
>in this window at the same time she was.
There is no way on God's green Earth that you can assert that *any* of
the witnesses to the two men on the 6th floor were looking even during
the same one minute period, let alone at the same time. It would take
no more than 5 seconds to casually saunter away from the window - and
the view of anyone 6 stories below.
>They saw *nothing* in his hands.
>Walther claimed that he was "leaning out the window
>with both his hands extended outside the window ledge"
>and that in his hands was a strange-looking rifle. NOBODY
>ELSE saw this.
Nobody else reported what Brennan reported either... shall we throw
his testimony out?
And with a total of four people, and reportedly more than that, who'd
seen two people on the 6th floor between 12:20 and 12:30, you're going
to have to concede the possibility.
>> Instead of taking this testimony, and *explaining* it in reference to
>> other testimony, the WC quite obviously decided to avoid the situation
>> altogether. How many others have simply been lost to history?
>
> The WC published Walther's statement, and if they'd
>called her, what difference do you think it would make?
One single witness, perhaps none. But the attitude of getting the
testimony of all eyewitnesses - several, for example, who were the
closest to the scene never had their testimony taken, would have
drastically changed the results.
I've said it many times, and I'll keep harping on it, you CANNOT
accept the WC conclusions if you don't discount the majority of the
witnesses. Or at least parts of the testimony and statements of
virtually any witness.
>As for witnesses "lost to history," nice speculation.
Not speculation at all. If someone's testimony wasn't taken that
first 6 months, are you going to accept their statements from 30 years
later?
And if you cannot name eyewitnesses who's testimony was *never* taken,
then you can't be very familiar with this case.
They *all* described two people. That's rather hard to get around.
>> I figured you were already familiar with the other testimony about two
>> people on the 6th floor, but I've included the information below.
>>
>> >> Oh, that's right, nobody bothered to re-question or ask for her
>> >> testimony!!!
>> >
>> > No matter how many times she said she saw a second
>> >man, there are still three witnesses who contradict her.
>>
>>
>> Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say they had seen anything--such as a rifle?
>> Mr. CRAIG. Yes; later on. A few minutes after that--I had taken this
>> girl to one of our criminal investigators---and was talking to some
>> other people. I talked to a young couple and the boy said he saw two
>> men on the uh--sixth floor of the Book Depository Building over
>> there; one of them had a rifle with the telescopic sight on it--but he
>> thought they were Secret Service agents on guard and didn't report it.
>> This was about--uh---oh, he said, 15 minutes before the motorcade ever
>> arrived.
>>
>> You can read Rowland's testimony, this is who is being referred to.
>
> Rowland didn't describe a gunman hanging out the
>SN window, he described an elderly African-American
>wearing a plaid shirt there, and no one in a brown suit coat.
>Possibly he saw Bonnie Ray Williams up there, and Oswald
>at the other end of the building. (Even Rowland wasn't sure
>it wasn't Oswald: "I just couldn't identify him... because I
>couldn't get a good enough look at his face.")
Yep... Rowland is the only witness who *might* have seen Bonnie Ray
Williams up there. He's the only one who's testimony can *be*
construed this way.
>> Ruby Henderson (CE 2089) is also a witness to two people, although she
>> cannot positively state that it was the 6th floor. But her
>> description of the two people matches Rowland's, and Powell's, and
>> the time that she saw this can be timed by the ambulance she mentioned
>> as roughly the same time that Walther's was viewing the two.
>
> Ruby Henderson described two men "on one of the upper
>floors," neither of them wearing a "brown suit coat," and she saw
>no weapon. So once again, this witness does NOT corroborate
>Walther's story. No weapon, no "brown suit coat." Possibly she
>saw two of the guys on the 5th floor, since she didn't seem quite
>certain about the race of the second man she described.
Surely you're really stretching a point here.
The salient part of her statement is that she saw two people. And the
race of the second man that she was uncertain about cannot in any way
indicate that she saw the men on the fifth floor.
Nor does Ruby Henderson state that "neither of them wearing a brown
sut coat". She doesn't mention it at all. Does this mean, by your
reasoning, that the two men were naked?
Trying to claim that Ruby's statements cannot corroborate other
reports of two men on the 6th floor because she didn't describe their
clothing is just silly. Jean - you're *really* stretching here.
>> Then there was John Powell... he described how he and his cellmates
>> watched two men with a gun... "He claims he could see them so clearly
>> that he even recalls them 'fooling with the scope' on the gun." You
>> can read his account in "Conspiracy" by Anthony Summers, pages 74-75.
>
> I'm not as familiar with Powell, but I take it
>that he too failed to mention the "brown suit coat" in
>the left side of the SN window. And no other witness
>you've named said anything about two men "fooling
>with the scope."
I'm sure that even you realize how silly this line of argument is, and
to tell the truth, it really shows how weak it is. Why not just admit
that you don't trust eyewitness accounts?
According to the WC scenario, LHO HAD TO HAVE BEEN "FOOLING WITH THE
SCOPE"!!! He had to put the rifle back together. (See WCR pg
130-131).
So the fact that someone witnessed it cannot be considered unusual.
>> Interestingly, Rowland, Henderson, and Powell all *agree* that one man
>> was white, and one was darker complexioned... either Mexican or Black.
Absolutely powerful corroboration, and you really need to explain
this.
>> Now... I've listed three witnesses who support Walther's story, and
>> contrary to your assertion, testimony of seeing only one man is NOT
>> contradictory.
>
> None of them corroborates her story.
They ALL describe two people on the 6th floor.
>> The question STILL remains... why didn't the WC ask the FBI to
>> re-question Walthers? Or ask for her testimony?
And this question still remains.
But actually, it's clear that even the following day, 11/23, the FBI
was actively directing the investigation towards the conclusions they
wanted...
Mr. Specter. Did you tell the police officials at the time you made
this statement that there was a Negro gentleman in the window on the
southwest corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building which
you have marked with a circle "A"--pardon me, southeast?
Mr. Rowland. At that time, no. However, the next day on Saturday there
were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took
another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this
was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro
man there and they told me it didn't have any bearing or such on the
case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it
now.
So how many witnesses that we now don't know about had things to say
about two men on the 6th floor?
Sure it'll work here! We are looking at a roughly 10 minute window
here. Are you going to try to argue that both men were required to be
close to the window during the entire 10 minute period?
In fact, judging *only* by the witnesses who were *outside* the
building, there could easily have been 50 people on the 6th floor.
Can you tell me the number of people on the 5th floor by Robert Hill
Jackson's testimony? He only cites two! Brennan *also* saw only two.
Are you now going to deny the WC finding that Norman, Williams, and
Jarmon were on the fifth floor on the basis that Mr. Jackson only saw
two of them?
Using your apparent logic, you'd have to.
Fischer and Edwards saw no rifle, shall we refuse to take Brennan's
testimony because it has been contradicted by others?
>>It's easy to explain
>> someone sighting just one person when there were two, it's not quite
>> so easy to explain a two person sighting when there was only one.
>
> Of course there is -- she didn't see any boxes, instead
>she saw a "brown coat."
Once again, this is a vague possibility if you only had Walther's
statement, but you ALSO have three others offering evidence of two
people on the 6th floor. It strains to the breaking point that all of
these witnesses thought a brown box was a person in a brown suit.
>> Bonnie Ray Williams is simply not the answer, as he specifically
>> stated that the time he came back to the 6th floor to eat his lunch,
>> he *saw nobody*. His earliest statements - if transcribed accurately,
>> would have had him down on the 5th floor by the time the ambulance
>> came around, which was when several people saw the two on the 6th
>> floor. No matter *how* you judge the evidence, Williams was gone when
>> the ambulance came around... (which according to Brennan was *after*
>> 12:18) And several of the sightings came *after* the ambulance left.
>
> Right, I didn't mean to imply that Walther saw Williams --
>Williams wasn't wearing a suit coat, and the time was wrong, as
>you say. I was thinking of Rowlands there. Sorry I wasn't clear.
> Jean
The only sighting that could be explained on the basis of Bonnie Ray
Williams known movements would be Rowland's. I'd agree that it's a
possibility. However, Bonnie Ray Williams was 20 years old, and the
man that Rowland saw he described as being around 50-60 years old.
Either Rowland didn't get anywhere near as good a look as he thought,
or Bonnie Ray Williams is a -real- longshot as a solution.
But Rowland's testimony brings up another problem, and that is the
evidence that on the very next day, the FBI was already narrowly
focused on what evidence they wanted to gather. Just another bit of
proof that no real investigation for the truth was ever conducted.
Anthony Marsh
> Ben Holmes,
>
> Before I get into this reply, I'd like to point out that Jean wrote:
>
> >No one else, to my knowledge, saw a man standing next
> >to a gunman holding a weapon out the window right before the
> >motorcade arrived.
>
> And you ducked that one and did not provide the name of anybody who
> saw a person who had two hands outside the window, holding what looked
> like a machinegun OUTSIDE THE WINDOW, just before Kennedy arrived.
>
I think you are embellishing a little. No one said that a man had two
hands
outside the window. No one said anything about a machine gun. One
witness said
that she saw two men and one of them was holding a gun. She assumed
they were
Secret Service agents. The gun looked unusual to her. That's all. No
one leaning out the window. No machine gun. Her seeing a man holding a
gun is no more
remarkable than several of the witnesses who saw a gun in the window
at the time of the shooting.
> You had to duck that one because NOBODY ELSE saw anything like that.
>
As far as we know from reported accounts and testimony no one else saw
exactly what Mrs. Arnold claimed to have seen. That could be only due
to the fact that no one else was bothering to look at that particular
window at exactly the same time as she did. Even her own husband did
not see exactly what she saw, did he?
> And in fact the statement is so highly implausible that one has to
> wonder about Ms Walters!
>
No, one has to wonder about WC defenders who will go to any length to
lie about
what witnesses saw in order to make them look wacky. Notice that you
don't pull
the same tricks with YOUR witnesses that you need such as Brennan. You
could
never call him a nut.
> This thread is unwieldy so I'll be doing a lot of snipping.
>
> > >Since you're such an expert reader, you might have noticed that I was
> > >commenting directly on what WEISBERG BELIEVES and his reasoning and
> > >evidence cited for his conclusions and faulting his conclusions and
> > >entire approach.
> >
> > And you will notice that I don't *dispute* that you did.
> >
> > Why can't you acknowledge that YOU made a stupid reading mistake, (twice) and
> > move on?
>
> Consider it done. > Why do you bring in Perry? He never saw the wound
> in relation to the clothing.
>
> > Thus, he has zilch to say on the topic.
>
Perry was wrong, but it did look like an entrance wound to him.
Only when it suits your purposes. When you need the neck wound to be
high.
But if the autopsy photos show the back wound too low to allow for the
WC SBT, then you need to argue your way out of that contradiction.
> Obvious, when you look at the photos, the tie could not be BELOW that
> very low
> wound.
>
> So, if Carrico said it and if Carrico keeps on saying it, then, I
> reject that statement, knowing full well that he was there in TR1.
>
You could have 50 doctors all swear that it was an entrance wound and
yet the
facts would prove that it was an exit wound. Nothing is proven by a
glance.
> I chuckle at CT attempts to use the Dallas Docs as pawns in their war
> against the WC.
>
Some CTers think that they need to show a throat entrance wound to
prove a
conspiracy.
> The WC was absolutely correct on this point of the wound corresponding
> to the location of the damage to the shirt and to the tie.
>
Not quite. And they also engage in some misrepresentation. They left
the impression with some of the WC members such as Boggs that the
bullet actually went
through the middle of the tie. And they did not prove that the nick on
the tie
was caused by a bullet to the exclusion of being cut by a scalpel.
> And, as you know the autopsy docs, including forensic pathologist
> Finck, saw the clothing before testifying and testified that it
> corroborated their finding that a bullet had exited the lower third of
> the throat.
>
As you know, the autopsy doctors were prevented from seeing the
clothing at
the time of the autopsy. And they were prevented from seeing the
autopsy photos.
It is easy to guess that the back wound was above the top of the
shoulders when
you can not see it for yourself on the autopsy photos.
Anthony Marsh
> "Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> news:2jc4jusjgvtfanpok...@4ax.com...
> >
> Okay, Carolyn Walther.
>
> > The WC had the following information from a witness interview
> > apparently conducted on 12/4/63, submitted to the WC on 12/10/63, and
> > couldn't be bothered to either have her testify, or to have the FBI
> > conduct any follow up interviews. Mrs. Walthers saw *two* people, one
> > holding a rifle... and rather inconveniently, also apparently heard
> > more than three shots.
> >
> > Note to Jean: Notice that if the shot scenario that Mrs. Walthers
> > describes is correct, it could be MATCHED to Mrs. Connally's testimony
> > that the first two shots were closer together than the second and
> > third - by the simple understanding that Mrs. Connally didn't hear the
> > *real* first shot. Just a thought...
>
> So if Nellie Connally was "mistaken" about the number
> of shots, her testimony would match Walther's? But that's *my* point,
> Ben. Since the testimony is contradictory, some of it HAS TO BE
> rejected, no matter which side of the fence you're on.
>
> Walther is a good case in point, because at the same time
> she was looking at "two men" in the TSBD window, other
> witnesses were looking at the very same window, and they didn't
> see this "second man." Somebody's going to have to be
> "mistaken," the only question is who.
>
By what method did you determine that some other witnesses were looking at
the window at exactly the same time as Carolyn Walthers? Did you look at photos
of Dealey Plaza showing all the witnesses at exactly the instant she looked at
that window? Various witnesses looked at that window at different times and
naturally saw different things. Did even her husband see exactly what she saw?
You can not evaluate the credibility of a witness like that. Sometimes dumb
luck allows one witness to see something which everyone else missed.
Everyone by now should realize that most witnesses were incorrect about the floor
numbers.
> Back to Walther's statment:
>
> >This second man was
> > apparently wearing a brown suit coat, and the only thing she could see
> > was the right side of the man, from about the waist to the shoulders.
> > Almost immediately after noticing this man with the rifle and the
> > other man standing beside him, someone in the crowd said 'Here they
> > come," and she looked to her left, looking south on Houston Street, to
> > see the Presidential Party.
>
> Robert Edwards and Ronald Fischer were standing on the southwest
> corner of Elm and Houston, and they happened to be looking at the 6th
> floor window at the same time Walther was, right before the motorcade
> arrived, but they saw only ONE man there and they saw no weapon.
>
Prove that they were looking at the TSBD at exactly the same second that she was
and from exactly the same vantage point.
Anthony Marsh
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:08:35 -0400, "Jean Davison"
> <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>
> >"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> >news:2jc4jusjgvtfanpok...@4ax.com...
> >>
> > Okay, Carolyn Walther.
> >
> >> The WC had the following information from a witness interview
> >> apparently conducted on 12/4/63, submitted to the WC on 12/10/63, and
> >> couldn't be bothered to either have her testify, or to have the FBI
> >> conduct any follow up interviews. Mrs. Walthers saw *two* people, one
> >> holding a rifle... and rather inconveniently, also apparently heard
> >> more than three shots.
> >>
> >> Note to Jean: Notice that if the shot scenario that Mrs. Walthers
> >> describes is correct, it could be MATCHED to Mrs. Connally's testimony
> >> that the first two shots were closer together than the second and
> >> third - by the simple understanding that Mrs. Connally didn't hear the
> >> *real* first shot. Just a thought...
> >
> > So if Nellie Connally was "mistaken" about the number
> >of shots, her testimony would match Walther's? But that's *my* point,
> >Ben. Since the testimony is contradictory, some of it HAS TO BE
> >rejected, no matter which side of the fence you're on.
>
> What do you mean "rejected"??? John Connally only heard two shots,
> should we now deny his testimony? Or lower the shot count to two?
>
That does not mean that Connally thought there were only two shots. He thought
there were exactly three shots. He heard two of them and felt the other. He
did not hear the shot which hit him.
In general, testimony should not be rejected. It should be analyzed.
WC defenders are under no obligation to make you aware of witnesses who might
reveal a conspiracy.
Ben Holmes
says...
So you agree with me that he could only testify (as he did) that he heard two
shots.
>In general, testimony should not be rejected. It should be analyzed.
This was, of course, the point of my statement.
True... but it's a good indication of the honesty of their argument. Or of
their knowledge of the case.
GMcNally
> jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote in message news:<a163e09.02071...@posting.google.com>...
> > Ben Holmes,
> >
> > Before I get into this reply, I'd like to point out that Jean wrote:
> >
> > >No one else, to my knowledge, saw a man standing next
> > >to a gunman holding a weapon out the window right before the
> > >motorcade arrived.
Tony,
I wrote:
> > And you ducked that one and did not provide the name of anybody who
> > saw a person who had two hands outside the window, holding what looked
> > like a machinegun OUTSIDE THE WINDOW, just before Kennedy arrived.
Tony claimed:
> I think you are embellishing a little. No one said that a man had two
> hands outside the window. No one said anything about a machine gun.
Let's look at Walter's statement:
> This man had the window open and was standing up leaning out the window with > both his hands extended outside the window ledge.
So, you were wrong when you wrote: "No one said that a man had two
hands outside the window."
Or don't you know what "both his hands extended outside the window
ledge" means?
Then you claim: "No one said anything about a machine gun."
Again the statement refutes your feckless claim:
The man leaning out of the window was "holding what looked like a
machinegun outside the window".
Walter's claim is that just before the motorcade arrived, a man was
leaning outside a TSBD window with both his hands beyond the window
ledge holding what looked to her like a machine gun - holding it
outside the window.
Admit you were wrong, Tony.
Jerry
<rest snipped>
Jean Davison
"Anthony Marsh" <ama...@quik.com> wrote in message
news:f6c631e7.02072...@posting.google.com...
Walther wasn't with a husband, you must be thinking of
Arnold Rowland's wife. I "determined" that Walther, Fischer and Edwards were
looking at the SN window at the same time, because they all *said* they'd
been looking at the man almost immediately before the motorcade
came down Houston street -- see Walther's and Fischer's statements
below.
The crucial point is that Walther saw a "brown coat" in the
left side of the window where other witnesses saw a stack
of brown boxes... AND, unlike the others, she insisted that she saw
NO boxes in the building. If the "man" was standing in *front*
of the boxes, why didn't the other witnesses see him there?
Timing, I've explained. Vantage point would've been similar to
the Powell photo, I believe (TKOAP, p. 207) -- you can see a whole
lotta boxes, uh, "brown coats," in that picture.
'Course, if you still want to believe there was a man standing
there that only Walther could see, it's okey dokey with
me, Tony. Jean
Anthony Marsh
Yes, exactly. Some witnesses may hear only twp shots for various reasons. And
in Connally's case he could ONLY hear the shots which did not hit him. He
could not hear the shot which hit him.
>
> >In general, testimony should not be rejected. It should be analyzed.
>
> This was, of course, the point of my statement.
>
Yes, just making sure that the LNers remember that as well.
What else would you expect from WC defenders? They can't defend their case by
being honest in their arguments.
Mitch Todd
> "Mitch Todd" wrote:
> >"Ben Holmes" wrote:
> >>"Mitch Todd" wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?
> >> >> > Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> A wound that was just above the tie WOULD be "about where your tie would be".
> >> >> You use an imprecise statement, and when he actually points out the location,
> >> >> and Dulles announces it, and Carrico agrees with it, you ignore that bit of
> >> >> testimony - and jump on the more imprecise one.
Before I go further, I'd like to point out that Carrico actually tries to correct Dulles,
saying "Yes, just where the tie..." before Dulles cuts him off. It seems that Carrico
didn't quite agree with the Commissioner.
That wasn't even a good evasion, Ben. Weisberg certainly doesn't seem to
be too interested in passing on Carrico's testimony if he refuses to actually
quote the doctor. Makes you wonder what Carrico actually said.
> >> >BTW, you are aware that Dr Baxter, who assisted Perry with the tracheotomy,
> >> >placed the wound "where the knot of the tie would be"...
> >> No, I'm not. You'll have to cite where he states this. In neither
> >> his WC or ARRB testimony did he even *use* the word "tie".
[...]
> >My apologies. It was Dr Kemp Clark who placed the throat wound at the
> >knot of the tie, not Baxter.
> You really *should* read the testimony before you rely on it.
> Dr. CLARK - I remember using the phrase to describe the location of a
> wound in the President's throat as being at the point of his knot of
> his necktie. I do not recall ever specifically stating that this was
> an entrance wound, as has been said before. I was not present when the
> President arrived and did not see this wound.
Maybe you should read more. Clark says that the wound was where the knot
of the tie would be, just like I said.
> If Dr. Clark wasn't present at the time JFK's clothing was still on,
> and he never saw the neck wound, how can his testimony be used to
> refute someone who did?
Would Dr Clark not know where the knot of the necktie would be? How
far do you think a tie knot will move? You seem to have some very interesting
fashion sense, Ben!
> >As for Carrico, his WC testimony contains a very interesting description of the order of examination
> >of the President:
> > Mr. SPECTER: What did you observe as to the President's condition upon his arrival?
> > Dr. CARRICO: He was lying on a carriage, his respirations were slow, spasmodic, described as agonal.
> > [...]
> > His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he was an ashen, bluish, grey, cyanotic,
> > he was making no spontaneous movements, I mean, no voluntary movements at all. We
> > opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of
> > the neck, listened very briefly, heard a few cardiac beats, felt the President's back, and
> > detected no large or sucking chest wounds, and then proceeded to the examination of his head.
> >Notice that the throat wound was not seen until the coat and tie were opened. If the neck wound was
> >above the collar, why was it not spotted _before_ the coat and tie were removed?
> So Carrico lied? Is this your opinion?
About what? Carrico states that the wound was "about where the knot of the tie was," and states that the
throat wound was not seen until the shirt, coat and tie were opened. He puts the throat wound "in the anterior
lower third of the neck" -- right where the knot of the tie would be. In his own words, he places the throat
wound behind, not above, the tie. You have relied not on what others --Dulles, Weisberg-- have said that
Carrico said. Which is more believable?
MST
Ben Holmes
<jere...@earthlink.com> wrote:
>"Ben Holmes" wrote:
>> "Mitch Todd" wrote:
>> >"Ben Holmes" wrote:
>> >>"Mitch Todd" wrote:
>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >Mr. DULLES. Will you show us about where it was?
>> >> >> > Dr. CARRICO. Just about where your tie would be.
>> >> >> >>>>
>
>> >> >> A wound that was just above the tie WOULD be "about where your tie would be".
>> >> >> You use an imprecise statement, and when he actually points out the location,
>> >> >> and Dulles announces it, and Carrico agrees with it, you ignore that bit of
>> >> >> testimony - and jump on the more imprecise one.
>
>Before I go further, I'd like to point out that Carrico actually tries to correct Dulles,
>saying "Yes, just where the tie..." before Dulles cuts him off.
Actually, he said: "Yes, sir; just where the tie - ". "Yes" is
agreement, not disagreement. I agree that too many times the
eyewitnesses were cut off in the middle of statements, and we are
stuck with it today, but Carrico's statement can in no way be
construed as a disagreement. I suspect that Carrico was indeed
expanding on his answer, but "trying to correct" is a rather biased
way to look at his answer.
If he was *really* trying to correct a misunderstanding, he would have
said: "No, Sir; what I mean is..."
>It seems that Carrico didn't quite agree with the Commissioner.
Carrico pointed to his throat *above* the tie, and Dulles puts that
into words, and Carrico agrees with it. It's unfortunate that we are
unable to see the rest of what Carrico wanted to say, but since
Carrico *has* been asked about this, and *still* states that it was
above the tie, where do you go from there?
It seems apparent that everyone wishes to call Weisberg a liar. We
saw this once before with Dr. Perry. Everyone who has asked him in
person what his opinion is on the throat wound has been put in the
same boat that you are now putting Weisberg.
My "evasion" as you term it, is simply the truth. *ALL* of the
important eyewitnesses to the assassination have been questioned many
times, and those who are seeking them out, and questioning them, are
invariably CTers.
And yet, as the media is largely populated with LN'ers, they have the
greatest ability to locate and question eyewitnesses.
Why would you term a fact like this "not even a good evasion"?
>> >> >BTW, you are aware that Dr Baxter, who assisted Perry with the tracheotomy,
>> >> >placed the wound "where the knot of the tie would be"...
>
>> >> No, I'm not. You'll have to cite where he states this. In neither
>> >> his WC or ARRB testimony did he even *use* the word "tie".
>
>[...]
>
>> >My apologies. It was Dr Kemp Clark who placed the throat wound at the
>> >knot of the tie, not Baxter.
>
>> You really *should* read the testimony before you rely on it.
>
>> Dr. CLARK - I remember using the phrase to describe the location of a
>> wound in the President's throat as being at the point of his knot of
>> his necktie. I do not recall ever specifically stating that this was
>> an entrance wound, as has been said before. I was not present when the
>> President arrived and did not see this wound.
>
>Maybe you should read more. Clark says that the wound was where the knot
>of the tie would be, just like I said.
Dr. Clark never saw the wound while JFK had his clothes on. This is
strictly second-hand at best, and certainly hearsay. Why would you
consider it?
>> If Dr. Clark wasn't present at the time JFK's clothing was still on,
>> and he never saw the neck wound, how can his testimony be used to
>> refute someone who did?
>
>Would Dr Clark not know where the knot of the necktie would be? How
>far do you think a tie knot will move? You seem to have some very interesting
>fashion sense, Ben!
Why not be honest, and simply call Carrico a liar? He pointed out the
wound as being above the tie. He corroborated that later in a
personal interview.
Attempting to use witnesses who *CANNOT* of their own knowledge
testify to what you wish them to testify to seems to be a rather far
reach of desperation.
>> >As for Carrico, his WC testimony contains a very interesting description of the order of examination
>> >of the President:
>
>> > Mr. SPECTER: What did you observe as to the President's condition upon his arrival?
>> > Dr. CARRICO: He was lying on a carriage, his respirations were slow, spasmodic, described as agonal.
>> > [...]
>> > His-- the President's color--I don't believe I said--he was an ashen, bluish, grey, cyanotic,
>> > he was making no spontaneous movements, I mean, no voluntary movements at all. We
>> > opened his shirt and coat and tie and observed a small wound in the anterior lower third of
>> > the neck, listened very briefly, heard a few cardiac beats, felt the President's back, and
>> > detected no large or sucking chest wounds, and then proceeded to the examination of his head.
>
>
>> >Notice that the throat wound was not seen until the coat and tie were opened. If the neck wound was
>> >above the collar, why was it not spotted _before_ the coat and tie were removed?
>
>> So Carrico lied? Is this your opinion?
>
>About what? Carrico states that the wound was "about where the knot of the tie was," and states that the
>throat wound was not seen until the shirt, coat and tie were opened.
No he does not. Nor can you cite for this statement. It is an
inference that can be drawn, nothing more.
If this statement reflects the accuracy of your argument, you need to
return to the primary evidence before commenting on it.
>He puts the throat wound "in the anterior lower third of the neck" -- right where the knot of the tie would be.
Opinion. Speculation.
>In his own words, he places the throat wound behind, not above, the tie.
No... he was asked "about where it is" - that's a *general* area.
Carrico answered *in the same terms*.
Mr. DULLES - Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. CARRICO - Just about where your tie would be.
Then he was asked again:
Mr. DULLES - Where did it enter?
Dr. CARRICO - It entered?
Mr. DULLES - Yes.
Dr. CARRICO - At the time we did not know
Mr. DULLES - I see.
Dr. CARRICO - The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Mr. DULLES - I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie
is?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes, sir; just where the tie--
Mr. DULLES - A little bit to the left.
Dr. CARRICO - To the right.
Mr. DULLES - Yes; to the right.
This really isn't difficult to read or understand. Notice that when
Carrico *does* correct Dulles, he does so immediately... he certainly
doesn't preface it with a "Yes, Sir:"
>You have relied not on what others --Dulles, Weisberg-- have said that
>Carrico said. Which is more believable?
You apparently have reading problems as well as John and Jerry. I
always use the primary source material when it is available. I'm
*USING* what Carrico said.
With the actually testimony widely available on CD, as well as free
here on the Internet, it's silly to discuss what one hasn't read.
The greatest enemy of LN'ers will forever be the eyewitnesses and
their testimony.
Why would I rely on others?
>MST
GMcNally
You are misinterpreting the exchange:
> Dr. CARRICO - The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
> Mr. DULLES - I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie
> is?
IOW, Carrico placed his hand OVER the tie - it's his hand that is
"right above", meaning right in front of, the tie.
This common sense interpretation is supported by the rest of his
testimony - that the wound is very low in the throat, as we see in the
photo, and that the wound was not seen until the clothing was removed.
The nurses got the best view and they saw no wound in the neck until
they removed the clothing.
And Perry testified that the wound/trach was just above the sternal
notch - in other words as low in the throat as you can get.
As for Weisberg, if he didn't lie, he was a propagandist who by
extreme selection and tendentious readings of testimony drew
ridiculous conclusions.
Jerry
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Ben Holmes,
>
>You are misinterpreting the exchange:
>
>> Dr. CARRICO - The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
>> Mr. DULLES - I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie
>> is?
>
>IOW, Carrico placed his hand OVER the tie - it's his hand that is
>"right above", meaning right in front of, the tie.
Words have meanings, Jerry. And in combination with Carrico's assertion during
a personal interview that he *did* mean what he said, I accept it.
You cannot get around the fact that you're going to either have to say that
Carrico was mistaken, or he's lying.
>This common sense interpretation is supported by the rest of his
>testimony - that the wound is very low in the throat, as we see in the
>photo, and that the wound was not seen until the clothing was removed.
Opinion, speculation.
>The nurses got the best view and they saw no wound in the neck until
>they removed the clothing.
Faulty logic.
>And Perry testified that the wound/trach was just above the sternal
>notch - in other words as low in the throat as you can get.
Opinion, speculation.
>As for Weisberg, if he didn't lie, he was a propagandist who by
>extreme selection and tendentious readings of testimony drew
>ridiculous conclusions.
Yep... call'em all liars, Jerry.
>Jerry
David Healy
out with the 'A' Team in with the 'B' Team
Keep up the good work Ben, you've cleaned house so far.
David Healy
jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote in message news:<a163e09.02072...@posting.google.com>...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>roflmfao ......
>
>out with the 'A' Team in with the 'B' Team
>
>Keep up the good work Ben, you've cleaned house so far.
>
>David Healy
Appreciate the comment. Some, such as Jerry and John, make it easy... others,
such as Paul and Jean, make it more difficult. But since the testimony of the
eyewitnesses is so widely available, and the argument that they were all
mistaken - so off the wall, it's sometimes just too easy.
Words have meanings... you just have to read.
Like "right above" meaning in front of!!! (as below) How silly can you get? But
this is what people have to do to avoid simply stating that the eyewitness was
wrong. As they *have* to be for the WC to be correct.
Jean Davison
> such as Paul and Jean, make it more difficult. But since the testimony of the
> eyewitnesses is so widely available, and the argument that they were all
> mistaken - so off the wall, it's sometimes just too easy.
Thanks, but who's said that *all* the eyewitnesses
were mistaken? CTs believe certain witnesses, don't
believe others, same as LNs do (they're just different
witnesses!).
The thing that still puzzles me is, why do CTs
place so much importance on where Carrico *said* the wound
was in relation to the tie, when you can look at the autopsy photo and SEE
where the wound was. What kind of reasoning is that, dude?
Or, maybe the argument is, "since Carrico placed it above
the tie, the photo must be fake"? Again, I marvel at the
argument.
Here's the left profile autopsy photo again:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/left.jpg
Is anyone here going to tell me with a straight
face that JFK wore his tie *BELOW* the top of
that wound? Anybody??
Jean
Jean Davison
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/neckexit.jpg
How could the bullet wound have possibly been
*above* the tie knot? Jean
Ben Holmes
Speculation, opinion.
Actually, it seems that this conversation has gone far beyond, and yet, never
addressed what I originally said. Here's a repeat:
The Warren Commission seemed to often deal with unwanted testimony by
simply not taking it. Or, when they were forced to take it, to simply
not ask the obvious questions. For example, Mr. Spector knew very
well not to pin down anyone on the location of the neck wound with
regards to JFK's clothing, and the only reason that we know today that
it was ABOVE the tie, is Mr. Dulles not understanding the program, and
jumping in with an inconvenient question. (See the Carrico WC
testimony)
(For Jerry's benefit - notice that I did *not* cite Weisberg, or any other CT
author, I referenced Carrico's *testimony*)
GMcNally
> In article <a163e09.02072...@posting.google.com>, jer...@my-deja.com
> says...
> >
> >Ben Holmes,
> >
> >You are misinterpreting the exchange:
> >
> >> Dr. CARRICO - The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
> >> Mr. DULLES - I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie
> >> is?
> >
> >IOW, Carrico placed his hand OVER the tie - it's his hand that is
> >"right above", meaning right in front of, the tie.
Ben,
> Words have meanings, Jerry. And in combination with Carrico's assertion during a personal interview that he *did* mean what he said, I accept it.
We don't have a picture of Carrico holding his hand over his tie, Ben,
but, it's clear in context that he was holding his hand above his tie,
ie, over his tie.
He had previously said the wound was "about where your tie is" and he
says it again in the exchange with Dulles - tho Weisberg snipped that
out.
And we have much else from Carrico - and from Perry. They spoke to
JAMA, they were on NOVA which sent them to the National Archives, they
spoke to the ARRB, they spoke to Gerald Posner.
In these exchanges they always said that nothing they saw in Parkland
conflicted with the findings of the Warren Commission. You could look
this up.
> You cannot get around the fact that you're going to either have to say that
> Carrico was mistaken, or he's lying.
I think he was holding his hand above his tie, ie, over the top of his
tie.
You have misinterpreted the exchange.
> >This common sense interpretation is supported by the rest of his
> >testimony - that the wound is very low in the throat, as we see in the
> >photo, and that the wound was not seen until the clothing was removed.
> Opinion, speculation.
It is not my "opinion" but hard physical evidence - the photos, the
clothing - which establishes that the bullet exited as Carrico said -
"about where your tie is".
> >The nurses got the best view and they saw no wound in the neck until
> >they removed the clothing.
> Faulty logic.
Nor did Carrico see a wound in the throat until AFTER the clothing had
been removed - just as nurses Bowron and Henchcliffe did not.
> >And Perry testified that the wound/trach was just above the sternal
> >notch - in other words as low in the throat as you can get.
> Opinion, speculation.
No, we have the photos and a wealth of testimony that establishes the
location of the wound.
> >As for Weisberg, if he didn't lie, he was a propagandist who by
> >extreme selection and tendentious readings of testimony drew
> >ridiculous conclusions.
> Yep... call'em all liars, Jerry.
Weisberg was a conspiracy nut. I knew the man - did you?
The Warren Commission conclusions about the neck wound discuss all the
areas of controversy and reach sound conclusions based on the
evidence.
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/WCR/wcr3.html#p13
Jerry
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:<ahpcp...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>>In article <a163e09.02072...@posting.google.com>, jer...@my-deja.com
>> says...
>> >
>> >Ben Holmes,
>> >
>> >You are misinterpreting the exchange:
>> >
>> >> Dr. CARRICO - The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
>> >> Mr. DULLES - I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie
>> >> is?
>> >
>> >IOW, Carrico placed his hand OVER the tie - it's his hand that is
>> >"right above", meaning right in front of, the tie.
>
>Ben,
>
>> Words have meanings, Jerry. And in combination with Carrico's assertion
>> during a personal interview that he *did* mean what he said, I accept it.
>
>We don't have a picture of Carrico holding his hand over his tie, Ben,
>but, it's clear in context that he was holding his hand above his tie,
>ie, over his tie.
You were doing okay until the last four words, Jerry. The English language
provides a way of differentiating between above a tie, and in front of a tie. I
can understand why you don't want to see this, but the average lurker reading
this probably has no problems understanding...
>He had previously said the wound was "about where your tie is" and he
>says it again in the exchange with Dulles - tho Weisberg snipped that
>out.
Who cares what Weisberg snipped? You seem fixated on Weisberg... is he a father
image to you or what?
I've told you a number of times now that Carrico's testimony is widely
available. And I've told you that this is what I cited originally.
>And we have much else from Carrico - and from Perry. They spoke to
>JAMA, they were on NOVA which sent them to the National Archives, they
>spoke to the ARRB, they spoke to Gerald Posner.
Then by all means, QUOTE HIS WORDS. If you believe you have additional
statements by Carrico that belie his WC testimony - QUOTE IT.
You can do the same for Perry. Insinuating that you have the evidence isn't
good enough, Jerry.
>In these exchanges they always said that nothing they saw in Parkland
>conflicted with the findings of the Warren Commission. You could look
>this up.
*THAT* is a proveable mistake. You know very well that what they saw in
Parkland is CONTRADICTED by the WC scenario.
*PLEASE* try to defend this... It'll prove interesting, I'm sure... :)
>> You cannot get around the fact that you're going to either have to say that
>> Carrico was mistaken, or he's lying.
>
>I think he was holding his hand above his tie, ie, over the top of his
>tie. You have misinterpreted the exchange.
LOL!! Keep saying that to yourself... you may be able to convince yourself of
this someday. You wish us to believe that both Carrico AND Dulles both
interpreted pointing AT a tie as pointing RIGHT ABOVE a tie.
Words have meanings, Jerry.
>> >This common sense interpretation is supported by the rest of his
>> >testimony - that the wound is very low in the throat, as we see in the
>> >photo, and that the wound was not seen until the clothing was removed.
>
>> Opinion, speculation.
>
>It is not my "opinion" but hard physical evidence - the photos, the
>clothing - which establishes that the bullet exited as Carrico said -
>"about where your tie is".
There is NO "hard physical evidence" that a bullet transited the clothing near
the tie. The FBI even refused to go that far, as I recall. And you know very
well that there is nothing better than speculation to go on for demonstrating
that the bullet was *exiting* the neck. We've gone over the lack of evidence
for that before. It's disappointing that you would so casually toss that into
the sentence when you know it's a lie. Nor did Carrico testify that "the bullet
exited". If you'd *read* his testimony, you'd know that.
>> >The nurses got the best view and they saw no wound in the neck until
>> >they removed the clothing.
>
>> Faulty logic.
>
>Nor did Carrico see a wound in the throat until AFTER the clothing had
>been removed - just as nurses Bowron and Henchcliffe did not.
Not what Carrico says...
And AGAIN, faulty logic. What Bowron and Henchcliffe didn't see can NOT refute
what Carrico saw.
>> >And Perry testified that the wound/trach was just above the sternal
>> >notch - in other words as low in the throat as you can get.
>
>> Opinion, speculation.
>
>No, we have the photos and a wealth of testimony that establishes the
>location of the wound.
Not in relation to clothing... hence: Opinion, speculation. The ONLY person who
testified to the location of the neck wound IN RELATION TO THE CLOTHING was
Carrico - and he put the wound *RIGHT ABOVE* the tie. Not right in front of,
not right behind, not through, but *right above*. Deal with it.
>> >As for Weisberg, if he didn't lie, he was a propagandist who by
>> >extreme selection and tendentious readings of testimony drew
>> >ridiculous conclusions.
>
>> Yep... call'em all liars, Jerry.
>
>Weisberg was a conspiracy nut. I knew the man - did you?
The government is now a "conspiracy nut" too... or did you pay attention to the
HSCA conclusions?
In fact, polls generally place around 80-90% of the people as "conspiracy nuts".
>The Warren Commission conclusions about the neck wound discuss all the
>areas of controversy and reach sound conclusions based on the
>evidence.
Opinion, speculation.
>http://www.jfk-assassination.de/WCR/wcr3.html#p13
Good prosecutor's brief... but a search for the truth??? Nope, not at all.
Not very truthful...
>Jerry
David Healy
He knew Posner too! So what?
DHealy
Ben Holmes
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message news:ahptq...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <a2ef55d2.02072...@posting.google.com>, aeff...@aol.com
>> says...
>> >
>> Appreciate the comment. Some, such as Jerry and John, make it easy... others,
>> such as Paul and Jean, make it more difficult. But since the testimony of the
>> eyewitnesses is so widely available, and the argument that they were all
>> mistaken - so off the wall, it's sometimes just too easy.
>
> Thanks, but who's said that *all* the eyewitnesses
>were mistaken?
Well, let's try this... pick 10 witnesses who testified to the Warren
Commission that you believe... give me their names, and let me see
what you believe good testimony consists of.
And although I'd surely be happy to see some medical witnesses in
there, I won't hold my breath. Just give me 10 names that you
believe.
>CTs believe certain witnesses, don't
>believe others, same as LNs do (they're just different
>witnesses!).
Actually, unless presented with a good reason not to, I pretty much
accept all the eyewitnesses. There were *very* few who purposely
lied, IMO.
> The thing that still puzzles me is, why do CTs
>place so much importance on where Carrico *said* the wound
>was in relation to the tie, when you can look at the autopsy photo and SEE
>where the wound was. What kind of reasoning is that, dude?
>Or, maybe the argument is, "since Carrico placed it above
>the tie, the photo must be fake"? Again, I marvel at the
>argument.
>
> Here's the left profile autopsy photo again:
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/left.jpg
>
> Is anyone here going to tell me with a straight
>face that JFK wore his tie *BELOW* the top of
>that wound? Anybody??
> Jean
Carrico.
And he was *there*.
Vern Pascal
Words do have meaning, as Ben says. According to you, "above the tie"
actually means "over the tie" , but simple logic dictates that the
wound cannot be "over", or on the outside, of the tie. So, what you
really mean is just as fallacious, that "above the tie" actually means
underneath the tie, or beneath the tie. You're surely not arguing that
it was below the tie knot. Instead, you are construing Carrico's
"above" to actually mean "underneath". Is that about it? That he
completely misunderstood the question as to location of the wound? And
used a word almost opposite of that which he intended?
GMcNally
> In article <ahrl1...@enews2.newsguy.com>, "Jean says...
> >
> >Or take a look at this comparison:
> >
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/neckexit.jpg
Ben,
> >How could the bullet wound have possibly been
> >*above* the tie knot? Jean
>
> Speculation, opinion.
>
> Actually, it seems that this conversation has gone far beyond, and yet, never
> addressed what I originally said. Here's a repeat:
Jean's question goes to the heart of the issues raised in your post.
Yet, you continue to duck her questions and to avoid a discussion of
the issues.
Jerry
John McAdams
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message news:ah6fr...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <ah5n4...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Jean says...
>
> If you know where it was *ON THE BODY*, who cares where
>it was in relation to a piece of clothing that can move up or down? The
>WOUND didn't move up or down, did it?
>
>>
>> And then ignore the fact that he *continues* to maintain that the wound was over
>> the tie.
>
> Even assuming that Carrico saw it over the tie (which I still
>doubt), it stays in the same location on the body, wouldn't you agree?
>
>
> Huh? No, it's the CT side that's trying to move this
>wound *up*. I agree that it was where the photos show it and
>where the witnesses said it was -- in the lower third of the neck below
>the Adam's apple. If you agree that the autopsy photos show the
>location of the wound, what are we arguing about?? I think this "above
>the tie" bit is much ado about nothing. If I'm missing something,
>explain it to me.
>
Jean, you are overlooking a part of the Weisberg agenda.
There were slits in the shirt, and the fabric was displaced *outward.*
The obvious inference is that the bullet exited Kennedy throat.
Weisberg doesn't like that inference, and is trying to move the wound
up so he can claim that scapels made the slits.
I frankly find it bizarre that Holmes won't admit that the throat
wound is at the exact level as the defects in Kennedy's shirt, and the
nick on the tie.
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>news:2jc4jusjgvtfanpok...@4ax.com...
>>
> Okay, Carolyn Walther.
>
>> The WC had the following information from a witness interview
>> apparently conducted on 12/4/63, submitted to the WC on 12/10/63, and
>> couldn't be bothered to either have her testify, or to have the FBI
>> conduct any follow up interviews. Mrs. Walthers saw *two* people, one
>> holding a rifle... and rather inconveniently, also apparently heard
>> more than three shots.
>>
>> Note to Jean: Notice that if the shot scenario that Mrs. Walthers
>> describes is correct, it could be MATCHED to Mrs. Connally's testimony
>> that the first two shots were closer together than the second and
>> third - by the simple understanding that Mrs. Connally didn't hear the
>> *real* first shot. Just a thought...
>
> So if Nellie Connally was "mistaken" about the number
>of shots, her testimony would match Walther's? But that's *my* point,
>Ben. Since the testimony is contradictory, some of it HAS TO BE
>rejected, no matter which side of the fence you're on.
>
It really does boggle the mind that buffs snidely taunt lone nutters
for "not believing the witnesses" -- witnesses who "were there" --
when they routinely dismiss witnesses that are inconvenient.
Ben Holmes
I take it that you didn't bother to read the actual issue of the
original post. Here it is again:
The Warren Commission seemed to often deal with unwanted testimony by
simply not taking it. Or, when they were forced to take it, to simply
not ask the obvious questions. For example, Mr. Spector knew very
well not to pin down anyone on the location of the neck wound with
regards to JFK's clothing, and the only reason that we know today that
it was ABOVE the tie, is Mr. Dulles not understanding the program, and
jumping in with an inconvenient question. (See the Carrico WC
testimony)
Now, Jean has certainly discussed this, although you don't appear to
understand the point.
You are apparently arguing that the WC already knew that the neck
wound was in or below the tie, therefor no testimony need be taken
concerning this point.
It *is* the apparent disregard for the taking of relevant testimony
that has formed the central thesis of my post. How can I make that
more clear to you, Jerry?
>Jerry
Ben Holmes
McAdams) wrote:
>On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:39:52 -0400, "Jean Davison"
><dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>
>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message news:ah6fr...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>> In article <ah5n4...@enews4.newsguy.com>, "Jean says...
>>
>> If you know where it was *ON THE BODY*, who cares where
>>it was in relation to a piece of clothing that can move up or down? The
>>WOUND didn't move up or down, did it?
>>
>>>
>>> And then ignore the fact that he *continues* to maintain that the wound was over
>>> the tie.
>>
>> Even assuming that Carrico saw it over the tie (which I still
>>doubt), it stays in the same location on the body, wouldn't you agree?
>>
>>
>> Huh? No, it's the CT side that's trying to move this
>>wound *up*. I agree that it was where the photos show it and
>>where the witnesses said it was -- in the lower third of the neck below
>>the Adam's apple. If you agree that the autopsy photos show the
>>location of the wound, what are we arguing about?? I think this "above
>>the tie" bit is much ado about nothing. If I'm missing something,
>>explain it to me.
>>
>
>Jean, you are overlooking a part of the Weisberg agenda.
Actually, John can't deal with the fact that I'm using Carrico's
testimony. Come on, John - let's talk about what the eyewitnesses saw
and said.
Of course, it's obvious that you cannot believe them.
>There were slits in the shirt, and the fabric was displaced *outward.*
>The obvious inference is that the bullet exited Kennedy throat.
It's good that you're honest enough to label this an inference. Even
the WCR refused to positively state that the shirt slits were made by
a bullet.
"... the irregular nature of the slit precluded a positive
determination that it was a bullet hole. (WCR 92)
Now, since it's clear that the examination of the clothing cannot
differentiate between the two theories that explain the damage, ie;
the cutting of the tie & shirt, or a bullet - it seems clear that you
need to look to the *only* eyewitness - and what he saw.
Or do you know of anyone else who got a look, had an opinion, and
expressed it?
Try to avoid speculation, if you can.
>Weisberg doesn't like that inference, and is trying to move the wound
>up so he can claim that scapels made the slits.
When are you (and Jerry), going to start dealing with the testimony,
instead of constantly dragging in Weisberg?
It's probably easier to deal with Weisberg that the FACT that Carrico
gave a location that doesn't accord with your theory.
You *really* have only two choices:
1. Agree with Carrico that the wound was above the tie.
2. State that Carrico was mistaken.
Anything else - such as Jerry's argument that "right above the tie"
means something else, is just quibbling around to avoid the obvious.
Why are you so reluctant to proclaim the obvious? That you *don't*
believe the eyewitnesses?
>I frankly find it bizarre that Holmes won't admit that the throat
>wound is at the exact level as the defects in Kennedy's shirt, and the
>nick on the tie.
I frankly find it bizarre that John cannot discuss the eyewitness
testimony, and finds it necessary to censor my words.
>.John
Ben Holmes
McAdams) wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:08:35 -0400, "Jean Davison"
><dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>
>>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
>>news:2jc4jusjgvtfanpok...@4ax.com...
>>>
>> Okay, Carolyn Walther.
>>
>>> The WC had the following information from a witness interview
>>> apparently conducted on 12/4/63, submitted to the WC on 12/10/63, and
>>> couldn't be bothered to either have her testify, or to have the FBI
>>> conduct any follow up interviews. Mrs. Walthers saw *two* people, one
>>> holding a rifle... and rather inconveniently, also apparently heard
>>> more than three shots.
>>>
>>> Note to Jean: Notice that if the shot scenario that Mrs. Walthers
>>> describes is correct, it could be MATCHED to Mrs. Connally's testimony
>>> that the first two shots were closer together than the second and
>>> third - by the simple understanding that Mrs. Connally didn't hear the
>>> *real* first shot. Just a thought...
>>
>> So if Nellie Connally was "mistaken" about the number
>>of shots, her testimony would match Walther's? But that's *my* point,
>>Ben. Since the testimony is contradictory, some of it HAS TO BE
>>rejected, no matter which side of the fence you're on.
>>
>
>It really does boggle the mind that buffs snidely taunt lone nutters
>for "not believing the witnesses"
Can't admit it?
>-- witnesses who "were there" --
>when they routinely dismiss witnesses that are inconvenient.
Oh? What witness have I "dismissed"?
And why do you find it necessary to use all-inclusive language that
you KNOW is a huge misrepresentation? Can't get by on the truth?
>.John
Jean Davison
> In article <ahrl1...@enews2.newsguy.com>, "Jean says...
> >
> >Or take a look at this comparison:
> >
> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/neckexit.jpg
> >
> >How could the bullet wound have possibly been
> >*above* the tie knot? Jean
>
> Speculation, opinion.
Speculation?? No. I am asking what you *see* in
the two photos I posted. You obviously don't want to tell me.
Shall I guess why that is???
> Actually, it seems that this conversation has gone far beyond, and yet, never
> addressed what I originally said.
Well, I did address it, but I will again.
> Here's a repeat:
>
> The Warren Commission seemed to often deal with unwanted testimony by
> simply not taking it. Or, when they were forced to take it, to simply
> not ask the obvious questions. For example, Mr. Spector knew very
> well not to pin down anyone on the location of the neck wound with
> regards to JFK's clothing, and the only reason that we know today that
> it was ABOVE the tie, is Mr. Dulles not understanding the program, and
> jumping in with an inconvenient question. (See the Carrico WC
> testimony)
>
> (For Jerry's benefit - notice that I did *not* cite Weisberg, or any other CT
> author, I referenced Carrico's *testimony*)
I believe I was the first to *assume* you were referring to Weisberg's
account because he too claimed to be able to read the minds of Specter and
Dulles, saying for instance that Specter was "careful to avoid" asking certain
questions, when in fact Specter repeatedly asked Carrico to describe
the throat wound as specifically as he could:
QUOTE:
Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe, **as specifically as you can** then, the neck wounds which
you
heretofore mentioned briefly?
[and again]
Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described that wound as **specifically** as based upon your
observations at the time?
Dr. CARRICO. I believe so.
[and again]
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in the anterior third of
the neck which you have just described, **could you be any more specific** in defining the
characteristics of that wound?
Dr. CARRICO. This was probably a 4-7 ram. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little
to the right of the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage....
UNQUOTE
And btw, Ben, when *you* wear a tie, does the knot rest just
below your thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple), and do you wear it below
the level of JFK's throat wound as seen in the autopsy photo? Surely this question
is not calling for "speculation"? ;-)
No competent lawyer who was afraid of what a witness might say
would ever throw the door wide open with those broad questions
Specter asked. He didn't ask Carrico to locate the wound in
relation to JFK's clothing, but why should he? After all, one of
the very first things Carrico told him was that before his examination
of JFK even began he opened JFK's shirt and coat in order to listen
to his chest. When Dulles later asked him to describe where the wound
was, Carrico didn't say, "just about where JFK's tie was," he said, "Just
about where YOUR TIE **WOULD** BE." And where would *that* be, Ben?
Down on your breastbone? Or right under your Adam's apple?
Jean
>
Jean Davison
I am placing this here, since we've been discussing
Dr. Carrico's testimony. Sadly, Dr. Carrico died earlier
this week, and here's an article telling of his life and
accomplishments after 11/22/63:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/obituaries/134501478_carrico27m0.html
Anthony Marsh
Interesting. So you used the statements themselves about approximate
time that
they THOUGHT they were looking up as an EXACT time down to the closest
second?
10 seconds before the motorcade came to the corner is plenty of time
for
different witnesses to look up at different seconds and see different
things.
> The crucial point is that Walther saw a "brown coat" in the
> left side of the window where other witnesses saw a stack
> of brown boxes... AND, unlike the others, she insisted that she saw
> NO boxes in the building. If the "man" was standing in *front*
> of the boxes, why didn't the other witnesses see him there?
>
Why didn't all the witnesses see the rifle sticking out of the window
as a couple of witnesses did? Because different witnesses see
different things at
different times. Have you analyzed her position to determine whether
she would
have seen the boxes from her vantage point or if she might see a
person
standing in front of the boxes as distinct from the boxes?
> >
> > > Here's Walther's statement:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "...Shortly after the ambulance left, she looked back toward the TSBD
And "shortly after the ambulance left" is not the same time frame as
10 seconds
before the motorcade arrived. You are mixing time frames.
Timing you have misrepresented. She said it was shortly after the
ambulance left. Your witnesses said almost imediately before the
motorcade arrived. Shortly
after the ambulance left is not the same time as almost immediately
before the motorcade
arrived. There is a gap of several seconds there as described by
Altgens and you misrepresent that as
being the exact same time.
> the Powell photo, I believe (TKOAP, p. 207) -- you can see a whole
> lotta boxes, uh, "brown coats," in that picture.
>
> 'Course, if you still want to believe there was a man standing
> there that only Walther could see, it's okey dokey with
> me, Tony. Jean
>
Hmm, I didn't say that. You are putting words in my mouth again. All I
am
saying is that witness testimony must be carefully analyzed. And yes
it is
quite possible that one witness can see something that no one else
noticed.
Don't you claim that Brennan is the ONLY witness who saw the
assassin's face?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
GMcNally
Jean,
PMJI, but did you intend to add more to this: "After all, one of
the very first things Carrico told him was that before his examination
of JFK even began he opened JFK's shirt and coat in order to listen
to his chest."
I personally think there is semantic ambiguity, so, that one holds
one's hand, say, *above* one's heart while the national anthem is
played "above" means "over" - the hand is over the heart, not
literally higher than the level of the heart.
Ben is as you describe in your book, one of those typical conspirati
who believe the truth is generally hidden but that occasionally the
curtain parts and you can get a glimpse of it. He takes the exchange
with Carrico and Dulles to be just such a moment.
In context it's clear that Carrico held his hand over his heart and
this was described as "above" his heart by Dulles.
Jerry
Anthony Marsh
THAT is not what THIS buff said. All I am saying is to be careful when
analyzing
witness statements and don't lie about the evidence. Just as we know
that Brennan did not see the shooter standing up from the waist up
because we know
the windows were low to the floor. That does not make him wrong about
seeing
someone in the window or a nut because he did not understand where the
windows
were in relation to the floor. Don't use a double standard when
evaluating a witness whose statements might suggest a conspiracy.
Denis Morissette
Well, it's very sad. It would be a good idea to contact his family and
find out if Dr. Carrico has left any notes related to the JFK
assassination.
Ben Holmes
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message news:ahrn4...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> In article <ahrl1...@enews2.newsguy.com>, "Jean says...
>> >
>> >Or take a look at this comparison:
>> >
>> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/neckexit.jpg
>> >
>> >How could the bullet wound have possibly been
>> >*above* the tie knot? Jean
>>
>> Speculation, opinion.
>
> Speculation?? No. I am asking what you *see* in
>the two photos I posted. You obviously don't want to tell me.
>Shall I guess why that is???
I'm going to *continue* to call speculation and opinion for what it
is. Only one person saw the wound IN RELATION TO THE CLOTHING, you
either accept his testimony, or you state that he was mistaken. Those
are the only two choices. Trying to argue *around* his testimony is
something I'm going to continue to call for what it is.
It's a shame that someone denied the prosectors the chance to examine
the clothing, they may have been valuable corroborators, or valuable
counter evidence for Carrico's statements.
>> Actually, it seems that this conversation has gone far beyond, and yet, never
>> addressed what I originally said.
>
> Well, I did address it, but I will again.
Actually, you did. I guess I didn't really make it clear what I
meant. Jerry and John never addressed it, and you did to a short
extent.
But the question is still there... why didn't the WC take Walther's
testimony? Or ask the FBI to re-question her? Walther is, of course,
just one example out of many - but it seems rather blatant not to
check into *everyone* who saw the alleged assassin that day. Doesn't
it?
As for not taking unwanted testimony, I have some other examples that
I may post when I finish reading the testimony.
>> Here's a repeat:
>>
>> The Warren Commission seemed to often deal with unwanted testimony by
>> simply not taking it. Or, when they were forced to take it, to simply
>> not ask the obvious questions. For example, Mr. Spector knew very
>> well not to pin down anyone on the location of the neck wound with
>> regards to JFK's clothing, and the only reason that we know today that
>> it was ABOVE the tie, is Mr. Dulles not understanding the program, and
>> jumping in with an inconvenient question. (See the Carrico WC
>> testimony)
>>
>> (For Jerry's benefit - notice that I did *not* cite Weisberg, or any other CT
>> author, I referenced Carrico's *testimony*)
>
> I believe I was the first to *assume* you were referring to Weisberg's
>account because he too claimed to be able to read the minds of Specter and
>Dulles, saying for instance that Specter was "careful to avoid" asking certain
>questions, when in fact Specter repeatedly asked Carrico to describe
>the throat wound as specifically as he could:
Absolutely... you were. But you didn't CONTINUE to insist on it after
I stated that I don't even have the book referred to. As Jerry and
John did.
>QUOTE:
>
>Mr. SPECTER. Will you describe, **as specifically as you can** then, the neck wounds which
>you heretofore mentioned briefly?
>
> [and again]
>
>Mr. SPECTER. Have you now described that wound as **specifically** as based upon your
>observations at the time?
> Dr. CARRICO. I believe so.
>
> [and again]
>
>Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Carrico, with respect to this small wound in the anterior third of
>the neck which you have just described, **could you be any more specific** in defining the
>characteristics of that wound?
> Dr. CARRICO. This was probably a 4-7 ram. wound, almost in the midline, maybe a little
>to the right of the midline, and below the thyroid cartilage....
>UNQUOTE
>
> And btw, Ben, when *you* wear a tie, does the knot rest just
>below your thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple), and do you wear it below
>the level of JFK's throat wound as seen in the autopsy photo? Surely this question
>is not calling for "speculation"? ;-)
Of course it is. And if you cannot recognise it, then there's nothing
I can say.
> No competent lawyer who was afraid of what a witness might say
>would ever throw the door wide open with those broad questions
>Specter asked.
No competent lawyer who had not gone through the testimony with the
witness beforehand, I agree.
> He didn't ask Carrico to locate the wound in
>relation to JFK's clothing, but why should he? After all, one of
>the very first things Carrico told him was that before his examination
>of JFK even began he opened JFK's shirt and coat in order to listen
>to his chest. When Dulles later asked him to describe where the wound
>was, Carrico didn't say, "just about where JFK's tie was," he said, "Just
>about where YOUR TIE **WOULD** BE." And where would *that* be, Ben?
>Down on your breastbone? Or right under your Adam's apple?
> Jean
I can understand your insistance on relying on the general location
description, and ignoring the more accurate *specific* placement.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe, as specifically as you can then, the
neck wounds which you heretofore mentioned briefly?
Dr. CARRICO - There was a small wound, 5- to 8-mm. in size, located in
the lower third of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, the Adams
apple.
To this SPECIFIC question - Carrico answered as completely as Spector
wanted him to. But Dulles was still not clear on the location, so he
jumped in:
Mr. DULLES - Will you show us about where it was?
Dr. CARRICO - Just about where your tie would be.
Note the imprecise language.
Mr. DULLES - Where did it enter?
Dr. CARRICO - It entered?
This shows the effectiveness of the Secret Service, during their visit
to Parkland after the autopsy. It was the opinion of all the doctors
and nurses who *saw* the wound, as well as those who merely heard the
description of the wound, that it was an entrance. Here, Dulles
evidently slipped up, as I'm sure he *meant* to say, "Where did it
exit". Carrico gets confused, because he's been assured by the Secret
Service (and probably Spector, as well) that the official autopsy
results show this as an exit wound.
Mr. DULLES - Yes.
Dr. CARRICO - At the time we did not know
Mr. DULLES - I see.
Dulles is just confused here... I'm sure he doesn't realize the error
he's made with regard to the WC theory of events.
Dr. CARRICO - The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
Here is the *precise* location. Previously Carrico has been using
*general* location language, now he's quite obviously pointing.
Also notice that Carrico's staying on track here... virtually all of
the medical testimony from Parkland was tuned to the "it could have
been either" melody. Carrico has obviously been taught this tune as
well, and is *trying* in the face of authority to maintain it. My
opinion, naturally.
Mr. DULLES - I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie
is?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes, sir; just where the tie--
Mr. DULLES - A little bit to the left.
Dr. CARRICO - To the right.
Mr. DULLES - Yes; to the right.
Seen often in the testimony - the mixup between the viewers left/right
framework and the left/right of JFK. The temporal wound statements
come to mind.
Ben Holmes
LOL!!! "Over" the heart can indeed mean in front of in popular usage.
But Jerry, "Over" is not the term being discussed!!
You can prove your point by locating a *single* example of "above" an
object actually meaning "behind" an object. I won't be holding my
breath.
And, have you located the citation for your amazing claim that a
radiologist for the HSCA had found a track of "microbubbles" through
the neck?
>Ben is as you describe in your book, one of those typical conspirati
>who believe the truth is generally hidden but that occasionally the
>curtain parts and you can get a glimpse of it. He takes the exchange
>with Carrico and Dulles to be just such a moment.
Actually, it's quite clear to anyone who bothers to read the testimony
that Carrico's description of the wound wasn't specific *enough* for
Dulles. Why is that? Wasn't the question broad enough? Evidently
not.
>In context it's clear that Carrico held his hand over his heart and
>this was described as "above" his heart by Dulles.
And I hereby make the prediction that Jerry will be completely unable
to come up with even *one* example of such usage of the term "above an
object" meaning "behind the object".
Words really do have meanings, Jerry. Why not just admit that Carrico
was mistaken?
>Jerry
John McAdams
Which doesn't matter a lot, since we have photos of Williams and
Norman, and they too *appear* to be standing. So Brennan's perception
is hardly a crazy one.
>That does not make him wrong about
>seeing
>someone in the window or a nut because he did not understand where the
>windows
>were in relation to the floor. Don't use a double standard when
>evaluating a witness whose statements might suggest a conspiracy.
>
I'm not. If you'll check my web page on Jean Hill you'll see I don't
make a huge deal about her "little dog" comment. There are other,
really substantial, problems with her testimony.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jhill.htm
O.H. LEE
No, just a completely erroneous one. Isn't that the gentleman's point?
>
>>That does not make him wrong about
>>seeing
>>someone in the window or a nut because he did not understand where the
>>windows
>>were in relation to the floor. Don't use a double standard when
>>evaluating a witness whose statements might suggest a conspiracy.
>>
>
>I'm not. If you'll check my web page on Jean Hill you'll see I don't
>make a huge deal about her "little dog" comment. There are other,
>really substantial, problems with her testimony.
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jhill.htm
>
>..John
>
>--
>Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
O.H. LEE (ga...@aol.com)
Ben Holmes
Morissette) wrote:
LOL!! Anyone who's taken the time to read the WC testimony is already
aware of the answer to this one!
John Hill
news:a163e09.02072...@posting.google.com...
> Ben Holmes,
>
> You are misinterpreting the exchange:
>
> > is?
>
That is NOT what Dulles said. He did NOT say Carrico placed his hand "OVER"
the tie. He said he placed his hand "right above where your tie is". Stop
trying to INTERPRET what was said to make it say what you want.
> - it's his hand that is
> "right above", meaning right in front of, the tie.
Spin, spin, spin. I rather think that if one meant "in FRONT of", one
would say "in FRONT of", not "ABOVE". Dr. Carrico was sitting up during
this exchange, not lying down. "Above" is up, vertical, farther from the
ground; not horizontally out in front of.
The basic problem here is that you can't take what the man said at face
value. You just HAVE to INTERPRET and SPIN it to make it say what you want
it to. We can all read. We do not require you to INTERPRET English for us.
> This common sense
"Common sense"? Sure, for you.
> interpretation
Key word here is "INTERPRETATION". That means that it's not really what
was said but that you'll straighten it out for us poor dummies who
suddenly can't understand English.
It may well be that they meant that the wound was under the tie / covered
by the tie, etc. But that is NOT clear from this quote. It is NOT what is
SAID here.
--
John Hill (joisa)
Jean Davison
http://www.dallasnews.com/specialreports/2000/jfk/continues/stories/072602dnmetcarricoob.39284.html
Jean
Denis Morissette
I don't understand.
Ben Holmes
Morissette) wrote:
>Ben Holmes <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message news:<1219kukvl9211470g...@4ax.com>...
>> On 28 Jul 2002 10:48:59 -0700, mikesm...@hotmail.com (Denis
>> Morissette) wrote:
>>
>> >"Jean Davison" <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote in message news:<ahvs2...@enews3.newsguy.com>...
>> >> I am placing this here, since we've been discussing
>> >> Dr. Carrico's testimony. Sadly, Dr. Carrico died earlier
>> >> this week, and here's an article telling of his life and
>> >> accomplishments after 11/22/63:
>> >>
>> >> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/obituaries/134501478_carrico27m0.html
>> >
>> >Well, it's very sad. It would be a good idea to contact his family and
>> >find out if Dr. Carrico has left any notes related to the JFK
>> >assassination.
>>
>> LOL!! Anyone who's taken the time to read the WC testimony is already
>> aware of the answer to this one!
>
>I don't understand.
Well - at the extreme risk of appearing as satire, here's the scoop.
You asked if Dr. Carrico had left any notes related to the JFK
assassination.
I replied that "Anyone who's taken the time to read the WC testimony
is already aware of the answer to this one!"
Now, other than just flatly *stating* that the answer to your question
is *already* found in the WC testimony of Dr. Carrico, I don't know
how I could have stated this with more force.
Now, step by step:
1. Open another browser in a new window
2. Enter the URL 'www.google.com' - or any other search engine of your
choice.
3. Enter 'Carrico testimony' as your search term. You should be able
to quickly assess which results have the actual testimony.
(Or, if you wish to be prepared for the future, just bookmark this
URL: http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wit.htm )
4. Now that you are looking at the testimony, click on "Edit" at the
top of your browser (I'm assuming MSIE, if you're using another one,
it should be similar)
5. Click on "Find", and type in the words "note", or "letter". Or,
alternatively, you can just begin reading.
6. Be aware that for some witnesses, there were multiple instances of
testimony taken, so you may need to keep reading...
Jean Davison
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:onrlju4a9c5cb3gi2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 01:09:21 -0400, "Jean Davison"
> <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
>
> >"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> >news:5anejusn0vgeqoc1v...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 00:43:30 -0400, "Jean Davison"
> >> <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
> >
> > Back to Carolyn Walther...
> >
> >>
> >> >"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> >> >news:7h5cjukmpnahae52i...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 21:08:35 -0400, "Jean Davison"
> >> >> <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:2jc4jusjgvtfanpok...@4ax.com...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> > Okay, Carolyn Walther.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The WC had the following information from a witness interview
> >> >> >> apparently conducted on 12/4/63, submitted to the WC on 12/10/63, and
> >> >> >> couldn't be bothered to either have her testify, or to have the FBI
> >> >> >> conduct any follow up interviews. Mrs. Walthers saw *two* people, one
> >> >> >> holding a rifle... and rather inconveniently, also apparently heard
> >> >> >> more than three shots.
> >> >> >>
> >
> ><snipping non-Walther stuff, for now>
> >
> >> >> Of *course* there's a reasonable understanding of the evidence.
> >> >> That's why when a number of people describe more than one person at
> >> >> the SN, I start getting the idea that there may have *been* more than
> >> >> one.
> >> >
> >> > And when a number of people describe only one person
> >> >in the SN, what then?
> >>
> >> It's easy to explain why some people saw only one person if there were
> >> two, it's far more difficult to explain why some people saw two people
> >> if there were only one.
> >
> > No. Three witnesses saw one man and brown boxes
> >on all sides of that man. Walthers saw one man and a "brown
> >suit coat." She was about 50 feet further away from window than the
> >other witnesses.
>
> This isn't rocket science, Jean... nor were all the witnesses looking
> at the same place in the same 5 second period.
>
I didn't claim that ALL the witnesses were looking
there at the same time, but Fischer, Edwards and Walther
all said they were looking there immediately before the
motorcade arrived, yet they saw quite different things.
(You're right, this isn't rocket science!)
> If they all saw something, and described it *identically*, you could
> even suspect a little information sharing between friends. But all of
> these witnesses saw two people, and the time (nor closeness of the
> people) cannot be matched to Bonnie Ray Williams - or some boxes.
> It's really just that simple.
Sorry, but it *isn't* that simple. Rowland may've seen
Bonnie Ray Williams, Walther didn't -- her description is
not the same at all. Rowland described a black man in
a red and green plaid shirt who left the window several minutes before
the motorcade arrived.
>
> > Look at her description again:
> >
> >QUOTE:
> > >> In the same window, to the left of this man, she
> >could see a portion of another man standing by the side of this man
> >with a rifle. This other man was standing erect, and his head was above
> >the opened portion of the window. As the window was very dirty, she
> >could not see the head of this second man.... This second man was
> >apparently wearing a brown suit coat, and the only thing she could
> >see was the right side of the man, from about the waist to the
> >shoulders. << [XXIV, 522]
> >UNQUOTE
> >
> > Now please compare that description with the Dillard photo:
> >
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0291a.htm
> >
> > Seems obvious to me what happened here.
>
> By completely ignoring the other witnesses, you can accept this
> conclusion.
I think you're the one ignoring them! NONE of
them saw what Walther saw -- a "brown suit coat" to the
left of a gunman in the SN window immediately before the
motorcade arrived.
>
> I think it's a real stretch to ignore the other witnesses, and assume
> that Walther's managed to visualize boxes into a person. It's not a
> mistake normally made.
Well, do you think that Edwards and Fischer
visualized a person into boxes?? Fischer said, "There were boxes
and cases stacked all the way from the bottom to the top and
from the left to the right behind him...." Look at the Powell
photo, too, which clearly shows boxes there.
>
>
> >> >> Now... back to *my* point... why did the WC feel it unnecessary to
> >> >> re-question or take the testimony of Mrs. Walthers?
> >> >
> >> > How should I know what the WC "felt"? Why do no
> >> >CT authors ever mention that Walther's account is contradicted by at
> >> >least three other witnesses-- Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan?
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter how many people contradicted the statement...
> >
> > It doesn't?!
>
> Of course not. Because they don't contradict the statement in the
> first place.
Excuse me, but if one person says "coat" and two others
say "boxes," that's not a contradiction???
> And as I continued, a perception that statements were in
> conflict with each other DOESN'T EXCUSE THE NON-COLLECTION OF THAT
> TESTIMONY.
Obligatory condemnation of the Warren Commission noted.
>
> Are you now going to argue that Brennan's testimony is wrong because
> Edwards and Fischer didn't see a rifle?
Of course not, because there's no conflict there. Edwards/Fischer
looked away when the motorcade arrived and didn't look back.
Brennan didn't see the rifle until after the shooting started.
>
> Are you going to argue that Norman Williams and Jarman weren't on the
> fifth floor because Edwards and Fischer didn't see them?
Since there are photos showing the guys on the 5th
floor, I don't care whether E & F saw them or not ...., but are you
sure they didn't? But I see no conflict here, either.
>
> >> That's NOT the way you do an investigation. If you decide in advance
> >> that you're not going to re-question, or ask for someone's testimony,
> >> then you have made a judgement on their statement without a solid
> >> foundation. This *is* what happened. There's no excuse for it, and
> >> that's why I pointed it out as a good example of WC dishonesty.
> >
> > You're making assumptions, I think -- how can you
> >know what was "decided in advance"? I'm not sure if she was
> >requestioned or not,
>
> She was not. There is no record of it.
>
> >but the woman she was with, Pearl Springer,
> >was questioned the same day. Ms. Springer reported that
> >Ms. Walther didn't mention anything about seeing a man with
> >a gun to *her*. Walther herself said that after hearing someone say
> >that the President had been hit, she "stopped for a moment
> >and listened to the police radio on a motorcycle," but she
> >evidently didn't mention seeing a gunman to the police, either, and
> >instead walked back to work with Springer. Kinda strange,
> >don't you think? Maybe this is one of the reasons the WC
> >didn't call her.
>
> Don't you think that this is just a little "Monday morning
> quarterbacking"? The importance of what she saw may never have struck
> her at all. Notice that *all* of the witnesses to a gun on the 6th
> floor assumed that they were Secret Service, or guards of some sort.
> If *you* saw a policeman standing on a corner at a parade, would you
> automatically point them out to your friends??
Policeman in a uniform? No. But never mind, I'll
withdraw this criticism of Ms. Walther.
>
> > These two ladies' statements can be found here:
> >
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0270b.htm
> >
> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0271a.htm
> >
> >>
> >> And, as I've pointed out before, her testimony was NOT contradicted by
> >> anyone - far from it, she actually has others who's statements support
> >> hers in both multiple persons, and more shots.
> >
> > Her testimony certainly WAS contradicted by others--
> >e.g., Fischer and Edwards, who were looking at a man
> >in this window at the same time she was.
>
> There is no way on God's green Earth that you can assert that *any* of
> the witnesses to the two men on the 6th floor were looking even during
> the same one minute period, let alone at the same time. It would take
> no more than 5 seconds to casually saunter away from the window - and
> the view of anyone 6 stories below.
If you can't tell from their statements that these
witnesses said they were looking at the window almost *immediately*
before the motorcade arrived, then ... maybe you should read it again?
Maybe Brown Coat Man flitted in and out of view, is that it? Did
the boxes also move, or can you suggest some other reason
why Walther didn't see any? Did BCM leave as soon as the shooting
started, or is there some other reason why Brennan and Euins didn't
notice him up there?
>
> >They saw *nothing* in his hands.
> >Walther claimed that he was "leaning out the window
> >with both his hands extended outside the window ledge"
> >and that in his hands was a strange-looking rifle. NOBODY
> >ELSE saw this.
>
> Nobody else reported what Brennan reported either... shall we throw
> his testimony out?
You don't think it's odd that Fischer and Edwards
didn't see this weapon sticking out of the window? Don't you think
it's odd that a sniper would show his weapon before the motorcade
got there?
>
> And with a total of four people, and reportedly more than that, who'd
> seen two people on the 6th floor between 12:20 and 12:30, you're going
> to have to concede the possibility.
They didn't all describe the same two people! And not
all said "6th floor" -- Henderson, e.g., didn't.
>
> >> Instead of taking this testimony, and *explaining* it in reference to
> >> other testimony, the WC quite obviously decided to avoid the situation
> >> altogether. How many others have simply been lost to history?
> >
> > The WC published Walther's statement, and if they'd
> >called her, what difference do you think it would make?
>
> One single witness, perhaps none. But the attitude of getting the
> testimony of all eyewitnesses - several, for example, who were the
> closest to the scene never had their testimony taken, would have
> drastically changed the results.
Really?? How? Whose testimony would've caused what
change, exactly?
>
> I've said it many times, and I'll keep harping on it, you CANNOT
> accept the WC conclusions if you don't discount the majority of the
> witnesses. Or at least parts of the testimony and statements of
> virtually any witness.
The majority of witnesses? No. But *you* cannot
argue for a conspiracy or for an Oswald-was-innocent conclusion
without discounting the testimony of many, many witnesses. Do you
reject Brennan's ID, for instance? If you think Oswald didn't
kill Tippit (don't know if you do or not), you have to reject
the testimony of 10 or 11 people who ID-ed LHO as the
fleeing gunman. Do you "discount" the testimony, too, of
all the witnesses who said there were only three shots and
those who said they all came from the TSBD?
>
> >As for witnesses "lost to history," nice speculation.
>
> Not speculation at all. If someone's testimony wasn't taken that
> first 6 months, are you going to accept their statements from 30 years
> later?
Well, the CT side certainly accepts statements from 30
years later, but I'd take 'em with a big grain of salt. If the CT
side can't make do with the millions of pages of documents and
testimony that we *do* have, and instead complain that the really good stuff
was "lost," I think that speaks to the weakness of the CT case,
frankly. Since we can't go back in time and change things,
complaining about who the WC didn't call is "spilt milk."
What good does it do to lambaste the WC after all this time?
> And if you cannot name eyewitnesses who's testimony was *never* taken,
> then you can't be very familiar with this case.
Tell me someone you have in mind and tell me what
he/she could've *possibly* said that could've changed anything.
>
> >> >> > Walther is a good case in point, because at the same time
> >> >> >she was looking at "two men" in the TSBD window, other
> >> >> >witnesses were looking at the very same window, and they didn't
> >> >> >see this "second man." Somebody's going to have to be
> >> >> >"mistaken," the only question is who.
> >> >
> >> > So, have you decided that Edwards, Fischer, and
> >> >Brennan were all "mistaken"?
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Here's Walther's statement:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "...Shortly after the ambulance left, she looked back toward the TSBD
> >> >> It's quite easy to understand this particular mistake. Count the
> >> >> windows...
> >> >>
> >> >> >Back to Walther's statment:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>This second man was
> >> >> >> apparently wearing a brown suit coat, and the only thing she could see
> >> >> >> was the right side of the man, from about the waist to the shoulders.
> >> >> >> Almost immediately after noticing this man with the rifle and the
> >> >> >> other man standing beside him, someone in the crowd said 'Here they
> >> >> >> come," and she looked to her left, looking south on Houston Street, to
> >> >> >> see the Presidential Party.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Robert Edwards and Ronald Fischer were standing on the southwest
> >> >> >corner of Elm and Houston, and they happened to be looking at the 6th
> >> >> >floor window at the same time Walther was, right before the motorcade
> >> >> >arrived, but they saw only ONE man there and they saw no weapon.
> >> >> >
> >> >> This is all well and good that you can produce testimony of people who
> >> >> *support* the LN scenario. Why can't I point to the testimony of Mrs.
> >> >> Walthers???
> >> >
> >> > I never said you couldn't, Ben.
> >>
> >> *I* say I can't. Her testimony was NEVER TAKEN.
> >>
> >> >I'm just pointing out that she mistook a stack of boxes for a brown
> >> >coat. That's my conclusion, anyway. What's yours?
> >>
> >> That while your conclusion would be a possible hypothesis if only one
> >> person were involved, when three *other* people saw the same thing,
> >> your hypothesis grows extremely weak.
> >
> > Your three other people did NOT see the same
> >things Walther described.
>
> They *all* described two people. That's rather hard to get around.
Not the *same* two.
>
> >> I figured you were already familiar with the other testimony about two
> >> people on the 6th floor, but I've included the information below.
> >>
> >> >> Oh, that's right, nobody bothered to re-question or ask for her
> >> >> testimony!!!
> >> >
> >> > No matter how many times she said she saw a second
> >> >man, there are still three witnesses who contradict her.
> >>
> >>
> >> Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say they had seen anything--such as a rifle?
> >> Mr. CRAIG. Yes; later on. A few minutes after that--I had taken this
> >> girl to one of our criminal investigators---and was talking to some
> >> other people. I talked to a young couple and the boy said he saw two
> >> men on the uh--sixth floor of the Book Depository Building over
> >> there; one of them had a rifle with the telescopic sight on it--but he
> >> thought they were Secret Service agents on guard and didn't report it.
> >> This was about--uh---oh, he said, 15 minutes before the motorcade ever
> >> arrived.
> >>
> >> You can read Rowland's testimony, this is who is being referred to.
> >
> > Rowland didn't describe a gunman hanging out the
> >SN window, he described an elderly African-American
> >wearing a plaid shirt there, and no one in a brown suit coat.
> >Possibly he saw Bonnie Ray Williams up there, and Oswald
> >at the other end of the building. (Even Rowland wasn't sure
> >it wasn't Oswald: "I just couldn't identify him... because I
> >couldn't get a good enough look at his face.")
>
> Yep... Rowland is the only witness who *might* have seen Bonnie Ray
> Williams up there. He's the only one who's testimony can *be*
> construed this way.
I'm not so sure about that. Let's look at Ruby
Henderson again...
>
>
> >> Ruby Henderson (CE 2089) is also a witness to two people, although she
> >> cannot positively state that it was the 6th floor. But her
> >> description of the two people matches Rowland's, and Powell's, and
> >> the time that she saw this can be timed by the ambulance she mentioned
> >> as roughly the same time that Walther's was viewing the two.
> >
> > Ruby Henderson described two men "on one of the upper
> >floors," neither of them wearing a "brown suit coat," and she saw
> >no weapon. So once again, this witness does NOT corroborate
> >Walther's story. No weapon, no "brown suit coat." Possibly she
> >saw two of the guys on the 5th floor, since she didn't seem quite
> >certain about the race of the second man she described.
>
> Surely you're really stretching a point here.
>
> The salient part of her statement is that she saw two people. And the
> race of the second man that she was uncertain about cannot in any way
> indicate that she saw the men on the fifth floor.
I don't see anything in her statement that *excludes*
her having seen two of the men on the fifth floor. She mentioned
that they were standing back from the window, thus possibly
in shadow. The reason I suggest this as an explanation is
that we DO know for certain that there WERE three men
on the fifth floor at that time, and Henderson wasn't sure of
the floor and wasn't certain of their race. (See CE2089)
>
> Nor does Ruby Henderson state that "neither of them wearing a brown
> sut coat". She doesn't mention it at all. Does this mean, by your
> reasoning, that the two men were naked?
No, she said one was "in a white shirt" and the
other in a "dark shirt." In the Dillard photo, one shirt
appears to be lighter than the other. Again, she could've
been talking about these guys.
> Trying to claim that Ruby's statements cannot corroborate other
> reports of two men on the 6th floor because she didn't describe their
> clothing is just silly. Jean - you're *really* stretching here.
But she did describe their clothing.
>
> >> Then there was John Powell... he described how he and his cellmates
> >> watched two men with a gun... "He claims he could see them so clearly
> >> that he even recalls them 'fooling with the scope' on the gun." You
> >> can read his account in "Conspiracy" by Anthony Summers, pages 74-75.
> >
> > I'm not as familiar with Powell, but I take it
> >that he too failed to mention the "brown suit coat" in
> >the left side of the SN window. And no other witness
> >you've named said anything about two men "fooling
> >with the scope."
>
> I'm sure that even you realize how silly this line of argument is, and
> to tell the truth, it really shows how weak it is. Why not just admit
> that you don't trust eyewitness accounts?
Why do you accept as fact eyewitness accounts that
are conflicting? What color shirt was Brown Coat Man
wearing, Ben, and how many witnesses said so?
I did a web search on Powell and found that all is
not as rosy as we might think. Apparently the FBI did
look into his claim and reported that he couldn't have seen
what he claimed to have seen from his location in the jail.
I say "apparently" because I haven't actually seen the FBI
report myself, but I'd at least put Mr. Powell in the unverified
column.
>
> According to the WC scenario, LHO HAD TO HAVE BEEN "FOOLING WITH THE
> SCOPE"!!! He had to put the rifle back together. (See WCR pg
> 130-131).
>
> So the fact that someone witnessed it cannot be considered unusual.
>
> >> Interestingly, Rowland, Henderson, and Powell all *agree* that one man
> >> was white, and one was darker complexioned... either Mexican or Black.
>
> Absolutely powerful corroboration, and you really need to explain
> this.
Please quote for me where Henderson said one man
was white -- I can't find that. The report I read has her saying
that she "couldn't describe the other person other than the fact
he was taller than" the first one. Applying my handy Occham's
razor (snip, snip), I suggest that Henderson saw two of the 5th
floor guys, Rowland may've seen Oswald and Williams, Powell
was.... possibly putting the interviewer on. And then there's
Walther. Boxes, I say.
>
> >> Now... I've listed three witnesses who support Walther's story, and
> >> contrary to your assertion, testimony of seeing only one man is NOT
> >> contradictory.
> >
> > None of them corroborates her story.
>
> They ALL describe two people on the 6th floor.
>
> >> The question STILL remains... why didn't the WC ask the FBI to
> >> re-question Walthers? Or ask for her testimony?
>
> And this question still remains.
The question will always remain, unless you want to
find out from some WC staffer. I will *guess* that the
WC concluded, as the FBI apparently did, that Walther
mistook a stack of boxes for a coat. It wouldn't have
mattered if they *had* called her, Ben, because there
was no other witness who saw the same thing. By the time
the FBI heard her story, what were they supposed to do with it,
if they believed her, which they apparently did not? Should they have
put out an APB for "unknown male, or possibly even
a female, wearing brown coat, no other description available"?
>
> But actually, it's clear that even the following day, 11/23, the FBI
> was actively directing the investigation towards the conclusions they
> wanted...
Or reaching obvious conclusions....
>
> Mr. Specter. Did you tell the police officials at the time you made
> this statement that there was a Negro gentleman in the window on the
> southwest corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building which
> you have marked with a circle "A"--pardon me, southeast?
> Mr. Rowland. At that time, no. However, the next day on Saturday there
> were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took
> another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this
> was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro
> man there and they told me it didn't have any bearing or such on the
> case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it
> now.
Several points to be made: Rowland said that the black man
left the SN window minutes before the motorcade arrived.
AND, the FBI likely knew by then that Williams had reported
being on the 6th floor until a few minutes before the motorcade.
AND, witnesses reported that the gunman was white, not black.
Therefore, "it didn't have any bearing right then."
>
> So how many witnesses that we now don't know about had things to say
> about two men on the 6th floor?
Ah, the witnesses that might've been! How about
the witnesses that might've been able to ID Oswald as the
sniper, but didn't want to "get involved"? Not much point
in such speculation, is there?
>
> >> >> This is STILL the point that I'm making... and if you had all members
> >> >> of the the Supreme Court, standing just 50 feet away with binoculars,
> >> >> and all of them testified that they only saw one man - it STILL
> >> >> wouldn't explain the apparent disregard of a witness with a contrary
> >> >> bit of testimony to give.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unless the WC were dishonestly trying to paint a picture with false
> >> >> colors.
> >> >
> >> > The WC published Walther's statement in the 26 volumes, and if
> >> >it hadn't, it's possible you would never have known about her, isn't that so?
> >>
> >> Publishing a statement, and publishing *testimony* - is two different
> >> things. Would you like to try supporting virtually any position based
> >> *solely* on 11/22 statements?
> >>
> >> And until fairly recently - few people had access to the 26 volumes.
> >>
> >> >The WC heard from 552 witnesses, including many "conspiracy
> >> >witnesses" such as Jean Hill and S.M. Holland. There were about
> >> >as many WC witnesses who said they thought the shots came
> >> >from the knoll area as said they thought they came from the TSBD
> >> >(see Josiah Thompson's list, e.g.).
> >>
> >> Yep... thought provoking, isn't it?
> >>
> >> >> >> The complete [Walther] interview can be read here:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0270b.htm
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It was nice of the WC to publish that for you, wasn't it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Again, Edwards and Fischer saw one man in the window,
> >> >> >and no weapon. Brennan also saw only one man up there before
> >> >> >the motorcade arrived and no weapon until after the shooting started.
> >> >> >And significantly, all three saw something else in the window that Walthers
> >> >> >later denied seeing -- boxes. Josiah Thompson quoted her as saying in a 1966
> >> >> >interview, "... I did not see any boxes in the building. I saw no boxes
> >> >> >at all in the building." But there certainly *were* boxes there, including
> >> >> >a stack in exactly the spot where she placed the "second man" --
> >> >> >just to the left of the man with the rifle. Take a look at this Dillard
> >> >> >closeup, and tell me if you see anything that looks like a "brown suit
> >> >> >coat" of a man "standing erect [with] his head ... above the open
> >> >> >portion of the window":
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0292a.htm
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >Jean
> >> >>
> >> >> Now that you have been so kind as to quote witnesses who only saw one
> >> >> person, will you ALSO be so kind as to quote the witnesses who saw
> >> >> *more* than one person where only LHO was supposed to be???
> >> >
> >> > No one else, to my knowledge, saw a man standing next
> >> >to a gunman holding a weapon out the window right before the
> >> >motorcade arrived. At one point there *was* a second man
> >> >on the 6th floor, but that was Bonnie Ray Williams, an African-
> >> >American in his shirt sleeves, not a suit coat.
> >>
> >> Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had
> >> eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10
> >> or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was.
> >> Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?
> >> Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.
> >> Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of
> >> November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon
> >> with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no
> >> one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end
> >> of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up
> >> there?
> >> Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.
> >> Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up
> >> there?
> >> Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.
> >> Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to
> >> Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to
> >> the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were
> >> watching the Presidential parade. Now, do you remember telling them
> >> you went down there about 12:05 p.m.?
> >> Mr. WILLIAMS. I remember telling the fellows that--they asked me
> >> first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I
> >> said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes." Just like I said
> >> here. I don't remember saying for a definite answer that it was 5
> >> minutes.
> >> Mr. BALL. Well, is it fair to say that you do not remember the exact
> >> time now?
> >> Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.
> >>
> >> This doesn't match up very well with Powells statement that the two
> >> men were *together*, or with Walther's statement that the two men were
> >> close together, or with Henderson's statement. Only Rowland reports
> >> two men in such a way as to allow the possibility that they weren't
> >> together.
> >>
> >> > Anyway, I'd really like to know how you explain the testimony
> >> >by Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan. They all gave statements on
> >> >11/22/63, incidentally. Jean
> >>
> >> Do you know the distance that a person can be seen from the ground
> >> looking up at a 6th floor window? Moving just a few feet back from
> >> the window, the person wouldn't be seen at all.
> >
> > That won't work here, with Walther, since she placed
> >"brown coat man" close to the window, beside the guy she
> >said was holding a weapon. She thought his face was obscured
> >by the dirty window.
>
> Sure it'll work here! We are looking at a roughly 10 minute window
> here. Are you going to try to argue that both men were required to be
> close to the window during the entire 10 minute period?
Fischer, Edwards and Walther didn't describe a
10-minute window, that I see. I don't know what you're talking about.
> In fact, judging *only* by the witnesses who were *outside* the
> building, there could easily have been 50 people on the 6th floor.
> Can you tell me the number of people on the 5th floor by Robert Hill
> Jackson's testimony? He only cites two! Brennan *also* saw only two.
> Are you now going to deny the WC finding that Norman, Williams, and
> Jarmon were on the fifth floor on the basis that Mr. Jackson only saw
> two of them?
Of course not. It's not the same thing at all. Yes,
there may've been 50 people out of sight up there, but if
only *one* witness claimed to see 50 people and others
looking at the same time *didn't* see 50 people, why should I
believe, based on that one witness, that there were 50 people?
> Using your apparent logic, you'd have to.
Using your apparent logic, I'd have to believe
the "second man" wore different clothes for different
witnesses and disappeared when the shooting started.
>
> Fischer and Edwards saw no rifle, shall we refuse to take Brennan's
> testimony because it has been contradicted by others?
>
Answered above.
> >>It's easy to explain
> >> someone sighting just one person when there were two, it's not quite
> >> so easy to explain a two person sighting when there was only one.
> >
> > Of course there is -- she didn't see any boxes, instead
> >she saw a "brown coat."
>
> Once again, this is a vague possibility if you only had Walther's
> statement, but you ALSO have three others offering evidence of two
> people on the 6th floor. It strains to the breaking point that all of
> these witnesses thought a brown box was a person in a brown suit.
What?!! Ben, *nobody* else described seeing a person
in a brown suit in the SN window, so why are you saying "all of
these witnesses"???
>
> >> Bonnie Ray Williams is simply not the answer, as he specifically
> >> stated that the time he came back to the 6th floor to eat his lunch,
> >> he *saw nobody*. His earliest statements - if transcribed accurately,
> >> would have had him down on the 5th floor by the time the ambulance
> >> came around, which was when several people saw the two on the 6th
> >> floor. No matter *how* you judge the evidence, Williams was gone when
> >> the ambulance came around... (which according to Brennan was *after*
> >> 12:18) And several of the sightings came *after* the ambulance left.
> >
> > Right, I didn't mean to imply that Walther saw Williams --
> >Williams wasn't wearing a suit coat, and the time was wrong, as
> >you say. I was thinking of Rowlands there. Sorry I wasn't clear.
> > Jean
>
> The only sighting that could be explained on the basis of Bonnie Ray
> Williams known movements would be Rowland's. I'd agree that it's a
> possibility.
Good! Now, if Rowland saw Williams, he did NOT
see the same "person" Walther saw, did he? Because Williams
wasn't wearing a brown coat and he wasn't on the 6th floor
immediately before the motorcade arrived. Do you agree
then that if Rowland saw Williams, he doesn't corroborate
Walther's account?
>However, Bonnie Ray Williams was 20 years old, and the
> man that Rowland saw he described as being around 50-60 years old.
> Either Rowland didn't get anywhere near as good a look as he thought,
> or Bonnie Ray Williams is a -real- longshot as a solution.
Well, it's been said that witnesses of one race have
trouble judging the age of people of a different race -- maybe
that's a factor. Jean
Jean Davison
news:3d44c32d...@news.newsguy.com...
> On 28 Jul 2002 23:25:55 -0400, "John Hill" <jo...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
> >"GMcNally" <jer...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:a163e09.02072...@posting.google.com...
> >> Ben Holmes,
> >>
> >> You are misinterpreting the exchange:
> >>
> >> > Dr. CARRICO - The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.
> >> > Mr. DULLES - I see. And you put your hand right above where your tie
> >> > is?
> >>
> >> IOW, Carrico placed his hand OVER the tie
> >
> >That is NOT what Dulles said. He did NOT say Carrico placed his hand "OVER"
> >the tie. He said he placed his hand "right above where your tie is". Stop
> >trying to INTERPRET what was said to make it say what you want.
> >
> >> - it's his hand that is
> >> "right above", meaning right in front of, the tie.
> >
> >Spin, spin, spin. I rather think that if one meant "in FRONT of", one
> >would say "in FRONT of", not "ABOVE". Dr. Carrico was sitting up during
> >this exchange, not lying down. "Above" is up, vertical, farther from the
> >ground; not horizontally out in front of.
> >
> >The basic problem here is that you can't take what the man said at face
> >value. You just HAVE to INTERPRET and SPIN it to make it say what you want
> >it to. We can all read. We do not require you to INTERPRET English for us.
> >
>
> ignore the *rest* of his testimony, as well as the photographic
> evidence from the autopsy.
>
> Don't you know how bizarre it sounds when you folks pick out one quote
> and keep pounding on it with "he was *there,* do you think he was
> lying?" All the while you ignore the rest of the testimony and the
> photographs.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/carrico.txt
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/left.jpg
It occurs to me that Weisberg may've first made
this argument about Carrico in the late '60s before
he or the rest of us had actually seen the
autopsy photos. I think the photos really make this argument
out of date and irrelevant, if you know what I mean.
Jean
Peter R. Whitmey
> Here's The Dallas Morning News story, courtesy of Gary Mack:
>
> http://www.dallasnews.com/specialreports/2000/jfk/continues/stories/072602dnmetcarricoob.39284.html
>
> Jean
>>Shortly after "JFK" was released, Dr. Carrico spoke to the press in
Seattle, having avoided doing so previously, and his remarks were carried
(in edited form) on a Seattle tv stations' latenight news. I happened to
have taped something on that station earlier and the tape included the
news that followed, so I ended up accidentally seeing Dr. Carrico's press
conference. I did not know at that time that he lived in the Seattle area
(it turned out he lived in Bellevue, where I had lived from 1961-67) or
that he worked at the UW Medical School (I went to UW from 1962-67). I
phoned "information" and was able to obtain Dr. Carrico's home phone
number and address, and subsequently wrote to him, in regard to his
initial report (Nov. 22) describing the apparent entrance wound in JFK's
throat ("a neat, penetrating wound, presumably of entrance" as I recall),
which was in stark contrast to his statement to the press. I particularly
recall that he strongly supported the "single bullet theory", and
therefore obviously now believed that neat wound was an exit wound.
After not receiving a written reply from Dr. Carrico, I tried phoning
him, and spoke to his wife, who let me know her husband was not in. I
recall writing to him again, and once more phoning to no avail. Clearly
he didn't want to discuss the subject with the likes of me. Later I tried
phoning a third time, but a recorded message indicated that the number was
no longer in service. In a follow-up call to the UW Medical School I
learned that Dr. Carrico had returned to Dallas. I personally believe
that Dr. Carrico felt obliged to come out strongly in support of the
Warren Commission, as a result of the controversy surrounding "JFK". But
that cannot cancel out what he stated in writing on the day of the
assassination, when there was not yet pressure on him to co-operate with
the U.S. government. - Peter
Jean Davison
Tony, how about quoting where I said "down to the closest second."
> 10 seconds before the motorcade came to the corner is plenty of time
> for different witnesses to look up at different seconds and see different
> things.
Sure, Brown Coat Man was there one second and...
whoosh! ... gone the next.
>
> > The crucial point is that Walther saw a "brown coat" in the
> > left side of the window where other witnesses saw a stack
> > of brown boxes... AND, unlike the others, she insisted that she saw
> > NO boxes in the building. If the "man" was standing in *front*
> > of the boxes, why didn't the other witnesses see him there?
> >
>
> Why didn't all the witnesses see the rifle sticking out of the window
> as a couple of witnesses did? Because different witnesses see
> different things at different times. Have you analyzed her position to determine whether
> she would have seen the boxes from her vantage point or if she might see a
> person standing in front of the boxes as distinct from the boxes?
Her position was similar to Powell's I believe.
Have you analyzed it yourself? So, do you think
there was a second man in the SN wearing a brown suit
coat, Tony? Really?
>
> > >
> > > > Here's Walther's statement:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "...Shortly after the ambulance left, she looked back toward the TSBD
>
> And "shortly after the ambulance left" is not the same time frame as
> 10 seconds
> before the motorcade arrived. You are mixing time frames.
I didn't claim that. Read on.
Notice this:
> > > > > ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTER NOTICING THIS MAN WITH THE RIFLE
> > > > > AND THE OTHER MAN STANDING BESIDE HIM, SOMEONE IN THE CROWD
> > > > > SAID 'HERE THEY COME," AND SHE LOOKED TO HER LEFT
> > > > > looking south on Houston Street, to see the Presidential Party.
> > > >
> > > > Robert Edwards and Ronald Fischer were standing on the southwest
> > > > corner of Elm and Houston, and they happened to be looking at the 6th
> > > > floor window at the same time Walther was, right before the motorcade
> > > > arrived, but they saw only ONE man there and they saw no weapon.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Prove that they were looking at the TSBD at exactly the same second that she was
> > > and from exactly the same vantage point.
> >
> > Timing, I've explained. Vantage point would've been similar to
>
> Timing you have misrepresented.
Nope.
> She said it was shortly after the
> ambulance left.
"Almost immediately" before the motorcade arrived.
> Your witnesses said almost imediately before the
> motorcade arrived.
That's what she said, too.
> Shortly
> after the ambulance left is not the same time as almost immediately
> before the motorcade
> arrived. There is a gap of several seconds there as described by
> Altgens and you misrepresent that as
> being the exact same time.
Please. I'm not referring to the ambulance but to the
arrival of the motorcade. Here's Fischer again:
QUOTE:
Mr. FISCHER. .... about 10 or 15 seconds before the first car came around that
corner, Bob punched me and said, "Look at that guy there in that window." And he made
some remark---said, "He looks like he's uncomfortable"--or something.
And I looked up and I watched the man for, oh, I'd say, 10 or 15 seconds. It was
until the first car came around the corner of Houston and Main. And, then, when that
car did come around the corner, I took my attention off of the man in the window and
started watching the parade. The man held my attention for 10 or 15 seconds....
UNQUOTE
>
> > the Powell photo, I believe (TKOAP, p. 207) -- you can see a whole
> > lotta boxes, uh, "brown coats," in that picture.
> >
> > 'Course, if you still want to believe there was a man standing
> > there that only Walther could see, it's okey dokey with
> > me, Tony. Jean
> >
>
> Hmm, I didn't say that. You are putting words in my mouth again.
See that little word "if"?
>All I am saying is that witness testimony must be carefully analyzed.
Exactly. I agree 100%.
>And yes it is quite possible that one witness can see something that no one else
>noticed. Don't you claim that Brennan is the ONLY witness who saw the
> assassin's face?
Speaking of putting words in someone's mouth... no.
Fischer and Edwards saw his face, possibly some others did.
> What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Yep, so they say. Jean
Denis Morissette
I knew exactly what you meant from the start. But you did not get my
point. Don't you know that 37 years have past since the WC testimony
of Dr. Carrico? Therefore, Dr. Carrico may have written something
during all those years. If he did, then we need to get it.
Jean Davison
news:945b9736.02072...@posting.google.com...
I think you do him a disservice to suggest that he
caved to "pressure." You have no evidence for that, do you?
Jean
Peter R. Whitmey
Jean
>Hi Jean,
You might recall that I contacted you by snailmail back around
1987, when I was briefly going by "Peter Watson".
No, I have no evidence to suggest Dr. Carrico caved in, but it is
quite clear that many Parkland Hospital medical personnel were
pressured to consider another possibility when they testified before
the Warren Commission. You'll recall the hilarious supposition in the
form of a question posed to several Parkland doctors by Arlen Specter,
in an attempt to get the answer he was looking for (in a court of law,
it would undoubtedly have been overruled by the judge). I would have
much more faith in Dr. Carrico if he had answered my questions when I
wrote to him, or possibly have phoned me back (I provided my number),
or maybe even invited me to visit him in Bellevue, Wash. (I did
mention to him that I had lived there for six years and that I had
graduated from the UW, and that I had been researching the
assassination seriously for several years.) Instead, I had to accept
his wife's word that he wasn't available. Clearly Dr. Carrico didn't
want to deal with another point of view, and even in the press
conference he avoided taking questions. His decision to speak out was
very much a political move, and probably impressed his future employer
and colleagues back in Dallas.
The same thing happened with Mary Woodward (see my article and her
1983 newspaper report published in Albany, NY at Ken Rahn's site), who
steadfastly stood by her original description of hearing shots coming
from above and to her right (grassy knoll or railway bridge), as
recently as the late 1980s when she appeared on TMWKK, but at a
reporters' conference in Dallas around 1991, she suddenly indicated
that she had been wrong. Who got to her?
Obviously Jean takes exception to what I have stated, as she is the
author of OSWALD'S GAME, which argues that Oswald did it, possibly
feeling he was carrying out the wishes of Fidel Castro.
I really don't see how trained doctors and nurses would mistake an
entrance wound in the throat with an exit wound. I bet I'd even
notice the difference.
- Peter
Ben Holmes
<dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
Then you should have no problem understanding how different people,
looking up to the 6th floor at different times during an approximate
10-15 minute window, could report different things.
And with that understanding, you can stop trying to assert that
Walther's statement was "contradicted by at least three other
witnesses-- Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan..."
>> If they all saw something, and described it *identically*, you could
>> even suspect a little information sharing between friends. But all of
>> these witnesses saw two people, and the time (nor closeness of the
>> people) cannot be matched to Bonnie Ray Williams - or some boxes.
>> It's really just that simple.
>
> Sorry, but it *isn't* that simple. Rowland may've seen
>Bonnie Ray Williams, Walther didn't -- her description is
>not the same at all. Rowland described a black man in
>a red and green plaid shirt who left the window several minutes before
>the motorcade arrived.
Yes, Rowland may indeed have seen Bonnie Ray Williams. The others
*didn't*.
You cannot use Bonnie Ray Williams as an explanation that several
people were seen on the 6th floor.
And although I enjoy discussing the *merits* of the various witnesses
on this point, the REAL question is why the WC dishonestly ignored
them.
>> > Look at her description again:
>> >
>> >QUOTE:
>> > >> In the same window, to the left of this man, she
>> >could see a portion of another man standing by the side of this man
>> >with a rifle. This other man was standing erect, and his head was above
>> >the opened portion of the window. As the window was very dirty, she
>> >could not see the head of this second man.... This second man was
>> >apparently wearing a brown suit coat, and the only thing she could
>> >see was the right side of the man, from about the waist to the
>> >shoulders. << [XXIV, 522]
>> >UNQUOTE
>> >
>> > Now please compare that description with the Dillard photo:
>> >
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0291a.htm
>> >
>> > Seems obvious to me what happened here.
>>
>> By completely ignoring the other witnesses, you can accept this
>> conclusion.
>
> I think you're the one ignoring them! NONE of
>them saw what Walther saw -- a "brown suit coat" to the
>left of a gunman in the SN window immediately before the
>motorcade arrived.
Keep right on fastening your objections to the specific, and ignore
that a number of witnesses reported more than one person on the 6th
floor. Then continue to ignore the fact that the WC *dishonestly*
ignored them as well.
After all, that's really the point.
>> I think it's a real stretch to ignore the other witnesses, and assume
>> that Walther's managed to visualize boxes into a person. It's not a
>> mistake normally made.
>
> Well, do you think that Edwards and Fischer
>visualized a person into boxes?? Fischer said, "There were boxes
>and cases stacked all the way from the bottom to the top and
>from the left to the right behind him...." Look at the Powell
>photo, too, which clearly shows boxes there.
Do you really believe that everyone who saw two people were looking at
one person and some boxes? If so, you simply live in another reality
than I do. To ignore that Walther's reported multiple people, and
that she was CORROBORATED on *that* point by others, was ignored by
the WC.
>> >> >> Now... back to *my* point... why did the WC feel it unnecessary to
>> >> >> re-question or take the testimony of Mrs. Walthers?
>> >> >
>> >> > How should I know what the WC "felt"? Why do no
>> >> >CT authors ever mention that Walther's account is contradicted by at
>> >> >least three other witnesses-- Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan?
>> >>
>> >> It doesn't matter how many people contradicted the statement...
>> >
>> > It doesn't?!
>>
>> Of course not. Because they don't contradict the statement in the
>> first place.
>
> Excuse me, but if one person says "coat" and two others
>say "boxes," that's not a contradiction???
Once again (and trust me, this is starting to get boring), unless you
can demonstrate that the witnesses had the *same* view, and that they
were all looking at the *same time*, what they saw CANNOT BE IN
CONTRADICTION.
If I'm looking at the street right now, and I describe a red VW bug
doing 40mph, the fact that you step up and say "I was watching that
same street, within the same 10 minute timeframe, and *I* saw a blue
skateboard doing 10mph" doesn't contradict my statement WHATSOEVER.
And this is *no different* from what you are doing.
And it *still* fails to address why the WC ignored them...
>> And as I continued, a perception that statements were in
>> conflict with each other DOESN'T EXCUSE THE NON-COLLECTION OF THAT
>> TESTIMONY.
>
> Obligatory condemnation of the Warren Commission noted.
If the truth is a condemnation, then that's simply a fact.
If you walked around, and told people that a months-long investigation
by the finest the government could put together - completely ignored a
number of people who'd SEEN the alleged assassin within an hour or
less of the assassination - you'd be thought daffy - unless they were
familiar with the facts - which are EXACTLY that.
There *IS* no excuse for ignoring testimony that was inconvenient.
>> Are you now going to argue that Brennan's testimony is wrong because
>> Edwards and Fischer didn't see a rifle?
>
> Of course not, because there's no conflict there. Edwards/Fischer
>looked away when the motorcade arrived and didn't look back.
>Brennan didn't see the rifle until after the shooting started.
You see this easily enough. Makes me wonder why you cannot understand
why witnesses who saw one person on the 6th floor, and witnesses who
saw two people on the 6th floor - aren't contradictory.
>> Are you going to argue that Norman Williams and Jarman weren't on the
>> fifth floor because Edwards and Fischer didn't see them?
>
> Since there are photos showing the guys on the 5th
>floor, I don't care whether E & F saw them or not ...., but are you
>sure they didn't? But I see no conflict here, either.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ever take a look at the south side of the Texas
School Book Depository Building? That would be facing--you would be
looking at the south side of the building?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you ever look at that at all?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Before the motorcade came by?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. What did you see?
Mr. EDWARDS. Nothing of importance except maybe one individual who was
up there in the corner room of the sixth floor which was crowded in
among boxes.
Mr. BELIN. You say on the sixth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.
...
Mr. BELIN. Did you see any other people on the sixth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS. No.
Mr. BELIN. Did you notice whether or not there were any, or just did
you look and see any?
Mr. EDWARDS. I notice that there---I just didn't see any.
Mr. BELIN. What about the next floor above? Did you see any people on
the floor above?
Mr. EDWARDS. No.
Mr. BELIN. What about on any floors below? See any people on the
fifth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS. No.
Mr. BELIN. Fourth floor?
Mr. EDWARDS. No.
Mr. BELIN. Third floor?
Mr. EDWARDS. Possibly.
Mr. BELIN. Second floor?
Mr. EDWARDS. I believe so.
Mr. BELIN. First floor?
Mr. EDWARDS. I don't know.
You say you see no conflict. But you assert that the testimony of
this person seeing only one person on the 6th floor is in conflict
with those who saw two people. You apparently make some distinction
that I'm unaware of.
This, of course, is but one example of many...
I'd rather that you withdraw the criticism because you see the point
being made here.
>> > These two ladies' statements can be found here:
>> >
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0270b.htm
>> >
>> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0271a.htm
>> >
>> >>
>> >> And, as I've pointed out before, her testimony was NOT contradicted by
>> >> anyone - far from it, she actually has others who's statements support
>> >> hers in both multiple persons, and more shots.
>> >
>> > Her testimony certainly WAS contradicted by others--
>> >e.g., Fischer and Edwards, who were looking at a man
>> >in this window at the same time she was.
>>
>> There is no way on God's green Earth that you can assert that *any* of
>> the witnesses to the two men on the 6th floor were looking even during
>> the same one minute period, let alone at the same time. It would take
>> no more than 5 seconds to casually saunter away from the window - and
>> the view of anyone 6 stories below.
>
> If you can't tell from their statements that these
>witnesses said they were looking at the window almost *immediately*
>before the motorcade arrived, then ... maybe you should read it again?
>Maybe Brown Coat Man flitted in and out of view, is that it? Did
>the boxes also move, or can you suggest some other reason
>why Walther didn't see any? Did BCM leave as soon as the shooting
>started, or is there some other reason why Brennan and Euins didn't
>notice him up there?
Your same point can be made of the men on the 5th floor. Edwards, for
one, didn't report seeing them.
Your argument is being made selectively, and you aren't willing to
apply it across the board.
>> >They saw *nothing* in his hands.
>> >Walther claimed that he was "leaning out the window
>> >with both his hands extended outside the window ledge"
>> >and that in his hands was a strange-looking rifle. NOBODY
>> >ELSE saw this.
>>
>> Nobody else reported what Brennan reported either... shall we throw
>> his testimony out?
>
> You don't think it's odd that Fischer and Edwards
>didn't see this weapon sticking out of the window?
No... do YOU think it's odd that they somehow missed seeing anyone on
the 5th floor?
>Don't you think it's odd that a sniper would show his weapon before the
>motorcade got there?
If I were an assassin, I'd certainly try hiding my weapon until the
last moment. But I'm not the assassin. It's quite clear that
everyone who saw the assassin thought he was Secret Service. Whether
he counted on that or not, I have no idea.
But it really doesn't matter, one way or another... we have
eyewitnesses who said the assassin *did* show his weapon before the
motorcade got there.
>> And with a total of four people, and reportedly more than that, who'd
>> seen two people on the 6th floor between 12:20 and 12:30, you're going
>> to have to concede the possibility.
>
> They didn't all describe the same two people!
They for the most part agree that one person was white, and one person
was either Black, or Hispanic. You can twist this eyewitness
testimony all you wish, but they *do* corroborate each other.
>And not all said "6th floor" -- Henderson, e.g., didn't.
Henderson was specific that one of them was white. Which white man
was on the 5th floor?
>> >> Instead of taking this testimony, and *explaining* it in reference to
>> >> other testimony, the WC quite obviously decided to avoid the situation
>> >> altogether. How many others have simply been lost to history?
>> >
>> > The WC published Walther's statement, and if they'd
>> >called her, what difference do you think it would make?
>>
>> One single witness, perhaps none. But the attitude of getting the
>> testimony of all eyewitnesses - several, for example, who were the
>> closest to the scene never had their testimony taken, would have
>> drastically changed the results.
>
> Really?? How? Whose testimony would've caused what
>change, exactly?
Obviously none at all, the way *you* are treating the eyewitnesses.
You've decided that there was no-one else on the 6th floor. There
were, contrary to yours and the WC's position, several witnesses who
reported more than one person on the 6th floor. The WC ignored them.
You are apparently doing the same thing.
>> I've said it many times, and I'll keep harping on it, you CANNOT
>> accept the WC conclusions if you don't discount the majority of the
>> witnesses. Or at least parts of the testimony and statements of
>> virtually any witness.
>
> The majority of witnesses? No. But *you* cannot
>argue for a conspiracy or for an Oswald-was-innocent conclusion
>without discounting the testimony of many, many witnesses.
Wrong.
>Do you reject Brennan's ID, for instance?
Do you reject witnesses who saw someone in the 6th floor two minutes
after the assassination?
Do you reject the eyewitness who saw LHO in the lunchroom around
12:15?
Brennan's ID was simply not persuasive enough - even the WC refused to
rely on it. Are you asking me to do something that the WC wouldn't
do? And in any case, his description wasn't far from what others
saw... I just don't believe it was LHO.
>If you think Oswald didn't kill Tippit (don't know if you do or not),
I don't know, but I think the evidence is against it.
>you have to reject the testimony of 10 or 11 people who
>ID-ed LHO as the fleeing gunman.
If you are not already familiar with the difficulties of those id's,
you should re-examine them.
>Do you "discount" the testimony, too, of all the witnesses who
>said there were only three shots and those who said they all
>came from the TSBD?
No more than you discount the number of people who indicated that
there had been 4 or 5 shots, and that thought at least some of them
had come from the GK.
Or discount the medical evidence of an entry wound in the throat...
Or discount physics in the head snap.
>> >As for witnesses "lost to history," nice speculation.
>>
>> Not speculation at all. If someone's testimony wasn't taken that
>> first 6 months, are you going to accept their statements from 30 years
>> later?
>
> Well, the CT side certainly accepts statements from 30
>years later, but I'd take 'em with a big grain of salt. If the CT
>side can't make do with the millions of pages of documents and
>testimony that we *do* have, and instead complain that the really good stuff
>was "lost," I think that speaks to the weakness of the CT case,
LOL!! So weak that the government has now issued an official stance
of CT... So weak that polls put right around 90% in the CT camp.
If the CT side had the weaknesses of the LN, I'd stop discussing it!
>frankly. Since we can't go back in time and change things,
>complaining about who the WC didn't call is "spilt milk."
>What good does it do to lambaste the WC after all this time?
Because it's quite clear that they did a sloppy job.
And there's many people who don't understand that. It's important to
be honest about history.
>> And if you cannot name eyewitnesses who's testimony was *never* taken,
>> then you can't be very familiar with this case.
>
> Tell me someone you have in mind and tell me what
>he/she could've *possibly* said that could've changed anything.
Are you saying that you are unfamiliar with the witnesses who had
important statements and yet never testified???
Why not just start with all the closest witnesses...
How many "two people" do you believe were in the 6th floor? 2? 4?
6? 8?
And why did the WC ignore this testimony?
Which one was white?
>She mentioned
>that they were standing back from the window, thus possibly
>in shadow. The reason I suggest this as an explanation is
>that we DO know for certain that there WERE three men
>on the fifth floor at that time, and Henderson wasn't sure of
>the floor and wasn't certain of their race. (See CE2089)
>
>>
>> Nor does Ruby Henderson state that "neither of them wearing a brown
>> sut coat". She doesn't mention it at all. Does this mean, by your
>> reasoning, that the two men were naked?
>
> No, she said one was "in a white shirt"
Yep... matches Brennan's testimony, as I recall.
> and the
>other in a "dark shirt." In the Dillard photo, one shirt
>appears to be lighter than the other. Again, she could've
>been talking about these guys.
Which one did you decide was white?
>> Trying to claim that Ruby's statements cannot corroborate other
>> reports of two men on the 6th floor because she didn't describe their
>> clothing is just silly. Jean - you're *really* stretching here.
>
> But she did describe their clothing.
"Ruby Henderson described two men "on one of the upper floors,"
neither of them wearing a "brown suit coat,"
>> >> Then there was John Powell... he described how he and his cellmates
>> >> watched two men with a gun... "He claims he could see them so clearly
>> >> that he even recalls them 'fooling with the scope' on the gun." You
>> >> can read his account in "Conspiracy" by Anthony Summers, pages 74-75.
>> >
>> > I'm not as familiar with Powell, but I take it
>> >that he too failed to mention the "brown suit coat" in
>> >the left side of the SN window. And no other witness
>> >you've named said anything about two men "fooling
>> >with the scope."
>>
>> I'm sure that even you realize how silly this line of argument is, and
>> to tell the truth, it really shows how weak it is. Why not just admit
>> that you don't trust eyewitness accounts?
>
> Why do you accept as fact eyewitness accounts that
>are conflicting?
So you admit that there was nobody on the 5th floor? The witnesses
that YOU named didn't see them. Why do you accept that there were
three people on the 5th floor?? There IS conflicting eyewitness
accounts.
>What color shirt was Brown Coat Man
>wearing, Ben, and how many witnesses said so?
Why did the WC exclude this testimony?
> I did a web search on Powell and found that all is
>not as rosy as we might think. Apparently the FBI did
>look into his claim and reported that he couldn't have seen
>what he claimed to have seen from his location in the jail.
>I say "apparently" because I haven't actually seen the FBI
>report myself, but I'd at least put Mr. Powell in the unverified
>column.
On the word of the FBI? You're kidding, right?
Then it's rather amazing that he managed to describe the same two
races that others described.
Or will you claim that information was widely available?
>> According to the WC scenario, LHO HAD TO HAVE BEEN "FOOLING WITH THE
>> SCOPE"!!! He had to put the rifle back together. (See WCR pg
>> 130-131).
>>
>> So the fact that someone witnessed it cannot be considered unusual.
No comment?
>> >> Interestingly, Rowland, Henderson, and Powell all *agree* that one man
>> >> was white, and one was darker complexioned... either Mexican or Black.
>>
>> Absolutely powerful corroboration, and you really need to explain
>> this.
>
> Please quote for me where Henderson said one man
>was white -- I can't find that.
If one man had a darker complexion than the other, and she believed
that the darker complexioned man might have been a Mexican, I'll let
YOU tell me what race has a lighter complexion than a Mexican.
>The report I read has her saying
>that she "couldn't describe the other person other than the fact
>he was taller than" the first one. Applying my handy Occham's
>razor (snip, snip), I suggest that Henderson saw two of the 5th
>floor guys,
Which one had a lighter complexion than a Mexican?
>Rowland may've seen Oswald and Williams, Powell
>was.... possibly putting the interviewer on. And then there's
>Walther. Boxes, I say.
LOL!! It must *really* hurt to admit more than one person on the 6th
floor.
Why was all these things ignored by the WC?
Why was testimony not taken?
Why were questions not asked?
Can you name ANY murder in which eyewitnesses to the murderer within
10 minutes of the murder were IGNORED by the investigation???
>> >> Now... I've listed three witnesses who support Walther's story, and
>> >> contrary to your assertion, testimony of seeing only one man is NOT
>> >> contradictory.
>> >
>> > None of them corroborates her story.
>>
>> They ALL describe two people on the 6th floor.
>>
>> >> The question STILL remains... why didn't the WC ask the FBI to
>> >> re-question Walthers? Or ask for her testimony?
>>
>> And this question still remains.
>
> The question will always remain, unless you want to
>find out from some WC staffer. I will *guess* that the
>WC concluded, as the FBI apparently did, that Walther
>mistook a stack of boxes for a coat.
You can't seem to get it into your head that multiple people saw two
people, one white and wearing a white or light colored shirt, and the
other person either Hispanic or Black. They are *mutually*
corroborative, regardless of what you believe.
>It wouldn't have mattered if they *had* called her, Ben, because there
>was no other witness who saw the same thing.
By your standards... but using YOUR standards, there was no-one on the
5th floor, either.
>By the time the FBI heard her story, what were they supposed to do with it,
>if they believed her, which they apparently did not? Should they have
>put out an APB for "unknown male, or possibly even
>a female, wearing brown coat, no other description available"?
Since the FBI didn't conduct any investigation that did not focus on
LHO as the Lone assassin, your question is moot. It *is*, however,
that very point that I'm raising... that the FBI did NOT do an honest
investigation, nor did the WC ask for testimony they should have asked
for.
It doesn't seem to strike you as unusual that eyewitnesses to the
assassin within minutes of the murder WERE IGNORED!!!
>> But actually, it's clear that even the following day, 11/23, the FBI
>> was actively directing the investigation towards the conclusions they
>> wanted...
>
> Or reaching obvious conclusions....
OJ Simpson was as obvious as they come... how many days before they
arrested OJ??
There's testimony that the FBI was ACTIVELY shutting down
investigations in directions that they did not want to go ... and put
any spin you want to it, that was dishonest, and criminal.
>> Mr. Specter. Did you tell the police officials at the time you made
>> this statement that there was a Negro gentleman in the window on the
>> southwest corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building which
>> you have marked with a circle "A"--pardon me, southeast?
>> Mr. Rowland. At that time, no. However, the next day on Saturday there
>> were a pair of FBI officers, agents out at my home, and they took
>> another handwritten statement from me which I signed again, and this
>> was basically the same. At that time I told them I did see the Negro
>> man there and they told me it didn't have any bearing or such on the
>> case right then. In fact, they just the same as told me to forget it
>> now.
>
> Several points to be made: Rowland said that the black man
>left the SN window minutes before the motorcade arrived.
>AND, the FBI likely knew by then that Williams had reported
>being on the 6th floor until a few minutes before the motorcade.
>AND, witnesses reported that the gunman was white, not black.
>Therefore, "it didn't have any bearing right then."
Williams first spoke to the FBI on the 11/23. Rowland, as I recall,
was ALSO discussing an interview on 11/23. So, no, your scenario that
the FBI was already aware that Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th
floor is simply not true.
And it amazes me how you can dismiss the sloppy investigation that the
FBI was demonstrating.
They had NO IDEA on the 23rd (other than their *preconceptions* coming
from on high) that only one person was involved.
>> So how many witnesses that we now don't know about had things to say
>> about two men on the 6th floor?
>
> Ah, the witnesses that might've been! How about
>the witnesses that might've been able to ID Oswald as the
>sniper, but didn't want to "get involved"? Not much point
>in such speculation, is there?
Only to point out that the investigation was so sloppy that the only
reason we know many things about the assassination is the many
researchers who started doing personal investigations.
From the time the ambulance left until the assassination. Several of
the witnesses tied their observations to the ambulance.
>> In fact, judging *only* by the witnesses who were *outside* the
>> building, there could easily have been 50 people on the 6th floor.
>> Can you tell me the number of people on the 5th floor by Robert Hill
>> Jackson's testimony? He only cites two! Brennan *also* saw only two.
>> Are you now going to deny the WC finding that Norman, Williams, and
>> Jarmon were on the fifth floor on the basis that Mr. Jackson only saw
>> two of them?
>
> Of course not. It's not the same thing at all.
Problem is, that it IS the same thing.
You're denying that there were two people on the 6th floor based on
eyewitnesses such as Edwards. But Edwards *also* reported NOBODY on
the 5th floor.
His testimony is accurate on the 6th floor, and suddenly doesn't mean
anything on the 5th floor.
I don't think reality works that way.
> Yes,
>there may've been 50 people out of sight up there, but if
>only *one* witness claimed to see 50 people and others
>looking at the same time *didn't* see 50 people, why should I
>believe, based on that one witness, that there were 50 people?
You'd have to wonder what that one person saw.
But such is not the case here. We have multiple, CORROBORATING
eyewitnesses.
That were dishonestly ignored by the WC.
>> Using your apparent logic, you'd have to.
>
> Using your apparent logic, I'd have to believe
>the "second man" wore different clothes for different
>witnesses and disappeared when the shooting started.
You're use of eyewitness testimony is interestingly selective.
>> Fischer and Edwards saw no rifle, shall we refuse to take Brennan's
>> testimony because it has been contradicted by others?
>>
> Answered above.
Not really. You insist that Walther's testimony is contradicted by
Edwards, Fischer, and Brennan.
Using your same standards, you're going to have to admit that Brennan
was mistaken about the rifle, since Fischer and Edwards didn't see it.
>> >>It's easy to explain
>> >> someone sighting just one person when there were two, it's not quite
>> >> so easy to explain a two person sighting when there was only one.
>> >
>> > Of course there is -- she didn't see any boxes, instead
>> >she saw a "brown coat."
>>
>> Once again, this is a vague possibility if you only had Walther's
>> statement, but you ALSO have three others offering evidence of two
>> people on the 6th floor. It strains to the breaking point that all of
>> these witnesses thought a brown box was a person in a brown suit.
>
> What?!! Ben, *nobody* else described seeing a person
>in a brown suit in the SN window, so why are you saying "all of
>these witnesses"???
Because they all saw two people. You believe that Walther saw one
person and a box. Then if this is true, the OTHERS had to have been
making the same mistake.
I commented that it strains to the breaking point that all of them
were having the same hallucination.
>> >> Bonnie Ray Williams is simply not the answer, as he specifically
>> >> stated that the time he came back to the 6th floor to eat his lunch,
>> >> he *saw nobody*. His earliest statements - if transcribed accurately,
>> >> would have had him down on the 5th floor by the time the ambulance
>> >> came around, which was when several people saw the two on the 6th
>> >> floor. No matter *how* you judge the evidence, Williams was gone when
>> >> the ambulance came around... (which according to Brennan was *after*
>> >> 12:18) And several of the sightings came *after* the ambulance left.
>> >
>> > Right, I didn't mean to imply that Walther saw Williams --
>> >Williams wasn't wearing a suit coat, and the time was wrong, as
>> >you say. I was thinking of Rowlands there. Sorry I wasn't clear.
>> > Jean
>>
>> The only sighting that could be explained on the basis of Bonnie Ray
>> Williams known movements would be Rowland's. I'd agree that it's a
>> possibility.
>
> Good! Now, if Rowland saw Williams, he did NOT
>see the same "person" Walther saw, did he? Because Williams
>wasn't wearing a brown coat and he wasn't on the 6th floor
>immediately before the motorcade arrived. Do you agree
>then that if Rowland saw Williams, he doesn't corroborate
>Walther's account?
Are you working on your Specter imitation? He liked leading questions
like that also. See his question regarding the neck wound to any of
the Parkland doctors. You'll be able to recognize it easily - it's a
paragraph long.
>>However, Bonnie Ray Williams was 20 years old, and the
>> man that Rowland saw he described as being around 50-60 years old.
>> Either Rowland didn't get anywhere near as good a look as he thought,
>> or Bonnie Ray Williams is a -real- longshot as a solution.
>
> Well, it's been said that witnesses of one race have
>trouble judging the age of people of a different race -- maybe
>that's a factor. Jean
>
It doesn't bother you the stretches you have to make to get around the
simple fact that multiple people saw two people on the 6th floor
within 10 minutes of the assassination?
I don't think that ANYONE has problems differentiating between a 20
year old and a 50-60 year old REGARDLESS of the race.
Anthony Marsh
>>> I "determined" that Walther, Fischer and Edwards were
>>> looking at the SN window at the same time,
You said that it was the same time. In order to invalidate her claim
you'd have
to prove that your witnesses were looking up at exactly the same time.
And from the same angle. She was on the east side of Houston Street
farther north. Your witnesses were on the west side of Houston Street.
From her angle she could see someone standing between the windows
whereas that man would be block from the view of your witnesses by the
wall.
> > 10 seconds before the motorcade came to the corner is plenty of time
> > for different witnesses to look up at different seconds and see different
> > things.
>
> Sure, Brown Coat Man was there one second and...
> whoosh! ... gone the next.
>
No one said that. It is possible that someone can see a person from
one angle that someone from a different angle can not see. Remember
that there was a wall.
> >
> > > The crucial point is that Walther saw a "brown coat" in the
> > > left side of the window where other witnesses saw a stack
> > > of brown boxes... AND, unlike the others, she insisted that she saw
> > > NO boxes in the building. If the "man" was standing in *front*
> > > of the boxes, why didn't the other witnesses see him there?
> > >
> >
> > Why didn't all the witnesses see the rifle sticking out of the window
> > as a couple of witnesses did? Because different witnesses see
> > different things at different times. Have you analyzed her position to determine whether
> > she would have seen the boxes from her vantage point or if she might see a
> > person standing in front of the boxes as distinct from the boxes?
>
> Her position was similar to Powell's I believe.
> Have you analyzed it yourself? So, do you think
> there was a second man in the SN wearing a brown suit
> coat, Tony? Really?
>
Her position was similar to Powell's? That's nice. But you have
offered no proof
that she was looking up at exactly the same time as someone else with
the same angle of view. And her statement indicates that she looked up
much earlier than
those witnesses you want to cite.
I can believe that she saw something without having to believe
everything she said. No, I don't believe the second man was wearing a
brown suit coat. Just as I believe that Brennan saw the shooter, but
he did not see the man from the waist up because he was standing up.
Walther said that she looked up shortly after the ambulance left.
Your witness refers to 10 or 15 seconds before the motorcade arrived.
Are you trying to claim that those two time frames are exactly the
same?
I think we have photographic evidence which shows that there was no
ambulance in Dealey Plaza for at least one minute before the motorcade
arrived.
And here you are saying that Walther looked up at the same time as
guys who say
that they looked up about 10 seconds before the motorcade arrived.
> QUOTE:
> Mr. FISCHER. .... about 10 or 15 seconds before the first car came around that
> corner, Bob punched me and said, "Look at that guy there in that window." And he made
> some remark---said, "He looks like he's uncomfortable"--or something.
> And I looked up and I watched the man for, oh, I'd say, 10 or 15 seconds. It was
> until the first car came around the corner of Houston and Main. And, then, when that
> car did come around the corner, I took my attention off of the man in the window and
> started watching the parade. The man held my attention for 10 or 15 seconds....
> UNQUOTE
>
> >
> > > the Powell photo, I believe (TKOAP, p. 207) -- you can see a whole
> > > lotta boxes, uh, "brown coats," in that picture.
> > >
> > > 'Course, if you still want to believe there was a man standing
> > > there that only Walther could see, it's okey dokey with
> > > me, Tony. Jean
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, I didn't say that. You are putting words in my mouth again.
>
> See that little word "if"?
>
> >All I am saying is that witness testimony must be carefully analyzed.
>
> Exactly. I agree 100%.
>
> >And yes it is quite possible that one witness can see something that no one else
> >noticed. Don't you claim that Brennan is the ONLY witness who saw the
> > assassin's face?
>
> Speaking of putting words in someone's mouth... no.
> Fischer and Edwards saw his face, possibly some others did.
>
I missed that part where Fischer and Edwards identified the man as
Oswald for the DPD. Can you quote that again for me?
GMcNally
Marsh wrote: "I can believe that she [Walthers] saw something without
having to believe everything she said. No, I don't believe the second
man was wearing a
brown suit coat. Just as I believe that Brennan saw the shooter, but
he did not see the man from the waist up because he was standing up."
All she saw was a vertical patch of brown - she took that to be a suit
coat and assumed a man was in the coat.
But she saw only the patch of brown and no head/face, no hands, no
nothing.
But what she didn't see are boxes - and indeed in the very location
she indicated there was a vertical stack of brown boxes.
She very obviously saw this stack of boxes and "interpreted" the patch
of brown incorrectly.
What sense would it make for a second man to be standing in the
cramped sniper's nest? What is he supposed to be doing?
And how does he get out of the building?
And how does he avoid leaving fingerprints behind - as Oswald did?
Jerry
Joe Zircon
<Massive snip>
>
> >> Bonnie Ray Williams is simply not the answer, as he specifically
> >> stated that the time he came back to the 6th floor to eat his lunch,
> >> he *saw nobody*. His earliest statements - if transcribed accurately,
> >> would have had him down on the 5th floor by the time the ambulance
> >> came around, which was when several people saw the two on the 6th
> >> floor. No matter *how* you judge the evidence, Williams was gone when
> >> the ambulance came around... (which according to Brennan was *after*
> >> 12:18) And several of the sightings came *after* the ambulance left.
> >
> > Right, I didn't mean to imply that Walther saw Williams --
> >Williams wasn't wearing a suit coat, and the time was wrong, as
> >you say. I was thinking of Rowlands there. Sorry I wasn't clear.
> > Jean
>
> The only sighting that could be explained on the basis of Bonnie Ray
> Williams known movements would be Rowland's. I'd agree that it's a
> man that Rowland saw he described as being around 50-60 years old.
> Either Rowland didn't get anywhere near as good a look as he thought,
> or Bonnie Ray Williams is a -real- longshot as a solution.
Bonnie Ray Williams is the only one that makes any sense.
Rowland saw a black guy up there from about 12:15 to 12:24 or
thereabouts.
-- quote --
Mr. Specter. At about what time was it that you observed someone
hanging out of the window that you have marked as window "A"?
Mr. Rowland. Again about 12:15 just before I noticed the other man.
Mr. Specter. You have marked the double window there. Would you draw
the arrow in the red pencil indicating specifically which window it
was.
(Witness marking.)
Mr. Specter. Will you describe with as much particularity as you can
what that man looked like?
Mr. Rowland. It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I
didn't pay very much attention to him.
. . .
Mr. Specter. So that you observed this colored man on the window you
have marked "A" within 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade
passed in front of you?
Mr. Rowland. Approximately 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade
came, he wasn't there. About 30 seconds or a minute prior to that time
he was there.
-- unquote --
Williams said he was up there sometime after noon to eat his lunch and
was up there "...5, 10, maybe 12 minutes". Those estimates average 9
minutes. Note that Rowland's time span - from 12:15 to 12:24 is 10
minutes, tops.
Rowland's black guy was up there doing nothing special. Just at a
window, looking out a window - exactly as Williams described (Williams
said he was eating his lunch).
If you claim that Rowland saw somebody else 50-60 years old at the
same time Williams was up there, then you have to explain why Williams
didn't notice this other black guy. Or why Rowland didn't see two
different black men up there.
If you claim that Rowland saw somebody else 50-60 years old after
Williams left, then you have to explain why this other guy did
basically the same thing Williams did. Go to a window and just sit
there for about 10 minutes.
Quite simply, the more people you put up there, the more complex this
gets because they'd be tripping over each other, and the witnesses
like Rowland should have seen more than two men up there.
Rowland saw Williams.
Anything else is beyond remote.
<snip>
Joe Zircon
> Sorry for the delay.
>
> "Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> news:onrlju4a9c5cb3gi2...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 21 Jul 2002 01:09:21 -0400, "Jean Davison"
> > <dav...@removethisglobalnetisp.net> wrote:
> >
> > >"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
> > >news:5anejusn0vgeqoc1v...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>
> > >>It's easy to explain
> > >> someone sighting just one person when there were two, it's not quite
> > >> so easy to explain a two person sighting when there was only one.
> > >
> > > Of course there is -- she didn't see any boxes, instead
> > >she saw a "brown coat."
> >
> > Once again, this is a vague possibility if you only had Walther's
> > statement, but you ALSO have three others offering evidence of two
> > people on the 6th floor. It strains to the breaking point that all of
> > these witnesses thought a brown box was a person in a brown suit.
>
> What?!! Ben, *nobody* else described seeing a person
> in a brown suit in the SN window, so why are you saying "all of
> these witnesses"???
I think Ben meant to say is it strains one far less to believe one
witness mistook some brown boxes for a guy in a brown coat than to
believe that the other witnesses who described one guy and some brown
boxes all mistook the second guy for some boxes.
Perhaps Ben can clarify what he meant here.
And Rowland was a good 50 yards away from this guy, I'd venture.
Peter R. Whitmey
>>After checking the copies of my three letters to Dr. Carrico, I should
correct the date of the press conference, which was not on the heels of
the movie "JFK" but on the 25th anniversary of the assassination. I
subsequently wrote to Dr. Carrico twice in 1989 and again in early 1990.
I also phoned him several times in 1989 but he was "out of town" according
to his wife. See my comments in another posting in regard to his 1988
press conference. - Peter
Ben Holmes
Actually, I thought I was fairly clear. But, for what it's worth,
you've caught my meaning exactly.
And Brennan was how far from the the 6th floor?
Ben Holmes
Only if you are willing to call him a liar.
*HE* says he saw no-one else on the 6th floor.
Rowland is the only witness that placed enough distance between them
so that the person Rowland saw could *conceivably* be Williams - even
though the descriptions don't match.
The other witnesses however, put the two men together.
You must either accept that Williams lied about seeing LHO, or that
all the other witnesses lied about seeing the two men together. Take
your pick.
Then explain why the other witnesses were not called to testify in
front of the WC.
>Rowland saw a black guy up there from about 12:15 to 12:24 or
>thereabouts.
>
>-- quote --
>Mr. Specter. At about what time was it that you observed someone
>hanging out of the window that you have marked as window "A"?
>Mr. Rowland. Again about 12:15 just before I noticed the other man.
>Mr. Specter. You have marked the double window there. Would you draw
>the arrow in the red pencil indicating specifically which window it
>was.
>(Witness marking.)
>Mr. Specter. Will you describe with as much particularity as you can
>what that man looked like?
>Mr. Rowland. It seemed to me an elderly Negro, that is about all. I
>didn't pay very much attention to him.
>. . .
>Mr. Specter. So that you observed this colored man on the window you
>have marked "A" within 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade
>passed in front of you?
>Mr. Rowland. Approximately 5 minutes prior to the time the motorcade
>came, he wasn't there. About 30 seconds or a minute prior to that time
>he was there.
What!!! I thought you just assured me that "Rowland saw a black guy
up there from about 12:15 to 12:24 or thereabouts"???
Are you going to tell me that motorcade came at 12:25???
Or did you just not bother to read the testimony you just cited?
>-- unquote --
>
>Williams said he was up there sometime after noon to eat his lunch and
>was up there "...5, 10, maybe 12 minutes". Those estimates average 9
>minutes. Note that Rowland's time span - from 12:15 to 12:24 is 10
>minutes, tops.
>
>Rowland's black guy was up there doing nothing special. Just at a
>window, looking out a window - exactly as Williams described (Williams
>said he was eating his lunch).
Please cite the witness testimony that described people in the windows
of the TBSD, regardless of floor level, *doing* something. (IOW's,
opposite of "doing nothing special")
There *is* one... I already cited it earlier in this thread. You'll
be unable to use it, however.
>If you claim that Rowland saw somebody else 50-60 years old at the
>same time Williams was up there, then you have to explain why Williams
>didn't notice this other black guy. Or why Rowland didn't see two
>different black men up there.
Nope... you're assuming what you need to prove. You're *assuming*
that the black man Rowland saw was Williams. How are you going to get
around the testimony that Rowland described a much older man, and one
who was there up to a minute before the assassination?
>If you claim that Rowland saw somebody else 50-60 years old after
>Williams left, then you have to explain why this other guy did
>basically the same thing Williams did. Go to a window and just sit
>there for about 10 minutes.
*I* claim? Sorry, I wasn't there. It's *Rowland's* testimony.
Before you can begin using the criteria "doing nothing", you're going
to have to show that all the others were "doing something".
And I *really* don't have to explain why someone on the 6th floor was
doing anything at all. *I* have multiple corroborative eyewitnesses.
You're going to have to explain why *all* of them described two people
on the 6th floor.
Then - you're going to have to explain why the WC ignored these
statements.
>Quite simply, the more people you put up there, the more complex this
>gets because they'd be tripping over each other, and the witnesses
>like Rowland should have seen more than two men up there.
Why? Nobody saw *more* than two people on the 6th floor.
You're going to have to explain why multiple people *did*, and at a
time frame that makes Williams almost impossible, and several people
put the two people *together* - which is impossible with Williams -
unless you're going to call him a liar. *He* says he saw no-one on
the 6th floor.
>Rowland saw Williams.
>
>Anything else is beyond remote.
Why do you think Bonnie Ray Williams lied about seeing LHO on the 6th
floor? According to your scenario - if you accept the witness
statements, Williams was on the 6th floor up to a minute before the
assassination, and he was *right there* with LHO. To try to avoid
admitting that there was someone unknown on the 6th floor, you've
virtually proved that Bonnie Ray Williams was a conspirator. Or do
you think that LHO put the rifle together in the last 30 seconds?
><snip>
Ben Holmes
>ama...@quik.com (Anthony Marsh)
>
>Marsh wrote: "I can believe that she [Walthers] saw something without
>having to believe everything she said. No, I don't believe the second
>man was wearing a
>brown suit coat. Just as I believe that Brennan saw the shooter, but
>he did not see the man from the waist up because he was standing up."
>
>All she saw was a vertical patch of brown - she took that to be a suit
>coat and assumed a man was in the coat.
>
>But she saw only the patch of brown and no head/face, no hands, no
>nothing.
>
>But what she didn't see are boxes - and indeed in the very location
>she indicated there was a vertical stack of brown boxes.
>
>She very obviously saw this stack of boxes and "interpreted" the patch
>of brown incorrectly.
As I've previously pointed out, while it's *possible* that one witness
can confuse some boxes with a person - (I don't believe it, I just
recognize that it's within the realm of possibility) - you are going
to have a REALLY hard time trying to convince everyone that Rowland,
Henderson, and Powell ALSO confused some boxes with a person.
And then explain why the WC felt it unnecessary to re-question or have
testimony from 3 people who saw the alleged assassin within minutes of
the assassination. That is, after all, the point of my assertion of
WC dishonesty.
>What sense would it make for a second man to be standing in the
>cramped sniper's nest? What is he supposed to be doing?
Worthless question.
>And how does he get out of the building?
Probably the same way the real assassin did.
>And how does he avoid leaving fingerprints behind - as Oswald did?
He didn't. There *are* unidentified prints at the scene.
>Jerry
Ben Holmes
Morissette) wrote:
<Bill Cosby Voice>
Right...
</Bill Cosby Voice>
Next time - Try changing your approach to something similar to:
>>>> LOL!! Anyone who's taken the time to read the WC testimony is already
>>>> aware of the answer to this one!
>>>
>>> I'm not referring to the notes left for his kids, but rather something
>>> written since that time.
Then you'd be far more believable.
Just my opinion, of course.
Ben Holmes
wrote:
Actually, there *is* evidence that some of the Dallas doctors were
"pressured". See:
gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us/00/SIGS/JFK/Only/VP/06-Dir/vp5%09%09%2B
Jean Davison
Error message:
0'/SIGS/JFK/Only/VP/06-Dir/vp5+' does not exist!! error.host 1
GMcNally
> On 31 Jul 2002 09:22:19 -0700, jer...@my-deja.com (GMcNally) wrote:
>
> >ama...@quik.com (Anthony Marsh)
> >
> >Marsh wrote: "I can believe that she [Walthers] saw something without
> >having to believe everything she said. No, I don't believe the second
> >man was wearing a
> >brown suit coat. Just as I believe that Brennan saw the shooter, but
> >he did not see the man from the waist up because he was standing up."
> >
> >All she saw was a vertical patch of brown - she took that to be a suit
> >coat and assumed a man was in the coat.
> >
> >But she saw only the patch of brown and no head/face, no hands, no
> >nothing.
> >
> >But what she didn't see are boxes - and indeed in the very location
> >she indicated there was a vertical stack of brown boxes.
> >
> >She very obviously saw this stack of boxes and "interpreted" the patch
> >of brown incorrectly.
Ben,
> As I've previously pointed out, while it's *possible* that one witness
> can confuse some boxes with a person - (I don't believe it, I just
> recognize that it's within the realm of possibility) - you are going
> to have a REALLY hard time trying to convince everyone that Rowland,
> Henderson, and Powell ALSO confused some boxes with a person.
Walther saw the stack of boxes to her left (not Oswald's) and thought
the patch of brown she saw was a brown jacket worn by a man - tho she
saw no hands, feet, face, head, etc. Only the patch of brown.
Rowland saw Bonnie Rae Williams - the second man on the 6th floor for
a time.
Henderson got her timing confused and saw the investigators who
arrived on the 6th floor within 15 minutes.
Powell's story was investigated and found to be non-credible.
The best witnesses - Brennen, Fisher, Edwards - saw one person in the
SN window.
The WC went with the best witnesses.
And the forensics evidence.
And the fact that intensive investigation didn't show Oswald connected
to anybody who might be a co-conspirator.
And the fact that witness testimony is frequently erroneous and
considered by professionals to be the least reliable of all evidence.
> And then explain why the WC felt it unnecessary to re-question or have
> testimony from 3 people who saw the alleged assassin within minutes of
> the assassination. That is, after all, the point of my assertion of
> WC dishonesty.
Rowland testified. Walters and the others were interviewed by the FBI
and the WC had that evidence.
They followed the evidence - and the evidence showed Oswald was alone
on the 6th floor after Williams left.
> >What sense would it make for a second man to be standing in the
> >cramped sniper's nest? What is he supposed to be doing?
>
> Worthless question.
A question you dare not touch! For there's no reason for a second
person to be there just hanging around while Oswald shoots the
president.
> >And how does he get out of the building?
>
> Probably the same way the real assassin did.
By being identified as an employee?
All the employees had alibis - except Oswald.
Answer the question - how could a second person get out of the
building without being seen or even apprehended?
And why would conspirators take this grave risk - a totally
unnecessary one?
> >And how does he avoid leaving fingerprints behind - as Oswald did?
> He didn't. There *are* unidentified prints at the scene.
Not "prints". There is one.
Ben do you know how small and confined the SN was? Indeed some CT
fanatics have argued that even one person wouldn't have enough space
to shoot JFK from there.
But you want to imagine a second person just hanging around - whether
a man in a brown jacket or an elderly Negroe man, or anybody else.
And you imagine a man or men hanging around 5-10-15 minutes after the
shooting.
Just hanging around the 6th floor.
These are all crazy notions and the WC rejected them and followed the
evidence where it led.
And the evidence led to the conclusion that there was only one person
on the 6th floor firing at JFK.
No brown jacket man.
No elderly Negroe.
Only Oswald.
Jerry
>
> >Jerry
Jean Davison
Yes, I do recall. Long time ago.
> No, I have no evidence to suggest Dr. Carrico caved in,
> but it is quite clear that many Parkland Hospital medical personnel were
> pressured to consider another possibility when they testified before
> the Warren Commission.
Learning the results of the autopsy (with a back
wound they'd missed) put anyone who'd suggested an
entrance wound in an awkward spot, all right. What were
they supposed to say after that? "Well, obviously somebody stole
the body, removed both bullets, or punched a hole in his back,
because that was *definitely* an entrance wound"?
It's a fact that FMJ military rounds can create exit
wounds that *look* like entrance wounds if they don't tumble
-- as Jaykhill says, You can lookitup.
> You'll recall the hilarious supposition in the
> form of a question posed to several Parkland doctors by Arlen Specter,
> in an attempt to get the answer he was looking for (in a court of law,
> it would undoubtedly have been overruled by the judge).
But that's not the question that elicited Carrico's
response about the throat wound. Later on, Specter asked him and
others a hypothetical question about the feasibility of a SBT in
order to get their opinions. There's nothing wrong with that, imo.
Some agreed with him, some didn't.
> I would have
> much more faith in Dr. Carrico if he had answered my questions when I
> wrote to him, or possibly have phoned me back (I provided my number),
> or maybe even invited me to visit him in Bellevue, Wash. (I did
> mention to him that I had lived there for six years and that I had
> graduated from the UW, and that I had been researching the
> assassination seriously for several years.) Instead, I had to accept
> his wife's word that he wasn't available. Clearly Dr. Carrico didn't
> want to deal with another point of view, and even in the press
> conference he avoided taking questions. His decision to speak out was
> very much a political move, and probably impressed his future employer
> and colleagues back in Dallas.
Forgive me, but how could you possibly know why Carrico
decided to "speak out," unless he stated his reason or you're a mind reader?
According to the link above, Carrico didn't like the fact that his and his colleague's
"observations and comments became fodder for assassination theorists." If
he didn't want to talk to you that was surely his right, was it not?
> The same thing happened with Mary Woodward (see my article and her
> 1983 newspaper report published in Albany, NY at Ken Rahn's site), who
> steadfastly stood by her original description of hearing shots coming
> from above and to her right (grassy knoll or railway bridge), as
> recently as the late 1980s when she appeared on TMWKK, but at a
> reporters' conference in Dallas around 1991, she suddenly indicated
> that she had been wrong. Who got to her?
How do you know *anybody* "got to her"? Jean Hill
at first said she saw no gunman on the GK, but later said she did.
Who got to *her*? Who got to Phil Willis, who gave two
different stories about where the bullets came from? Or did their
memories change over the years? I think it's the latter. People
can also *change their minds* because of things they learn later.
> Obviously Jean takes exception to what I have stated, as she is the
> author of OSWALD'S GAME, which argues that Oswald did it, possibly
> feeling he was carrying out the wishes of Fidel Castro.
I take exception because you're in effect accusing a man
who just died of being part of a coverup of JFK's death...
with no evidence for it, as you conceded.
> I really don't see how trained doctors and nurses would mistake an
> entrance wound in the throat with an exit wound. I bet I'd even
> notice the difference.
It took only a few minutes to find these two items on
the Web:
QUOTE:
A study published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association reported that "the
odds that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain
fatal gunshot wounds are no better than the flip of a coin." The
study looked at 46 cases and found there were 16 errors in
differentiating between entrance and exit wounds. See
"Clinicians' Forensic Interpretations of Fatal Gunshot Wounds
Often Miss the Mark" JAMA, 28 April, 1994, pp. 2058-2061. This is
one of the reasons why forensic pathologists conduct autopsies.
UNQUOTE
And from the site of a nursing school:
QUOTE:
Avoid the terms "entrance" or "exit" wound, this could cause
confusion later during testimony by other experts, and lawyers
for the defense love confusion. Don't theorize about the direction
of fire in the record. Direction of fire is a forensic opinion, and
clinicians untrained in that field should concentrate on recording
accurate physical findings.
UNQUOTE
Jean
> - Peter
>
Joe Zircon
Brennan was easily over twice as close to the sniper's nest window as
Rowland was to Williams.