Some of the medical witnesses who stated the back of JFK's head was gone
CLICK ON IMAGE TO ENLARGE
Sunday, July 31, 2022
Thursday, July 28, 2022
BIG BROTHER ***IS*** WATCHING
Facebook is getting super strict and strange. Thank God I don't "do" Facebook Live because I have been banned for months--!! Here is what happens (truly bizarre- read on): every time my "sentence" is just about up, Facebook dredges up an OLD AND DELETED anti-Trump meme (with no nudity or violence-!), says it goes against community standards, and I am then extended for my "sentence"! My latest 3-day sentence was strange: they stated it was going to be 2 days, then it became 3 days without warning...for posting a public Wikipedia article seen by countless people with no warning labels on it or anything! The last time I was in Facebook jail for a few days was over the July 4th shooter...for a photo of him in a suit with no label, no weapons, no hate, nothing- it could have been a photo of John Q. Citizen in that suit! Moral to the story: be very careful. I keep hearing other people being thrown in Facebook jail quite a bit. The old standards of "nudity and violence" are no-brainers, but they are now getting you for bizarre stuff.
Another "Big-Brother-is-watching" item: from roughly 1998-2013, I was THE international king of all things JFK Secret Service on Google and elsewhere---meaning, if you typed in "Clint Hill", "Gerald Blaine", other agent's names, or just "JFK Secret Service", my material (blogs, Amazon, etc.) would come up in dominating droves. THEN, in 2013, RIGHT BEFORE THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY KICKED IN (and on the eve of my first book coming out), I became radioactive: NOTHING of mine was showing on Google any longer! I went from the 15-year king to a cellar dweller overnight and it has been this way ever since, despite 1100-plus You Tube videos, countless blog postings, etc. with the "JFK Secret Service" tags, HTML, and related items in writing.
Another thing happened in 2013: Blaine's friend (the one with the military intelligence background [old story-see my books, etc.]) began harassing me online and at work resulting in multiple blogs and Amazon reviews being deleted. Also, ALL MY MANY AMAZON REVIEWS WENT AWAY and I am no longer allowed to post reviews, the reason being that I am "biased"--?!
And, as I wrote in the link below, I and several other authors were the victims of censorship RIGHT ON THE EVE of a massive best-selling book about the Secret Service (that espoused the whole blame-the-victim mantra about JFK): ZERO FAIL by Carol Leonnig! ALL FIVE OF MY BOOKS DISAPPEARED ON AMAZON AND OTHER PRO-CONSPIRACY AUTHORS WERE VICTIMS OF THIS, AS WELL! I (we) had to fight with Amazon to get the links restored...but the damage was done. By the time they were back online, the 48-hour massive hype for her book (which could have POSTIVELY affected sales of all of our books--hint hint) had passed. I monitor Amazon literally every day since 2013 (just a thing I do-I don't think I have EVER missed a day checking to see the rankings, etc. [now I check to make sure this is no more corruption]) and this was the ONLY time THIS happened.
Things that make you go "hmmmmm"...
Russ Baker - Too Secret? The Secret Service’s Long, Troubling History of Omerta
Too Secret? The Secret Service’s Long, Troubling History of Omerta
https://russbaker.substack.com/p/too-secret-the-secret-services-long?utm_source=email
Wednesday, July 27, 2022
Pat Speer: 2014 Bethesda Conference.
Pat Speer: 2014 Bethesda Conference.
(CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE)
Facts that have never been refuted and need to be ignored to push the SBT fiction.
1. The autopsy face sheet and the measurements provided in the autopsy report place the back wound at the level of the shoulder tips. This is at or slightly below the throat wound.
2. Joseph Ball and David Belin were assigned the task of placing Oswald in the sniper's nest window. Among the steps to reaching this task were that they needed to resolve that the back wound was lower than the throat wound on the autopsy face sheet.
3. In early March, Ball accompanied Arlen Specter on a visit to Dr.s Humes and Boswell. They asked the doctors to prepare drawings that could be used to demonstrate that the back wound was really above the throat wound, and not the reverse. Humes and Boswell then corralled Skip Rydberg into making these drawings. Rydberg would later insist they just told him to put the wound on the back of the neck and have the bullet exit the throat, and that no measurements--which would have proved the wound to have been on the back--were provided.
4. These drawings were then entered into the record by Arlen Specter as part of the testimony of Dr. Humes.
5. Within a few weeks, Arlen Specter started having doubts about what he had just done. He knew his career could be in jeopardy. He then began begging that Dr. Humes be allowed to verify the accuracy of these drawings.
6. Judge Earl Warren, who was in a rush to finish the report by June, and was anxious to close doors, not open them, then made the ridiculous and possibly criminal decision that Dr. Humes would not be allowed to review the photographs he'd had taken for his review. Instead, Warren himself reviewed them, and decided they were horrible and awful and that there was nothing to see. Tellingly, these photos proved the wound to have been on the back, in opposition to the drawings already entered into the record.
7. Even so, Specter and others continued to push that the single-bullet theory be tested via a re-enactment in Dallas.
8. Whether through his own efforts or that of Judge Warren, he was shown a photo of the back wound on the day of the re-enactment.
9. This location was then marked in chalk on the back of the Kennedy stand-in. After the re-enactment on the street a more precise re-enactment and measurement of angles was performed in a garage. The FBI took photos of this re-enactment. The photos taken from behind show the trajectory rod pointing back from Connally's wound to the TSBD passing inches above the chalk mark on the back of the Kennedy stand-in. None of these photos were published by the commission or entered into the record. Instead, Specter and the commission chose to publish but one photo--taken from the front--that failed to show the chalk mark on the back of the Kennedy stand-in.
10. It was around this time--after he'd been shown a photo proving the wound was on Kennedy's back--that Specter began saying it was a wound on the back of the neck.
11. The testimony on the re-enactment was also deceptive. Specter had agents say the trajectory rod approximated the location of the back wound, as opposed to entering into the record a photo showing its location. He also had them suggest the chalk mark was derived from the drawings he knew to be incorrect, and that the re-enactment demonstrated that the drawings he knew to be incorrect were accurate. He also had them say the jump seat was 6 inches inboard of the door, when the schematics proved it was actually 2 1/2 inches from the door. All these "errors" served to help sell the single-bullet theory Specter now had plenty of reasons to doubt.
12. A few years later, when the face sheet was published and people began doubting the SBT, the Johnson Administration began pushing that it was government policy that the SBT be supported. At this point the autopsy doctors were shown the photos and Dr. Boswell was co-erced or forced into providing interviews claiming this review supported the accuracy of the drawings we now know to be inaccurate. The next year was Dr. Humes' turn. He was provided a script by the government on what to say on national TV and he also claimed the photos supported the accuracy of the drawings we know to be inaccurate.
13. As a response to Tink Thompson's book and Jim Garrison's investigation, a new top secret review of the autopsy photos and x-rays was then conducted. This panel comprised three pathologists and one radiologist--all colleagues and all heavily-connected to the government. All drafts of their report were destroyed and the final draft was largely put together by a lawyer added onto the panel for undisclosed reasons. Well, this panel, of course, upheld the SBT.
14. Within a few years, moreover, private citizens were allowed to inspect the autopsy materials. The first of these, and the only one within the first year of the materials being available, was John Lattimer. Lattimer then published an article that was widely disseminated within the medical community. It pushed that the drawings we now know were inaccurate were indeed inaccurate, because the wound in the photos was much HIGHER up Kennedy's neck than shown in the photos
12. In order to sell this point, moreover, he claimed the photos proved Kennedy was in fact a hunchback, and that a bullet entering what would appear to be his back (at T-1 or below) had actually entered into a hunch of fat resting on the back of JFK's neck around C-4. (This was completely whack-a-doodle. And yet, very few if any prominent LNs have ever denounced Lattimer for this disgusting lie.)
13. It then fell upon the HSCA FPP to study the SBT. They unanimously agreed that the wound was on the back and not the back of the neck. But they'd been pressured by Blakey who'd told them Guinn's analysis of the bullet fragments (later revealed to be junk science) had confirmed the SBT. So they tried to make things fit. They then signed off on the SBT under the proviso JFK had suddenly leaned forward while behind the sign in the Zapruder film. They were not told that the dictabelt analysis and photography panel had separately concluded that JFK was hit before he went behind the sign in the film. The HSCA, under Blakey, then pretended that the FPP had signed off the SBT, when in fact they had not signed off on the HSCA's version of the SBT.
14. Since that time, numerous TV shows have presented simulations of the SBT...in which the back wound location and the relative positions of the men in the limo have been routinely misrepresented.
----------------------
The SBT has been tested ad nauseam, and the results are always the same: the wounds do not line up. Below are some screen grabs from the Discovery Channel program Beyond the Magic Bullet. They positioned simulated torsos in the presumed positions of Kennedy and Connally and fired from what is presumed to have been the angle from the depository window. And the bullet hitting the measured location of Kennedy's back wound exited from his chest and hit the Connally torso well below the armpit. This is demonstrated in the image in the upper right corner.
From patspeer.com, Chapter 12b.
In 2004, the Discovery Channel began running a new program entitled JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet. While appearing authoritative, using scientists and experts to simulate the shooting in Dealey Plaza, the program was rife with errors and/or distortions. Ultimately, it demonstrated reasons to disbelieve the magic bullet theory, but then turned around and claimed the opposite!
They simulated the shots from the sniper's nest by placing their shooter on on an elevated platform, at a distance of 180 feet, the distance they claim the HSCA claimed for the second shot. Well, there are two problems with this: one is that the HSCA claimed the shot came at around Z-190, which according to the Warren Commission’s recreation, would make it roughly 160 feet, and two is that the Dale Myers animation they used as evidence depicted the shot at Z-224, which would make it roughly 190 feet. It’s unclear where they derived their 180 foot measurement, but the Warren Commission, which failed to pick an exact moment for the shot, estimated the length of the shot to be 180 feet.
They then shot through a gelatin block simulating Kennedy's back and neck to see if the exiting bullet would leave an elongated entrance like the one they claimed was on Connally. (Following the well-worn path of Dr.s Lattimer and Baden, previously discussed, they incorrectly believed the bullet was traveling sideways upon impact with Connally). When the bullet headed straight through the gelatin with scarcely a wobble, they decided to add rope into the gelatin to better simulate the "dense sinu" of the human neck. There is a huge problem with this: Dr. Humes et al testified that the bullet striking Kennedy's neck passed between the strap muscles, and not through them. Their second try, not surprisingly, created the wound desired. They then expanded their test to include two gelatin blocks representing Connally's chest, and were similarly pleased with the results.
They then began to shoot at simulated human torsos. After shooting on some empty shells, they placed a target on a fully-simulated torso of the President at a point several inches to the right of the wound seen on the autopsy photos. They claimed this placement came after “triple-measurement.” What they failed to mention was that the autopsy measurements reflected the distance from the shoulder and from the back of the head and that their torso had no head. The HSCA and Clark Panel made estimates as to the distance from the spine, which they clearly ignored. Even so, the shooter missed this target and actually hit the torso very close to where the wound is depicted on the autopsy photos. (See Exhibit 1 on the slide above.) I’d like to think this “miss” was on purpose.
But this was just the beginning of their troubles. Since their “magic bullet,” after traversing simulated torsos of both Kennedy and Connally, failed to explode the simulated wrist to the extent Connally’s was damaged and actually bounced off the simulated thigh, they had to look for it in the surrounding brush. They found a clearly deformed bullet several yards to the right of the torsos. (See Exhibit 2 on the slide above.)
During a slow-motion replay of the shooting, moreover, the narrator stated as a matter-of-fact that the bullet “struck Kennedy in the neck.” Someone should have told the writer that that particular lie, although an all-time favorite, died with the HSCA. At this point, the direction of the program became obvious. While one of the great controversies surrounding the single-bullet theory is whether or not a bullet striking Kennedy in the back from above would exit his throat as purported, the program failed to show a close-up of the bullet's exit from the Kennedy torso. Nevertheless, the profile shot of the bullet's path made it clear the bullet exited from the Kennedy torso's chest, and not its throat. (See Exhibit 3.)
They then conducted a post-mortem to see what went wrong with their simulation. After taking the Connally torso to a doctor for a cat-scan, they concluded that the bullet struck two of Connally’s ribs instead of the one struck by the “magic bullet” and that this was why their bullet was more damaged. Still, the cat-scan revealed more than the producers of the show could possibly have desired.
The cat-scan (Exhibit 4 above) revealed that the two damaged ribs on the Connally torso were the 8th and 9th ribs, some distance below the entrance on Connally’s 5th rib. This demonstrated once again that the bullet trajectory from the sniper's nest didn't quite line-up with Kennedy's and Connally's wounds.
But this wasn't all the cat-scan revealed.
Astonishingly, (and as seen in Exhibit 5) it also revealed that the simulated ribs on the Connally torso were not even connected to the sternum! This meant that there was no bones in the front of the Connally torso to slow or damage the “magic bullet” before it struck the simulated wrist.
Since the purpose of the simulation was purportedly to see if a bullet creating Kennedy's and Connally's wounds might emerge as undamaged as the "magic" bullet, CE 399, removing bone from the purported path of the bullet was undoubtedly deceptive and dishonest.
At this point, I ran a quick replay. I went back to the beginning of the program where they created the torsos and noticed this time that the Kennedy torso had no spine, and that neither torso had shoulder blades. While these bones may have been left out because the producers believed the real “magic” bullet missed these bones, the exclusion of Connally’s front ribs, where the bullet made its exit, was inexcusable. That this was no mistake is confirmed by the statements of their wound ballistics expert. When they were preparing for their torso shoot by shooting at two gelatin blocks simulating Connally's chest, he said "The thorax is not one piece of muscle. It is a piece of muscle, some bone, then an airspace--the lung--and then another piece of tissue after that." It's almost certain he knew perfectly well that the bullet exiting Connally's chest exited through his fifth rib, and not through just "another piece of tissue".
It then became clear. Rather than testing if a bullet hitting the President in the assumed location would go on to hit Connally in his armpit, wrist and thigh, and come out largely unblemished, the program’s creators were testing if such a bullet, after missing Kennedy’s spine, which is doubtful, after exiting Kennedy’s throat, which is doubtful, and after hitting Connally’s ribs in only one place, which is doubtful, would go on to create the other wounds and appear unblemished.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, the program’s creators neglected to tell their audience the significance of that which they did discover. That the tumbling bullet in their re-enactment hit two ribs while the bullet striking Connally stuck but one suggested that the bullet striking Connally was not tumbling. This supported the statements of Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally’s doctor, who said the entrance wound was only 1.5 cm long. It was, however, in direct contradiction with all too many single-assassin theorists, including the HSCA’s Dr. Baden, who cite the fact (which is not a fact) that the bullet was tumbling as evidence that the bullet first struck Kennedy. These single-assassin theorists, and the Discovery program under their influence, repeat like a mantra that the entrance in Connally’s armpit was 3 cm, the size of a bullet traveling sideways, and ignore Shaw’s statements that the wound was but 1.5 cm and the inconvenient fact that the corresponding tear in Connally’s jacket was only 1.7 cm. (As discussed in the Ovoid? Oy Vey! section of chapter 11.)
In any event, instead of telling the audience the significance of the bullet hitting two ribs, the Beyond the Magic Bullet program cut to some supposed expert stating that their simulation had taken the “magic” out of the “magic bullet”.
But the program wasn’t over. For their final act they took an autopsy report reflecting the wounds incurred by their simulated torsos to an L.A. County Coroner. Surprisingly, the face sheet created for the Kennedy torso revealed that the bullet exited not from the torso’s throat but from its left chest, and that it probably would have hit its spine (if it had one) and must have hit its sternum (if it had one). (Exhibit 6 above.) Even worse, a probe poked through a skeleton by the doctor to depict the path of the bullet exploded the program’s assertion of replicating the magic bullet, as the probe passed below the clavicle and first rib. (Exhibit 7.) A bullet traveling on such a trajectory would not have bruised the President’s lung, but pierced it, and would have exited far below his throat.
-----------------------
As discussed on my website and on numerous forums, what, twelve years ago? the image above comparing the back wound location in the two photos (which is believed to have originated with Jean Davison) is grossly deceptive, and deliberately so. .
I say "deliberately so" because it's clear NO attempt has been made to match the photos up properly. In reality, the photo at right is grossly undersized compared to the photo at left. This deliberate deception serves to make the "hump" on Kennedy's back appear to be in the same location in each photo.
But in reality they are not. In the photo at right, the back wound is slightly below the level of the shoulders. In the photo at left the shoulders are below the bottom of the photo, that is, BELOW the throat wound. Ergo, the photo at right shows JFK's corpse with its shoulders hunched up.
When one properly sizes the photos and "unhunches" the shoulders, that is, tries to place them in their proper position, it's clear the back wound is at or even slightly below the throat wound.
This is so elementary, in fact, that even the HSCA pathology panel, prone to push all sorts of nonsense, saw that this was true.
So, yeah, on this issue some LNs, most tellingly you, David [Von Pein], have taken to pushing something completely at odds with the expert opinions of the wonderful HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel.
IOW, on this issue you have taken to pushing a completely whack-a-doodle theory based on a gross misunderstanding of the evidence...that is, based on a HOAX.
This is the sin for what most of us on this forum have been regularly accused. It must feel weird to have the shoe on the other foot, right?
------
[David Von Pein wrote:] BTW / FWIW....
Dr. James Humes told the Warren Commission in no uncertain terms that "the wound in the anterior [front] portion of the lower neck is physically lower than the point of entrance posteriorly [to the rear], sir".
[Pat Speer wrote in response:] He said that based on a drawing created after he'd met with Joe Ball, who was tasked with explaining how a bullet fired from above could go upwards in the body. Voila! Humes claimed the face sheet was in error and that it was all an optical illusion. Specter, who'd seen the photos and knew the wound was on the back and not the back of the neck, similarly played "ball" and changed the wound from being a back wound to being a back of the neck wound in the report. He then performed interviews in which he said that if the back wound was lower than the throat wound than the autopsy doctors should be prosecuted. When the HSCA FPP determined as much, moreover, instead of complaining about the doctors, or demanding their prosecution, he forced his son onto the HSCA as an assistant to one of its members, and then lawyered up before providing any testimony.
The historical record is clear, then, that these guys all lied and obstructed justice through the falsification of evidence. If your hero Bugliosi had a lick of common sense he would have uncovered this fact over his years and years of "research." But, no, instead he insisted that Oswald killed Kennedy because he was just filled with hate, and that the black warehouse workers were "stockboys".
His book is a travesty, and you're treating it like it's some kind of Bible is an embarrassment.
Not as if I have an opinion on this, or anything...
-------------------
David [Von Pein], I've laid out my scenario on my website and on numerous forums for 15 years or more. But it doesn't matter what I think. What matters according to your boy Bugliosi is the historical record.
As to your points..
1.) A bullet hole of entry in JFK's upper back. (That showed no signs of penetrating beyond the outer layer, which is unthinkable if this was high-velocity bullet, as pushed by the single-bullet HOAX.)
2.) A bullet hole in the very lowest part of JFK's neck/throat. (That was recorded as being too small to be the exit of a high-velocity bullet, particularly one that had been tumbling, as pushed by the single-bullet HOAX.)
3.) Not a single bullet located in JFK's body. (No argument here.)
And this fourth item needs to be tacked on here as an extra bonus in the "common sense" department, which is something that nobody (not even a CTer) can possibly think is wrong):
4.) Anybody wanting to kill President Kennedy would have to be a complete moron/idiot to have fired two very low-powered, non-lethal bullets into Kennedy's throat and upper back, which would result in both of those bullets penetrating JFK's body only a few inches (each) and causing virtually no damage to the President's body whatsoever. Buit, hey, maybe the killers just wanted to give JFK a fighting chance to survive those TWO shots, huh? (Please get real!!) (Yes, let's get real. This is a straw man argument. I never said the throat wound only penetrated a few inches, or even that it was an entrance. And you're also wrong. The CIA's Manual on Assassination recommended the use of subsonic ammunition in assassination attempts. Are you, David, Von Pein, telling me you don't think the CIA knows how to kill people?)
The thought occurs that you suffer from a lack of imagination. The SBT HOAX makes sense to you because you were told it was logical by a singularly illogical man, Bugliosi. But have you ever read a book on wound ballistics? Or gunshot wounds? Or anatomy? I suspect not. Because if you had, you would know that the trajectory of the bullet and the nature of the wounds outlined by the SBT HOAX make no sense, and that a better solution is required.
Now, I've always been open to a single-assassin solution, but the single-bullet theory is junk, propped up by deliberate deceptions regarding the nature of Kennedy's wounds, and the position of the men in the limousine. I have been waiting, for years now, for someone to come up with an SBT not reliant upon Specter's lies and deceptions and Myers' inaccurate animation. But, alas, none has been proposed. Instead we get the same ole arguments. And this has led me to believe that single-bullet theorists are a modern day Flat Earth Society, with an emotional attachment to nonsense.
---------------
Monday, July 25, 2022
Clint Hill: C'mon, man- tell the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dveK4xZRpg0
It was Hill's lame, decades-later attempt to give off the inference that JFK didn't want him there and/or that he even cared or noticed in the first place. Lame, lame, lame.
-------------------------------
Clint Hill debunked by CLINT HILL and his fellow JFK Secret Service agents
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htky5Qt8mRk
----------------------------------------
Clint Hill: C'mon, man- tell the truth.
Clint Hill knew I was connected to this program so he addresses my "allegations"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6Z5JrpMntI
-----------------------------------
The Secret Service drinking incident of 11/22/63
Sunday, July 24, 2022
JFK Revisited: The Complete Collection: THE best JFK assassination documentary (and related book) ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(2-hour version last night. 4-hour version today. I am going to watch/listen to the audio commentary by Stone and DiEiugenio for the 2-hour version tomorrow)
Fantastic, fabulous, essential, classic, etc. This series defies words. I thoroughly enjoyed it and was blown away by the sheer amount of diverse content as presented by the impressive list of speakers. I took copious notes that almost looks like a small paperback LOL!
Here is a great analogy [keeping in mind the "ET" controversy, which I equate to the Three Tramps in "JFK" in 1991]:
If this was the Super Bowl, this team won 52-3 (would have been a shut out if not for the "ET"). Still a huge and impressive victory.
I also highly recommend the book of the film- super impressive. The book almost acts as the unofficial "6-hour version."
Saturday, July 16, 2022
JFK motorcade record destruction by Secret Service now going mainstream media
JFK motorcade record destruction by Secret Service now going mainstream media
Friday, July 15, 2022
Thursday, July 14, 2022
Tuesday, July 12, 2022
The brilliant Jim DiEugenio and Pat Speer
7/10/22
Steve Roe is really
getting to be like your weird Uncle Sam who you place in the back room when you
visit someone.
First, there is no Steve Roe Consulting. He just made that
up in order to give himself some form of distinction, since he has none.
If I am wrong on this, please show me how and why.
Roe is the guy who said JFK Revisited: Through he Looking
Glass had failed to connect with the public. Remember that,something about Sri Lanka? LOL. ROTF.
The exact opposite is the case. No JFK documentary in
history has ever had the impact this one has had. And that is what he is
upset about. If you combine the figures from Quebec, with the ones
accumulated prior to that, beginning at Cannes, Stone's film has reached a
potential audience of 40 million. That is not me talking, that is the PR
companies that distributor Altitude hired, numbers from You Tube, numbers
from Coast to Coast, and Joe Rogan, and Channel 9 and three
national newspapers from Australia, Paris Match etc.
Roe and his partner Litwin could not put a dent in that
progress. And that is what they are mad about.
Edited Sunday at
05:08 PM by James DiEugenio
This is the latest
issue, the citing of Oswald at a training camp in La.
William
Bishop was interviewed by Dick Russell, referred to by Gary Shaw. On page
328 of the revised edition of The Man Who Knew too Much, Russell
lists the written documents that were provided by William Bishop, including FBI
files.
The
idea that somehow the man who originally knew William Bishop, Bob Morrow,
should be the reasons to disregard him is nutty in the face of this. But it
misses the point. If you never talked to Morrow, then what does that
prove? And here is my point: Gus Russo is Mr. Warren Report.
Right? After he spent hours with Morrow, he was convinced he was contract
agent for the CIA. He might deny that now, but back in the nineties that is
what he said.
Now,
did Roe or Litwin talk to Gary Shaw? Please show me where.
Now,
did Roe or Litwin talk to Dick Russell? Please show me where.
And
this is a problem with their methodology. Anyone can sit in their office or
living room and say, "I don't like this guy." And then make up stuff
dissing the witness. The people I respect are those who actually get on a plane
and go and talk to someone. That is what is hard. But that is what
is valuable, as one can see from my interview in the book with McGehee. (pp.
414-20)
Now, William Bishop
was my secondary source for the camp.
My
primary source was Bob Tanenbaum. He actually saw the film. And I have
talked to him about it on more than one occasion.
Roe
can call Bob. Anyone can get his number. He talks to anyone. He has
never gone back on this film issue. Even before the ARRB.
Parnell's
attempt at the other issue, with Phillips, proves nothing. I talked to
Bob about that. See Sprague had interviewed Phillips prior to Bob.
Without the document.
Roe is almost funny in
his desperation to go after the book.
The
issue of the mail to Chicago is not whether a plane can fly to Chicago in one
day from Dallas. Duh. It is: could the mail go though a sorting
process, and not just one but two, in less than 24 hours. The first would
come at the main Chicago post office, and then the tributary offices in the
area of Klein's. From there it would go to a carrier on foot to be
delivered to Klein's.
At
Klein's, they went through another sorting practice involving different forms
of currency, and also in state and out of state. Then it was carried over
to the bank.
I
do not believe Roe was not aware of this. Therefore, if you think all of that
took less than a day, then this is why I have no respect for you.
Roe brought up the
other issue about Oswald's payment schedule, as if that settles anything.
It
does not. Both sources say that there were no SS deductions in the final
quarter.
If
you compare the prior Marine payment records with the last one, you will see a
quite notable difference. Ben Cole indicated it. Any idiot can see it,
and it is key. And I do not believe that they were not aware of it.
(Tom Gram---See my latest comment in that thread. Litwin’s claims
about the training camp, which he footnoted with an apparently bogus citation,
have less evidentiary support than Oswald being there. And that is a very
generous way to put it.)
Nice way of putting it. But Litwin does
not deserve a lot of generosity.
Now, let us turn to
the Hunt/Mantik ET issue.
This
appears to be an error, and I asked my editor if he could include an errata in
the book. It was too late.
I
have someone going to NARA to check on this in person. And will address
this in Dallas if it turns out to be the case.
I
truly wish I had caught this in advance. You know why?
Because
I would have taken it out of the script and placed in there the Thompson/
Thomas stuff about the projectile being found on the wrong stretcher. And also
the interview by Wallace Milam with Wright's widow saying they were finding
several bullets that day. In other words, the plotters were determined to
try and get the right stretcher one way or another.
To me that is in some
ways even worse than ET. It utterly killed chain of custody, which we already
did anyway, without ET.
Now why can i address
this honest error honestly?
Because
our side is after a factual record. Unlike their side which is obsessed
with a mythological record.
Secondly,
as noted above, we have an almost endless supply of exculpatory evidence.
In
fact, personally, I think the strongest evidence for conspiracy in the film,
especially the long version, is the material on Kennedy's brain. Those
pictures, and the Ida Dox illustration, cannot be of Kennedy's brain. When you
have a neurologist saying that on camera, i mean that is high cotton.
Don't think its ever been done before.
Now, why would that be
necessary?
To
cover up a brain that showed too much damage for one shot, or actual evidence
of shots from two directions. I thought Henry Lee was good on this.
(See JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, pp.
367-68) So was Gary Aguilar. (See, pp. 289-90)
In
addition, the film, especially the long version, proves shots from the front.
And we do it with their evidence, namely Sturdivan's. (ibid, pp. 284-85)
With that out of the
way, let me address the issue of what I call The Coward's Club.
See,
its one thing to sit in front of a computer and toss out this junk. Its
another to actually address the guy you are talking about in person on a stage
in front of hundreds of people, or on a podcast or broadcast.
Many,
many years ago, back in the nineties, I was set to do a debate with Gerald
Posner up in, IIRC, Portland on the radio. Two days before the debate, I
got word that it was cancelled, by Posner, for whatever reason.
Last
year, another podcaster was setting up a debate with me and Litwin, J G
Michaels. On Parallax Views. I looked forward to it.
About
a day or two before, Litwin backed out. So the host interviewed us
separately. If you listen to it, you will see why Fred backed
out.
Now,
when JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass started making
waves, Posner tried to advertise his book as the kryptonite for the film.
LOL, a book written before the ARRB. So I challenged him
to a debate. He never replied.
I
then said, OK, how about you and James Kirchick--who was attacking the film at Air
Mail,--plus you can have Willens, Griffin, and Slawson. Know what Kirchick
did when I tried to deliver the invite to him? He blocked me!
Now, here is the
clincher. I then told Posner, you can have all the revenue the event
generates. I only ask that i get to pick one partner, your advantage 5-2.
I said you can also have in addition to the gate, any podcast or broadcast fees
the event generates. I was sure we could fill up Royce Hall at
UCLA. Again, no reply.
So
you know what happened next? Posner teamed up with Litwin. He now said he
would debate me with Litwin, as long as I was teamed with Oliver and Oliver got
us on Rogan!
LOL.
In
other words, the chickens want to pick both the participants and the venue! A
non starter.
What
this meant was that Posner simply wanted no part of me. And I don't blame
him.
Now, let me address
the utter hypocrisy of this idea of them choosing witnesses.
The
WC is largely built around three witnesses: Brennan, Markham, Marina. (And Ruth
Paine, who Max Good did a nice job on.)
Guess
what? The Commission did not buy the three. Joe Ball thought Markham was an
utter screwball. She was talking to Tippit after he was dead for
starters. (Edward Epstein, The Assassination Chronicles,
pp. 142-43) She also claimed she was the only witness on the scene: utterly
false. Even though Ball and Liebeler knew she was worthless, Redlich included
her as a probative witness in the TIppit case. How did he defend that?
"The Commission wants to believe Mrs. Markham and that's all there is to
it." (ibid, p. 143).
Roe
should stamp that on his forehead.
Ball did not buy
Brennan either. The only eyewitness who claimed he saw Oswald shooting
from the sixth floor. Brennan denied the ID of LHO both at the line up
and to the FBI. (p. 143). But he did positively ID before the WC.
Ball discovered that when he did a reconstruction with Brennan,
the man appeared to have a vision problem. Brennan then said he saw the
gunman standing up. That was it for Ball. Redlich said Brennan was
accurate and in excellent position. Really? Then why did he refuse
to be interviewed by the HSCA? In fact he swore he would fight any
subpoena. (Palamara, Honest Answers, pp. 186-89)
I don't even want to talk about Marina. I mean first she
says LHO is not in Mexico City. Then she says he was. First it was the
wrong rifle, then it was the right one. I mean, she even threw in that
LHO was going to murder Nixon! Not even the WC bought that one. Redlich
said in February, "Marina Oswald has lied to the secret Service, the FBI
and this commission...." (ibid, 143-44) But Redlich used her anyway.
I don't need to add how fiercely LIebeler attacked some of these points in his
famous memorandum.
So how do Roe and Litwin justify this huge double standard that
Larry Schnapf pointed out? Its a problem of necessity. If you admit
these people are XXXXX, what does that say about the WR? And you.
If you eliminate them from the matter, you have some problems in
presenting the case against Oswald. So its a matter of expediency and escapability.
That is not the way a legal proceeding should work.
(I just
got a chance to look at Tom's work on the camps.
Very nice job Tom)
(Tom Gram---Thanks Jim. The camps are an interesting topic.
Davis and Bringuier both said that Oswald wanted to join the exile training
group, and Bringuier testified specifically that Oswald knew about the camp.
How the hell does a commie loner find out about a small, top secret elite
training operation for Cuban exiles and know exactly who to talk to about
joining?
Bringuier
tried to sell a story to the WC that Oswald found out because the alleged
Castro spy, Fernando Fernandez, informed his contact in Cuba who subsequently
informed Oswald and ordered him to try to infiltrate the camp. Even Wesley
Liebeler was suspicious.)
Nice one, with Liebeler
as the icing on the cake.
(Lawrence
Schnapf---steve occasionally comes up with some good stuff. he seemed to
be right about the rifle strap.
However, he applies
different evidentiary standards to evidence. he too easily ignores problems
with evidence that supports the lone gunman theory but then using exceedingly
exacting standards for dismissing evidence of a conspiracy. In other words, his
analysis tends to be distorted by bias.)
That is being kind
Larry and I disagree about the strap.
Nice
going Ben, about Brennan.
Tom, I think you blew
up Litwin
(Lawrence Schnapf---BTW-
Ruth Paine was either "misremembering" or dissembling when she denied
that she had spoken to Oliver Stone in Max Goode's movie. In 2013, I asked
Oliver at the Wecht 50th anniversary program why he had changed the names of
the Paines to Williams but did not change the names of any other important
characters. He said it was because the Paines threatened to sue him and his
production company.
Too
bad Max did not know this when he interviewed her. She made it sound like
Oliver was either afraid to contact her or ignored her because she would
contradict his thesis. Even if it was the Paines' lawyer who contacted Stone,
her statement was inaccurate. And she did that laugh when she said that which
is her "tell" when she is being evasive.
I wish Max had also
grilled her on the phone message from the employment office. She was evasive
with Liebler who was not interested in getting a straight answer.)
Pat Speer---Just curious, David [DVP]. Do you really believe
Brennan? Or are you just picking and choosing? The one thing Brennan was
consistent on was that the man he saw was not wearing the shirt whose fibers
were found on the rifle. Do you believe that?
Because
if you take his word on that then it's hard to escape the probability those
fibers were planted. And if you accept that then it's hard not accept that some
of the other evidence pointing towards Oswald was faked.
My
disregard for many of the most popular conspiracy myths is well-known. But I
can't hold any of the most prominent LNs in anything more than disregard unless
they are willing to accept that some of the evidence may have been faked.
I
mean, I don't get it. We are grown-ups. We know that the Dallas Police and the
FBI were capable of faking evidence and giving false testimony when they
thought they had their man. So why is it so hard for supposedly rational LNs to
acknowledge that some of the evidence could have been faked?
Because
they think of this as a game and that would be letting the CTs score a
"point"?
What
are we, children?
Pat Speer again---A couple of points.
1:
The rifle was not wiped down. This is something you invented so you could have
it both ways.
2.
If you're claiming Euins was confused when he said he saw a black man, you are
acknowledging he said he saw a black man, when several police officers swore he
did not. The only say-so that he said as much comes from two members of the
press. If they were telling the truth it would mean the police lied. Are you
acknowledging, then, that some of the police lied?
From
patspeer,com, chapter 7b
Amos Euins. Beyond the
confusion as to Euins' location during the shooting, there is considerable
confusion over Euins' earliest statements, and whether or not he said the
shooter was a white man or a black man. Statements regarding his identification
of the shooter's race have been highlighted. (11-22-63 report to KRLD and
CBS by Jim Underwood, about 30 minutes after the assassination) "As I told
you earlier, a youngster said that he saw a colored man fire three
times from the window of that building... one of the officers found a small
colored boy who said he that he saw a man fire from about the fourth floor
window of the school book depository building." (Note: this officer was
D.V. Harkness, who never confirmed nor denied Underwood's claim Euins said the
shooter was black.) (11-22-63 signed statement to the Dallas County
Sheriff’s Department, 16H963, 19H474) “I saw the President turn the corner in
front of me and I waived at him and he waived back. I watched the car on down
the street and about the time the car got near the black and white sign I heard
a shot. I started looking around and then I looked up in the red brick
building. I saw a man in the window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice…I
could tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way
he was shooting. This was a white man, he did not have on a hat. I
just saw this man for a few seconds. As far as I know, I had never seen this
man before.” (11-29-63 memorandum from SA Leo Robertson in the Dallas FBI
files, as found in the Weisberg Archives) "Amos Lee Euins...advised that
on the day of the assassination he was standing on the the northeast corner of
the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets. He stated that the car in which
the President was riding had turned the corner and was proceeding on down Elm.
He stated since he could no longer see the President's car, he happened to
glance up and noticed what appeared to be the barrel of a rifle protruding from
a window near the top of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He stated
he saw a man's hand on what appeared to be the rifle stock and that he knew it
was a rifle because he heard the shots fired. He stated he could not
tell anything about the man and that he never saw anything other than what
appeared to be his hand on the stock." (12-14-63 FBI report,
CD205 p12) "He said after the President's car started down the hill, he
heard what he thought was a car backfire and he looked around and also glanced
at the TSBD building, and on the fifth floor where he he had seen what he
thought to be a metal rod, he noticed a rifle in the window and saw the second
and third shots fired. He stated he saw a man's hand on what appeared
to be the trigger housing and he could also see a bald spot on the man's head.
He stated he did not see the face of this individual and could not identify
him. He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand extended
outside the window on the rifle. He stated he also heard what he
believes was a fourth shot, and that the individual in the window, after firing
the fourth shot, began looking around and he (EUINS) at this time hid behind a
concrete partition. He said he saw this individual withdraw his rifle and step
back in the window... Euins advised he could not distinguish the features of
the man standing at the window, and as he had previously stated, he only saw
his hand and a bald spot on his head." (12-23-63 FBI report, CD205
p.i) “Amos Lee Euins, age 14, states saw white man…in window…with rifle
after first shot and observed this man fire second and third shots and what he
believes may have been a fourth shot.” (3-10-64 testimony before
the Warren Commission, 2H201-210) ‘then when the first shot was fired, I
started looking around, thinking it was backfire. Everybody else started
looking round. Then I looked up at the window, and he shot again... I got
behind this little fountain, and then he shot again. (When asked how many shots
he heard) “I believe there was four to be exact…After he shot the first two
times, I was just standing back here. And then after he shot again, he pulled
the gun back in the window. And then all the police ran back over here in the
track vicinity… The first shot I was standing here… And as I looked up there,
you know, he fired another shot, you know, as I was looking. So I got behind
this fountain thing right in there, at this point B… I got behind there.
And then I watched, he did fire again. Then he started looking down towards my
way, and then he fired again.” (When asked what he saw in the building)
"I seen a bald spot on this man's head, trying to look out the window. He
had a bald spot on his head. I was looking at the bald spot. I could see his
hand, you know the rifle laying across in his hand. And I could see his hand
sticking out on the trigger part. And after he got through, he just pulled it
back in the window." (When asked what kind of a look he got at the shooter)
"All I got to see was the man with a spot in his head, because he had his
head something like this." (When asked for the record if he means the man
was looking down the rifle) "Yes, sir, and I could see the spot on his
head." (When asked to describe the man) "I wouldn't know how to
describe him, because all I could see was the spot and his hand." (When if
he was slender or fat) "I didn't get to see him." (When asked if he
could if he was tall or short) "No." (When asked the man's race)
"I couldn't tell, because these boxes were throwing a reflection,
shaded." (When asked if he could tell if the man was black or white)
"No, sir." (When asked by an incredulous Arlen Specter 'Couldn't
even tell that? But you have described that he had a bald--) "Spot in his
head. Yes, sir; I could see the bald spot in his head." (When asked if he
could tell the color of the man's hair) "No, sir." (When asked if he
could tell if his hair was dark or light) "No, sir." (When
asked how far back the bald spot stretched) "I would say about right along
in here." (Specter then asks: "Indicating about 2 1/2 inches above
where you hairline is. Is that about what you are saying? To which Euins
responds) "Yes, sir; right along in here." (When asked again if he'd
got a good look at the man) "No, sir; I did not." (When asked if he
could tell anything about the man's clothes) "No, sir." (Specter
then reads Euins the statement he'd signed in which he claimed the shooter was
a white man. He is then asked if the statement refreshes his memory) "No,
sir; I told the man that I could see a white spot on his head, but I didn't
actually say it was a white man. I said I couldn't tell. But I saw a white spot
in his head." (When then asked if his best recollection was that he
doesn't know if the man was a white man or a negro) "Yes, sir." (When
then asked if he'd told the police he'd seen a white man, or if they'd made a
mistake) "They must have made a mistake, because I told them I could see a
white spot on his head."
(4-1-64 testimony
before the Warren Commission of KRLD reporter James Underwood) (Describing the
aftermath of the shooting, 6H167-171) "I ran down there and I think I took
some pictures of some men--yes, I know I did, going in and out of the building.
By that time there was one police officer there and he was a three-wheeled
motorcycle officer and a little colored boy whose last name I remember as
Eunice." (When asked "Euins?") "It may have been
Euins. It was difficult to understand when he said his name. He was
telling the motorcycle officer he had seen a colored man lean out of the window
upstairs and he had a rifle. He was telling this to the officer and the
officer took him over and put him in a squad car. By that time, motorcycle
officers were arriving, homicide officers were arriving and I went over
and asked this boy if he had seen someone with a rifle and he said "Yes,
sir." I said, "Were they white or black?" He said, "It was
a colored man." I said, "Are you sure it was a colored man?" He
said, "Yes, sir" and I asked him his name and the only thing
I could understand was what I thought his name was Eunice."
(4-9-64 testimony before the Warren Commission of officer D.V. Harkness,
6H308-315) (When asked by David Belin if he remembered anything Euins had
told him beyond that the shots had come from the sniper's nest window)
"No, sir." (When then asked if Euins had said he'd seen a rifle.)
"He couldn't tell." (Note that this last response is at odds with
Euins' own statements, and suggests Harkness was being deliberately vague about
Euins' statements to him outside the building. Well, this in turn, suggests
Euins DID tell Harkness he saw a black man, and that Harkness was under
pressure to deny Euins told him anything beyond that the shots came from the
sniper's nest. Or not. It also seems possible Harkness was anticipating Belin's
asking him about Euins' statements regarding the race of the shooter, and
responded to that question instead of the one in the transcript--about the
rifle.) (March 1964 account of Dallas Morning News reporter Kent
Biffle, reporting on the witnesses he saw and heard in Dealey Plaza just after
the shooting on 11-22-63, published in an 11-19-78 Dallas Times Herald
article, and subsequently published in JFK Assassination: The Reporters' Notes,
2013) (After first running to the grassy knoll to see what was going
on) "I ran east toward the Texas School Book Depository. 'A policeman was
talking to a black boy. 'It was a colored man done it. I saw him' the boy
was saying. The boy was pointing toward the upper levels of the building." (5-7-64 testimony
before the Warren Commission of Secret Service Agent Forrest Sorrels,
7H332-350) (When asked if he'd interviewed Euins in Dealey Plaza a
short period after the shots had been fired) "Yes, sir; I did. And he also
said that he had heard the noise there, and that he had looked up and saw the
man at the window with the rifle, and I asked him if he could identify the
person, and he said, no, he couldn't, he said he couldn't tell whether he was
colored or white." (11-21-64 AP article found in the Brandon
Manitoba Sun) "Amos Lee Euins, 16, schoolboy who went with friends to the
end of the motorcade route because he thought they could get a better view than
in the crowds downtown. He saw the president fine. And also saw a rifle being
withdrawn from the sixth floor of the Depository. Ever since the phone has been
ringing at the Euins home. Often it is a man with a heavy voice saying
"Amos better be careful with what he says. I have a complete copy of what
he told police." "I got a phone call just last week," said Amos'
mother, Eva, 40. "Twenty minutes later he called back. It sounded like the
same heavy voice. I don't think it's a prank "cuz no grown man is going to
play that much. It. makes me uneasy, it really does." The Euins' told
police but didn't ask for protection and none was offered. There have been a
lot of crank calls to figures in the assassination. Meanwhile at the Euins home
a light burns on the front and back porches all night. Amos doesn't usually
take the bus to school. Members of the family take him by car. He isn't allowed
to roam too far alone. Amos does not appear concerned over the calls."
(12-15-64 interview with Dallas Police Officer J. Herbert Sawyer as
reported in FBI File 105-82555, sec. 224, p39) "Sawyer continued that
only one other person was brought to him who had reportedly seen the assassin.
This person was a young negro boy named Euins. However, upon talking to
this youth, it was determined that the boy could not describe the subject, not
even to the detail as to whether the man he had seen had been a white man or a
negro."
Yes,
absolutely. Euins is not reliable. My best guess would be that he thought the
man was white because his hand was in the sun but said he may have been black,
or something equally vague, and the press jumped all over it saying he said the
man was black and the DPD and FBI etc then pretended he never said anything
about him being black. The smoking gun that something was afoot was that,
months and months after the DPD/Sheriff's Dept. wrote up a statement from Euins
saying that the man was white, several of those who talked to him on that day
said he could not ID the race of the man.
My
point in the post about Brennan was to the ongoing war between LNs and CTs. The
LNs insist that they are logical and consistent. But when it comes to Brennan
they simply choose to believe his latter-day ID of Oswald and pretend Brennan's
ID did not come with a proviso--that he only ID'ed Oswald under the belief he
was not wearing the shirt the DPD and FBI and WC had decided Oswald was
wearing.
It's
like a badly-programmed computer that melts down when asked a question it can
not answer.
Do
you believe Brennan? They say yes. Then you say "Well he said the man he
saw was not wearing the shirt the DPD, FBI, and WC said Oswald was wearing. So
either Oswald was wearing the shirt, and Brennan did not ID him, or Oswald was
wearing a different shirt, and the fibers on the shirt were planted. You can't
have it both ways."
Complete
meltdown ensues.
There is plenty of sloppy thinking on both sides of the fence,
but this one sticks out, and can be used as a litmus test to determine if
someone is a serious student of the case or just a zealot reciting
propaganda.
Oh
my Lord, we must have been through this before.
1.
On 11-22, Oswald said he changed his pants at his rooming house but apparently
said nothing about his shirt. (The shirt Mary Bledsoe insisted was
filthy).
2.
That night, the shirt he was wearing while arrested--which was not IDed by any
of his co-workers as a shirt he'd worn that day-was taken from him and flown to
Washington to be tested by the FBI.
3.
Something is already fishy. Lt. Day of the DPD and Vincent Drain of the FBI
both claimed all the evidence sent to the FBI (which would include the shirt)
was transferred at 11:30. Problemita: Oswald was caught on camera still wearing
this shirt roughly an hour later.
3.
The next morning fibers from this shirt were found wrapped around the butt
plate on the rifle. As no prints were found on the rifle, and no one IDed
Oswald as the shooter, this was one of the most important pieces of evidence
linking Oswald to the shooting.
4.
When asked that day about his trip to his rooming house. Oswald told the DPD
and FBI he'd changed his pants AND shirt, and that the shirt he had worn at
work had been a reddish shirt with a button-down collar.
5.
No such shirt was mentioned in the numerous listings by the DPD, FBI, and WC,
of Oswald's clothing recovered at the rooming house. As a result, the
non-existence of this shirt was used by LNs to suggest Oswald lied about
everything and had simply made up the shirt.
6.
About ten years ago, however, I prevailed upon the archives to sell me some
color photos of a supposedly brown shirt found in the rooming house I suspected
was the reddish shirt. Sure enough, it was both reddish and filthy--and was
almost certainly the shirt Oswald had said he'd worn to work.
7.
When when one looks at the FBI's testimony about the fibers found on the rifle,
for that matter, it gets even uglier. The fibers were found ON TOP of
fingerprint powder. This led the FBI to offer as ;pure conjecture that Lt.
Day--whose job involved inspecting the rifle for fibers BEFORE dusting--had not
noticed the fibers and had inadvertently wrapped them around the butt plate while
rapidly brushing the fingerprint powder. Another probelmita: Day had attended
the FBI's course on fingerprinting and the FBI's course had stressed that one
should not brush rapidly, for fear of brushing away a print.
8.
Of course, there's another problem, a big problem. One can search through
forensics journals and textbooks for years and years--I know I have--and not
find any other incident in the history of police work in which a tuft of fibers
was found neatly wrapped on the butt plate of a rifle. Individual fibers are
sometimes found on greasy rifles, or in the mechanism, etc. But a tuft neatly
wrapped around the butt plate? Never happened! (And it didn't happen this time,
either!)
It
should be clear to anyone aware of these facts (yes, even the ghost of Bugliosi
and his sycophants), moreover, that someone (most probably Day and/or Drain)
planted these fibers on the rifle to implicate Oswald in the crime. It doesn't
mean Oswald was innocent.
But
it may provide a motive for his murder. Think about what a smart attorney could
do with these facts. It could provide a reasonable doubt in the minds of a
jury. Now think about the fact that Oswald was murdered as he was on the verge
of getting such a lawyer. Well, hell, if you're the DPD you can't have this
commie killer dragging your department through the dirt. Better off having him
get killed--in which the DPD would look like clowns--than letting him get off
because you faked evidence. I mean, think about it. Dozens if not hundreds of
other men convicted by Wade and Fritz could very well have received new trials
as a result of this one massive screw-up. The commie killer had it coming, man!
Jim DiEugenio:
One of the best
analyses of Brennan is by Ian Griggs in his book No Case to
Answer. (pp. 90-95)
He
points out that Brennan did not even recall how many men were in the line ups
he said he saw, or if there were any people of color in them. Recall,
this is Texas in 1963.
And
I don't know how one gets around Brennan and the HSCA. When the HSCA wanted
to do a home interview, Brennan said he would have to be subpoenaed. For
a sit down home interview?
When
the HSCA asked him to reconsider, he refused. When they said this left
them no choice but to subpoena him, Brennan said he would not come to Washington
under any circumstances. And if they issued a subpoena he would fight the
process. He then said he would get his doctor to give him a medical
excuse. And if they forced him to come he would simply clam up.
When
the HSCA sent him records they wanted him to examine, Brennan refused to sign
for the receipt. They then offered him immunity, he still declined.
I mean, whew. (Palamara, Honest Answers, pp. 186-89)
The reason I brought
up the WC and Marina, and the WC and Markham, and the WC and Brennan was to
make a certain important point. Which Epstein did, through certain
attorneys, in his book.
Its
not so much the serious problems with all three, but the fact the WC KNEW OF
THESE PROBLEMS AND USED THEM ANYWAY!
What
Epstein's book does is it gives us a good example of the guys doing the day to
day work, ratting out the guys at the top. Redlich was their messenger:
the Commission wants it and I work for the Commission. That was their
naked rationale. It was simply a power play with these three. I mean we
all know that Ball called Markham a screwball in public right? That was
technically his witness. And he did not buy her. Or Ball finding out that
Brennan had vision problems? Or Marina reversing her story twice, and on
two crucial issues. And then throwing in Nixon for fun?
These
are the people and the process these guys want to make disappear, hiding behind
a cloak of sanctity. That they do not notice that it is splattered with
mud.
Edited 2 hours ago by James DiEugenio
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![VINCE PALAMARA [remember to scroll all the way down!]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSZ-Z_puqnjl3UgdiJxBenMyIMaFhmBD-PYQUsxCtFS4UF7dJQB6n32rt9a0ZqFRPmuBoukhrMZxv6LOD9GoUGPiaShO3wj_8xL98obRAsUbIf0mXutzbq7jKDrCp8Y-Y0k9rnS5ARjQQ/s1600/11.jpg)
![CHAPTER 8 OF ARRB FINAL REPORT [I AM IN THIS REPORT, AS WELL]...HMMM---THE SECRET SERVICE DESTROYS](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimGbOuG69gW-cgAbsfjd8p8PD-subznIjcsQXUSFq560o_kiXunf9TcH0fkOqmWuK73id6m5TyVMhWcfBrPUEee6JLbvqNZKdIVQa5Drcz568Ue6GZdf_PUtLuLwPDcucv3gOn5KGBZPw/s1600/DSCF0462.JPG)
