Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Pat Speer

Moderators
  • Content count

    5,628
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Pat Speer

  • Rank
    Moderator

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

55,327 profile views
  1. The trial was discussed at Lancer by some of those involved, and I discussed it with a number of them outside their presentation. Here's a few points of interest.. 1. The trial was limited to two days. The prosecution agreed to limit their case to one witness. But in return the defense had to agree to limit their responses to the prosecution's questions of their witnesses. Some saw this as a mistake, as there was not enough time to respond to the challenges of the prosecution. 2. The deliberation time for the jury was also limited. Word has it that it started out 8-3 in favor of conviction, and that 2 jurors were turned to acquittal during the limited deliberation. The thinking is that more would have turned with a longer deliberation. 3. The jurors were filmed and the response of the jurors to the defense witnesses are going to be studied. 4. It is hoped that this is the first of a series of mock trials to be performed at a number of law schools. The defense team plans to use what they've learned from this mock trial to improve their performance. 5. There was much discussion over the direction of the defense. There was a movement by some of those involved to let the doctors make their case for conspiracy, that won the day. But the next go-round will probably be different, as some of those involved felt the science was much too much for the jury. 6. Some felt it was a mistake to spend so much of the opening statement discussing ethics. Some wanted this on the record, but others felt this was too boring for the jury. Should this same team perform another mock trial, this opening salvo will probably be re-focused. 7. The feeling was that the defense did much better with the seniors, than it did with millennials. An effort will be made to address this. In short, this mock trial was kind of like an experiment. For decades, a certain group of doctors and experts--you know who they are--have been dying to present their case to a jury. With this mock trial, they finally got their chance. Only it didn't go as well as they planned. So corrections will be made.
  2. FWIW, photos are admissible if a witness is willing to say the photo is an accurate representation of what they remember. In this case, the autopsy doctors did that, on numerous occasions. While I presume a judge would allow counter-testimony, that is, the testimony of other witnesses who say the photos don't show what they remember., that would not prevent the photos from being introduced in the first place.
  3. Yeah. I not only tried to sign on like three times, I kept googling info and clicking on links to threads I didn't realize linked back to the forum. They all led to hell, where I had to turn off my computer to get away. I've decided to stay away until I'm told it's back up.
  4. Ball, Belin, and the Depository Witnesses

    FWIW, I think this is is the most important part of that chapter. Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, when the FBI men---I imagine it was who it was---he showed me his credentials, but he asked me who the manager was, and I told him, "Mr. Truly." He told me to go find him. Well, I didn't know where he was so I started from the first floor and Just started looking for him, and by the time I got to the sixth floor, they had found a gun and shells. Mr. BALL - When you went up to the sixth floor, it was after they found the shotgun and shells? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir; and I found out later he was on the fourth floor, which I didn't find. Now, this is interesting. No follow-up. In Dougherty's 11-22-63 affidavit, it was claimed he'd returned to the sixth floor after speaking to Piper, but saw no one. This was repeated in the FBI's 12-19-63 report on Dougherty. It seems obvious, then, that Ball would ask Piper about this in his testimony. But it is never mentioned elsewhere. It seems apparent, then, that Ball felt the question and answer above had covered that aspect of Dougherty's testimony, and that Dougherty had not, in fact, raced right back upstairs after talking to Piper, as one would assume from reading the affidavit and report. (And, yes, should you be wondering, there is some support for Dougherty's claim he tried to help an FBI agent, but that this was after the discovery of the rifle and shells. While Nat Pinkston, the first FBI agent in the building, failed to write a report on his visit to the building, he did eventually grant an interview with the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI, and admit that by the time he reached the sixth floor, the rifle had already been discovered.) While most researchers, on both sides of the fence, believe Dougherty testified to going back to work, hearing a shot, coming downstairs, talking to Eddie Piper, and then going back upstairs, this is NOT his actual testimony. He actually testified that he'd returned to work after 12:30, worked for awhile on the sixth and then fifth floor, heard a noise from above (not three shots from a corner window) and then descended to the first floor. His exact movements from that time are not explained. But he says he went back upstairs after being approached by a member of the FBI and reached the sixth floor after the rifle and shells had been discovered. Well, this matches up with Roy Truly's testimony that he saw Dougherty at work on the fifth floor when he and Baker came down from the roof. So, yes, it's actually quite clear that Dougherty was NOT in the elevator that descended from above as Baker and Truly ran upstairs. And that the WC knew this, and wall-papered over it by calling Dougherty and Piper "confused" in their report. The WC had NO answer to the question of who was in that danged elevator, so took advantage of Dougherty's mental problems and concluded "Well, it must have been the "retarded" guy! You know these "retards"--they're so easily confused!" (I'm not trying to be offensive--I'm just using the words I suspect they were thinking.) And the PROOF of this cynical and cowardly move is in the papers of Commission Counsel Howard Willens. I downloaded some of these from Willens' website back in 2013, before he cynically decided to take them down. In any event, one of these was a memo from Joe Ball to Wesley Liebeler in which he outlines the questions Liebeler is to ask Eddie Piper in his second round of testimony. These questions were all about Dougherty and Vickie Adams. They wanted to use Piper to undermine their credibility. Well, guess what? When Piper was re-interviewed, it wasn't by Liebeler but by Ball himself, and he failed to ask Dougherty a single question about Dougherty! And then used Piper's failure to provide answers to the questions never asked as a means of undermining Piper's own credibility....
  5. I'm fairly certain it was Ehrlichman that Nixon sent to get the Bay of Pigs files from Helms. (Nixon hoped to use these files, along with the cables he'd had Hunt forge suggesting JFK ordered Diem's death) to discredit JFK (and Teddy) and make Vietnam look like JFK's fault. To Helms' credit, he refused to cooperate in this. P.S. Ehrlichman later wrote a "novel" reflecting his experience as a middle man between a secretive CIA chief and a paranoid president, that was then turned into a TV mini-series, Washington: Behind Closed Doors.
  6. FWIW, Kirk, I stumbled into a situation a decade or so ago where I got to pitch Showtime on a JFK-related TV series. I was told by my friend with the "in" that the pitch would last 15 minutes but, much to our surprise, the exec extended it to 45 minutes and really seemed interested. Our idea was that the show would start off with a fictional card-carrying member of the MSM coming across something he found curious, and then following it down the rabbit hole. The idea was that actual evidence would be revealed alongside the fictional bits and pieces involving the characters on the show. And that the overall feel would get more and more paranoid. A year or two after this failed pitch, a series started up that had a similar feel to the show we pitched. This show was called Rubicon. It was full-on big budget conspiranoia. Unfortunately, it got dropped after one season.
  7. The film Nixon wasn't supposed to be about Vietnam, or even history, IMO. It was Stone's attempt at Shakespearian tragedy. And it worked. I mean, I knew enough about history to hate Nixon, but I cried my eyes out when he started talking about how his Quaker mother was a saint to the staff gathered to wave him good-bye, and then wrote his own epitaph with the line about how your enemies only win when you hate them back. On a purely dramatic level--the level at which most people watch movies--it is a far richer movie than JFK. Of course, JFK has that whole mystery element to it... that so many of us find enticing...
  8. New book on Nixon and the Mob

    If I'm not forgetting all the NIxon-related research I did once upon a time, Nixon' wasn't as inconsistent about his whereabouts as people claim. If I recall, his story was consistent in that he said he had just flown to New York from Dallas. Where he was inconsistent, however, is his description of how he found out in New York. As I remember it, sometimes he heard ti from a cab driver, and sometimes he heard it from someone at the airport. In any event, Nixon's inconsistent answers to this question are but one string of hay in a haystack.
  9. People under 30 don't give a rat's butt about the sixties, and history in general...unless it's an entertaining romp directed by Tarantino. The film on Thurgood Marshall also bombed, if I'm not mistaken.
  10. Ball, Belin, and the Depository Witnesses

    I added a summary at the end of the chapter in which I put the suspicious actions of those investigating Oswald's actions in the building just prior and just after the shooting... in chronological order. 12-20-63. The FBI omits from a report on an interview with Eddie Piper that Piper feels certain he saw Oswald on the first floor around 12:00. March '64--September '64. The Warren Commission fails to call Carolyn Arnold to testify, even though she told FBI investigators on 11-26-63 that she believed she saw Oswald on the first floor around 12:15. March 1964--September 1964. The Warren Commission fails to call Lillian Mooneyham to testify, even though she told the FBI on 1-8-64 that she saw a man standing in the sniper's nest at a time the Commission presumes Oswald to have been running down the back stairs. March 1964--September 1964. The Warren Commission fails to call Sandra Styles to testify, even though she could confirm Vickie Adams' claim she raced down the back stairs just after the shooting and didn't see Oswald. 3-24-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball fails to follow up with witness Harold Norman and find out how his not playing dominoes at lunch made him think someone else was in the room--an inquiry that would have almost certainly led to Norman's saying he thought this someone else was Oswald. 3-24-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball fails to point out during testimony or subsequently acknowledge that Jarman and Norman's claim they re-entered the building via the back door supported Oswald's claim he'd been sitting in a room with a view of the back door area, and had observed Jarman and Norman at this time. 3-25-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorneys Joseph Ball and David Belin fail to follow-up on Officer Marrion Baker's claim he saw two white men by the elevators when he came into the building, at a time when no white men besides Baker and Truly were known to be on the first floor. 4-7-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball fails to ask Billy Lovelady any of a number of relevant questions regarding Eddie Piper and Jack Dougherty's actions after the shooting. 4-7-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball also fails to ask Lovelady if he saw Roy Truly and Officer Baker by the elevators, and could be one of the white men observed by Baker. 4-7-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball asks William Shelley if he saw Roy Truly enter the depository building, but fails to ask him the more important question if he saw Truly and officer Baker by the elevators, and could be one of the white men observed by Baker. 4-7-64--September 1964. The Warren Commission's diagrams for the first floor of the school book depository strangely fail to include the west loading dock, through which Shelley and Lovelady re-entered the building, which was presumably left unsecured for some time after the shooting. 4-7-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorneys Joseph Ball and David Belin fail to interview Gloria Calvery and re-enact the actions of William Shelley and Billy Lovelady after the shooting (in order to develop a timeline for Shelley and Lovelady's return to the building, which is essential to their assessing the credibility of Vickie Adams), even though Ball and Belin know from their testimony that Shelley and Lovelady's sense of time for the moments immediately following the shooting are at odds with the re-enactments Ball and Belin had previously performed. 4-7-64--September 1964. The Warren Commission fails to ask Mrs. Avery Davis about Vickie Adams even though it has reason to suspect she would confirm Adams' claim she was outside on the front steps within a few minutes of the shooting. 4-7-64--September 1964. The Warren Commission fails to ask Joe Molina about Vickie Adams even though it has reason to suspect he would confirm Adams' claim she was outside on the front steps within a few minutes of the shooting. 4-7-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorney David Belin fails to follow-up and establish the identity of a policeman observed by Vickie Adams just after the shooting, even though the identification of this policeman could help the Commission establish the veracity of Miss Adams' claim she raced down the back stairs just after the shooting, and didn't see Oswald. 4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney David Belin fails to follow-up and clarify the record when Charles Givens testifies to leaving his coat in the domino room upon his arrival at work, but then going back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket after everyone else had left for lunch--a brand new addition to Givens' story that allowed Belin and the Commission to place Oswald in the proximity of the sniper's nest shortly before the shooting. 4-8-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorney David Belin fails to point out in testimony or subsequently acknowledge that Givens' new story was in conflict with both his previous recollections, and that of his co-workers. 4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney David Belin goes against the precedent established during the testimony of Bonnie Ray Williams and others and allows Charles Givens to dispute the claims of an FBI report--without putting the source of these claims on the record. 4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball fails to ask Eddie Piper where on the first floor he saw Oswald at 12:00, and thereby conceals from the Commission and public that Piper felt certain he saw Oswald just where Oswald said he was during the lunch period--in the domino room. 4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball fails to ask Eddie Piper about his discussion with Jack Dougherty, something that was desperately needed for the establishment of Dougherty as the passenger coming down in the west elevator after the shooting. 4-8-64. Warren Commission Attorney Joseph Ball fails to ask Jack Dougherty if he called the west elevator to the first floor or if it was on the ground floor waiting for him, something that Dougherty may not have remembered, but something that was of vital importance and needed to be asked. 4-8-64. Warren Commission attorney David Belin allows Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer to testify as though Charles Givens' new-found story (about seeing Oswald near the sniper's nest after everyone else had left the sixth floor) had been common knowledge on 11-22-63, when Belin knows this wasn't true. 4-8-64--September 1964. The Warren Commission fails to follow-up with Givens' 11-22-63 lunch partner, Edward Shields, to see if he will confirm Givens' claim he saw Oswald on the sixth floor around 11:55. 4-8-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorney David Belin, the man behind a number of re-enactments, fails to re-enact Givens' purported sighting of Oswald, to see if Givens could actually have seen Oswald where he said he saw him. 4-8-64--September 1964. The Warren Commission fails to test whether or not a rifle shot from the sixth floor sniper's nest window could have been heard by Jack Dougherty, standing near the opposite end of the building, as a sound coming from above him. 4-8-64--September 1964. Ball, Belin, and the Warren Commission fail to explore the possibility Dougherty went upstairs to work after the shooting, after someone else had taken the west elevator to the ground floor. 4-8-64--September 1964. Attorneys Joseph Ball and David Belin and the Warren Commission as a whole fail to acknowledge that their conclusion Jack Dougherty rode the west elevator down to the first floor as Baker and Truly ran upstairs places Dougherty on the fifth floor by the west elevator as Oswald crossed an open stretch of floor before him. 5-13-64. Dallas Police Detective Jack Revill testifies in support of Givens' new-found story, and offers Dallas Police Detective V. J. Brian as a witness to his discussion with Givens, only to have Warren Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin fail to ask Brian about Givens in testimony taken just after Revill dropped his smelly surprise. 5-14-64--September 1964. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball not only fails to ask Eddie Piper questions about Jack Dougherty he'd admitted in a memo needed to be asked, but uses the failure of Piper to provide answers to these never asked questions as a means of discrediting him. 5-19-64. The February 17-18 statements of Vickie Adams, who claimed she raced down the stairs just after the shooting, and Otis Williams, who claimed he raced up to the fourth floor shortly after the shooting (and who later claimed he'd taken the back stairs up to the second floor just after the shooting), are inexplicably missing from a batch of interviews conducted by the Dallas Police that has been forwarded to the Warren Commission. 6-4-64--September 1964. Vickie Adams' boss, Dorothy Ann Garner, lets it be known she'd be willing to testify in support of Adams' and Styles' claim they raced down the stairs after the shooting, and goes one step further by claiming she saw Baker and Truly run up the stairs after Adams and Styles ran down the stairs. And is totally blown off by the Warren Commission...
  11. CE399 and its connections to...

    FWIW, Joe, I've read an awful lot on forensics, and from what I have gathered it wasn't SOP in 1963 to test a bullet for blood residue, etc. The tests were performed to see if a bullet associated with a shooting could be matched to a gun, not to see if the bullet was the actual bullet used in the shooting. The presumption was that it was, or else it wouldn't be getting tested. And yes, I know this demonstrates a bias. Virtually all crime labs then, and now, are off-shoots of law enforcement, and see their purpose as helping the good guys catch the bad guys. Not helping suspected bad guys go free. Or making their fellow cops look bad. A few years back, I contacted the top expert in the world on fingerprint fabrication, to see if he would be willing to take a look at the prints supposedly found on the boxes, bag, and rifle, to see if they were as suspicious as I thought they were. He said that he'd met Lt. Day (the head of the Dallas Crime Scene Search Section), and a member of the FBI's crime lab, and that they'd told him everything was okie-dokie, and that he had no interest in second-guessing them, or exposing them. Now, this is a guy who'd traveled around the world testifying that foreign fingerprint experts had been fooled, or were just plain wrong. But he was unwilling to second-guess two American examiners, even after I pointed out some of the problems with the prints, and that the story he recalled their telling him wasn't accurate. As far as your original question, my recollection is that O.P Wright handled the bullet before handing it over to the Secret Service, and that this may have helped "clean" the bullet. But even if I'm wrong about this...the bullet was near pristine. It was smooth. One wouldn't expect to find blood on such a bullet. As far as this being normal? No. This was a FMJ bullet, designed to go through humans without the jacket being damaged. Most bullets then, and now, are made to deform on impact, and as such would be far more likely to retain blood and tissue.
  12. CE399 and its connections to...

    I think both could be true. That is, that it fell out of Kennedy's back, and not Connally's leg, and was then found in the limo by Sam Kinney. And that Kinney then placed it on a stretcher he thought was JFK's. So why didn't Kinney just come forward and say "Hey, look what I found?" Because he found it while cleaning up the limo--something the Secret Service immediately realized was a mistake--to such an extent, even, that they failed to mention it in their reports....
  13. CE399 and its connections to...

    Ouch. The skin on the bullet nose proves the bullet struck Kennedy's head at the supposed exit, and was a tangential wound. But Orr can't see that, and keeps trying to push that the skin on the bullet nose must have come from Kennedy's neck, as I recall. In any event, I hope the defense isn't gonna go down the road of pushing the "alternate theories" of its witnesses... Or is that the strategy? Blast the jury with a variety of theories, and thereby shrink the government's lone-assassin theory down to just one among many theories about the assassination, and a fairly weak one at that
  14. The TSBD roof

    I'm not sure. Maybe my mailbox is full. But you can always reach me through my website, pat@patspeer.com. P.S. I hope to see you in Dallas.
  15. Ball, Belin, and the Depository Witnesses

    FWIW, I don't think Shelley and Lovelady lied about the three minutes. They were wrong about it, but I don't think they lied. If they were part of some plot to discredit Adams, they would have both been coached to claim they'd spent a number of minutes in the train yards, and not out front. The WC had performed a re-enactment of Baker's race to the building, and had concluded it took as little as 15 seconds. Both Shelley and Lovelady said they'd already left the front of the building when Baker raced in. They thereby proved their approximations to be nonsense. If they'd provided accurate approximations for the first part of their journey, and grossly over-inflated approximations for the second part, well, they'd have been a lot more credible, and a lot more damaging to Adams' credibility. In short, then, if they'd been coached to lie about how long they stood on the steps before running around the back, they either had a terrible coach, or one who wasn't coordinating their lies with the WC. Now this last point is an important one. While it seems possible someone operating without the knowledge of the WC was orchestrating false testimony, my recent deep dive into the statements and testimony strongly suggests to me that Ball and Belin were doing plenty of orchestrating of their own, and didn't need any outside help.
×