Jump to content
The Education Forum
Doug Weldon

A shot fired through the front of the windshield- To Barb and Jerry

Recommended Posts

Now don't you wonder why they felt it was necessary to remove the windshield in the first

place? It was a crime scene, after all, and the FBI should have studied it, instead of destroying

the evidence.

The FBI examined the windshield in situ during their exam of the limo overall in the wee hours of 11/23. The windshield was not replaced until the 26th ... the assassination windshield being retained as evidence. The chrome trim around the windshield is not the only trim reflecting light and looking white in the photo.

Bests,

Barb :-)

.

post-667-1266510015_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry and Barb:

I need to emphasize one further point in regards to F. Vauhn Ferguson and his memorandum when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) beneath the mirror." Please note in my prior post that the word "between" should be "beneath." Don’t' you find it unusual that he did exactly what the FBI did, that he specifically described the negative, something that was not there. when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation." Why would he specifically point out something that did not exist, the hole (perforation)? Why would this even have been an issue to him? I would think he would have written something to the effect "that examination of the windshield revealed substantial cracks radiating at a point directly beneath the mirror." The negative could have been written about ad infinitum (ad nauseam) such as "an examination of the windshield revealed no perforation, grass stains, dog prints, cat scratches, lipstick marks, etc. Again, in 31 years of examining police reports I have NEVER seen this happen yet both Ferguson and the FBI did the same thing.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Hi Doug,

I don't find it at all odd that "no perforation" would specifically be noted. The windshield was being examined because it had been in a shooting. It was visibly damaged with a smear, radiating cracks, etc. Along with noting the location, size, surfaces involved, etc, whether or not there was a perforation in the middle of those cracks would be an obvious question to answer .... an obvious finding to note ... either way. It's just one more finding being noted, as was Frazier noting that no bullet holes or additional frags were found in the limousine other than the 3 lead frags he had noted and drawn. It would seem odd to me, or at least incomplete, if it were not noted.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

Interesting. In 31 years of being an attorney in the criminal justice system and having prosecuted and defended countless cases and with a son who is a police officer I have NEVER seen something like this. Also remember that Ferguson is not a police officer but is simply an employee of the Ford Motor Company. If you would find it normal protocal, then what is your explanation for Ferguson not mentioning smears and sizes and noting the cracks in a place that they obviously were not, directly beneath the mirror. If he is meticulous enough to note there was no hole (perforation) then why was he so sloppy about the rest of his description. Why did he only focus on the windshield? I am surprised that you would believe this. What do you think about the other parts of his account I mentioned in my postings?

Best,

Doug

I don't know why Ferguson made any notes on the windshield at all, you have researched the Ford Motor Co end of things, not I. What did Ford have to say about Ferguson's memo? How about Ferguson? Did Ferguson merely summarize what he learned the FBI had found in their exam? Sounds likely. Ford may have been interested in how their windshield performed. Frazier and the FBI exam was who/what my comments went to, but the same would be true of anyone doing an exam of the windshield. Perhaps it is my decades long background and work experience involving examinations in the medical world that makes this seem like such a no brainer to me. I guess I come at it from a clinical perspective. Sometimes what is not found is very important information and noteworthy. As was the case here. Had Frazier merely noted the smear and the cracks I can just hear the speculation and innuendo about why he didn't rule out a perforation when he was, afterall, examining the windshield for damage it sustained in a shooting. Not to mention, if he had not ruled out a perforation in his exam, it wouldn't have been known whether or not some fragment could have/did escape the car. Such an exam should tell the complete story of what the windshield experienced. He found that the inside surface had been hit by a projectile resulting in a smear and a stellate cracking pattern. You seriously don't think that looking for and reporting whether or not there was a perforation would be the normal course?

Interesting what happens when two people come at it from different perspectives. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

We are all "victims" of our experiences and I understand how ourr backgrounds might cause us to have different perspectives on things. Ferguson is an interesting character. His December 18, 1963 memo was supposedly released by misstake to Pamela McElwain Brown. She can discuss those circumstances better than I. What is so odd is that he distoted so many known facts. It appears he actually examined the vehicle. He was actually in charge of the Ford vehicles at the White House garage. He clearly described the damage to the windshield in the wrong place. He said Arlington Glass came in on November 25 when the logs show it was November 26 (there will be something new on that I will share in the future) Later he describes himself driving to Dearborn and Cinncinnati under impossible circumstances and dates that do not match records in Cinncinnati. As you are aware, because of Whitaker, I believe the Ford Motor Company was complicit with the Secret Service in destroying evidence and participating in a cover-up. To my knowledge Ford has never said anything about the Ferguson memo. I tried to find people who knew Ferguson. I found one person who knew him well, Willard Hess, whose company built the limo. He referred to him as "Fergie" and laughed when I told him Ferguson's account. His company's records were given to the HSCA which noted the discrepencies with erguson about the record. There are many problems with his memo even as far as his addressing his cleaning of the vehicle. I believe his memo was designed to cloud the record. Why it was being held and not meant for release I cannot explain. Hess' comment to me was that Ferguson was very much a "Company man."

What do you think of of Vaughn's assertion that Officer B.J. Martin saw the limo at Parkland and stated there was NO damage to the windshield.

Best,

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry and Barb:

I need to emphasize one further point in regards to F. Vauhn Ferguson and his memorandum when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) beneath the mirror." Please note in my prior post that the word "between" should be "beneath." Don’t' you find it unusual that he did exactly what the FBI did, that he specifically described the negative, something that was not there. when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation." Why would he specifically point out something that did not exist, the hole (perforation)? Why would this even have been an issue to him? I would think he would have written something to the effect "that examination of the windshield revealed substantial cracks radiating at a point directly beneath the mirror." The negative could have been written about ad infinitum (ad nauseam) such as "an examination of the windshield revealed no perforation, grass stains, dog prints, cat scratches, lipstick marks, etc. Again, in 31 years of examining police reports I have NEVER seen this happen yet both Ferguson and the FBI did the same thing.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Hi Doug,

I don't find it at all odd that "no perforation" would specifically be noted. The windshield was being examined because it had been in a shooting. It was visibly damaged with a smear, radiating cracks, etc. Along with noting the location, size, surfaces involved, etc, whether or not there was a perforation in the middle of those cracks would be an obvious question to answer .... an obvious finding to note ... either way. It's just one more finding being noted, as was Frazier noting that no bullet holes or additional frags were found in the limousine other than the 3 lead frags he had noted and drawn. It would seem odd to me, or at least incomplete, if it were not noted.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

Interesting. In 31 years of being an attorney in the criminal justice system and having prosecuted and defended countless cases and with a son who is a police officer I have NEVER seen something like this. Also remember that Ferguson is not a police officer but is simply an employee of the Ford Motor Company. If you would find it normal protocal, then what is your explanation for Ferguson not mentioning smears and sizes and noting the cracks in a place that they obviously were not, directly beneath the mirror. If he is meticulous enough to note there was no hole (perforation) then why was he so sloppy about the rest of his description. Why did he only focus on the windshield? I am surprised that you would believe this. What do you think about the other parts of his account I mentioned in my postings?

Best,

Doug

I don't know why Ferguson made any notes on the windshield at all, you have researched the Ford Motor Co end of things, not I. What did Ford have to say about Ferguson's memo? How about Ferguson? Did Ferguson merely summarize what he learned the FBI had found in their exam? Sounds likely. Ford may have been interested in how their windshield performed. Frazier and the FBI exam was who/what my comments went to, but the same would be true of anyone doing an exam of the windshield. Perhaps it is my decades long background and work experience involving examinations in the medical world that makes this seem like such a no brainer to me. I guess I come at it from a clinical perspective. Sometimes what is not found is very important information and noteworthy. As was the case here. Had Frazier merely noted the smear and the cracks I can just hear the speculation and innuendo about why he didn't rule out a perforation when he was, afterall, examining the windshield for damage it sustained in a shooting. Not to mention, if he had not ruled out a perforation in his exam, it wouldn't have been known whether or not some fragment could have/did escape the car. Such an exam should tell the complete story of what the windshield experienced. He found that the inside surface had been hit by a projectile resulting in a smear and a stellate cracking pattern. You seriously don't think that looking for and reporting whether or not there was a perforation would be the normal course?

Interesting what happens when two people come at it from different perspectives. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

We are all "victims" of our experiences and I understand how ourr backgrounds might cause us to have different perspectives on things. Ferguson is an interesting character. His December 18, 1963 memo was supposedly released by misstake to Pamela McElwain Brown. She can discuss those circumstances better than I. What is so odd is that he distoted so many known facts. It appears he actually examined the vehicle. He was actually in charge of the Ford vehicles at the White House garage. He clearly described the damage to the windshield in the wrong place. He said Arlington Glass came in on November 25 when the logs show it was November 26 (there will be something new on that I will share in the future) Later he describes himself driving to Dearborn and Cinncinnati under impossible circumstances and dates that do not match records in Cinncinnati. As you are aware, because of Whitaker, I believe the Ford Motor Company was complicit with the Secret Service in destroying evidence and participating in a cover-up. To my knowledge Ford has never said anything about the Ferguson memo. I tried to find people who knew Ferguson. I found one person who knew him well, Willard Hess, whose company built the limo. He referred to him as "Fergie" and laughed when I told him Ferguson's account. His company's records were given to the HSCA which noted the discrepencies with erguson about the record. There are many problems with his memo even as far as his addressing his cleaning of the vehicle. I believe his memo was designed to cloud the record. Why it was being held and not meant for release I cannot explain. Hess' comment to me was that Ferguson was very much a "Company man."

What do you think of of Vaughn's assertion that Officer B.J. Martin saw the limo at Parkland and stated there was NO damage to the windshield.

Best,

Doug

Doug,

Are you aware that Ferguson kept portions of the backseat leather and was involved in selling portions?

Here is the text from a recent description on Ebay offering for sale a 3x3 inch piece of the backseat leather for $50,000.00

QUOTE ON

A chilling relic from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. A section of the seat upon which he and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy sat when Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger on his Mannlicher Carcano, tragically ending the young president's life. Light blue leather seat section which composed the main portion of the bench seat and clearly shows rust-colored staining consistent with long-dried blood. Bears a 0.5'' scratched circle, possibly made when the seat was examined by the FBI following the shooting. Measures approximately 3'' x 3''. Accompanied by a letter of provenance on White House letterhead, 1p. quarto, dated 22 November 1982 (twenty years after the assassination), written by White House Technical Service Rep. F. Vaughn Ferguson. Ferguson, whose involvement with the limousine before and after the shooting is well-documented, writes in part: ''...The leather…is from the automobile in which John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, was assassinated in on November 22, 1963...Four days after the assassination the White House upholsterer and I removed this leather at the White House. The light blue leather is from the center of the rear seat…The spots on the leather are the dried blood of our beloved President John F. Kennedy…'' Ferguson then describes the extensive modifications that were made to the vehicle so that it could be used by President Lyndon B. Johnson, and mentions that he drove the vehicle from Cincinnati to Washington in complete secrecy to avoid the press. He concludes: ''...My career at the White House spanned a twenty year period...It was so sad...'' Included is a color photograph of Ferguson signing the letter of provenance and a photo of the bloodied rear seat of the vehicle. Also included is a copy of a 1982 newspaper article featuring Ferguson and his involvement with the ill-fated limousine. In the article Ferguson states: ''[after the return of the car to Washington]...FBI agents had ripped the leather seats. They told me they had to do it to find the bullet particles from the shooting...Ferguson said he took a little of the memorabilia with him...'I still have some of the leather from the seats' he said...'' A heart-rending relic from a day that shook the world.

QUOTE OFF

Todd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry and Barb:

I need to emphasize one further point in regards to F. Vauhn Ferguson and his memorandum when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation, but substantial cracks radiating at a point DIRECTLY (emphasis added) beneath the mirror." Please note in my prior post that the word "between" should be "beneath." Don’t' you find it unusual that he did exactly what the FBI did, that he specifically described the negative, something that was not there. when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation." Why would he specifically point out something that did not exist, the hole (perforation)? Why would this even have been an issue to him? I would think he would have written something to the effect "that examination of the windshield revealed substantial cracks radiating at a point directly beneath the mirror." The negative could have been written about ad infinitum (ad nauseam) such as "an examination of the windshield revealed no perforation, grass stains, dog prints, cat scratches, lipstick marks, etc. Again, in 31 years of examining police reports I have NEVER seen this happen yet both Ferguson and the FBI did the same thing.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Hi Doug,

I don't find it at all odd that "no perforation" would specifically be noted. The windshield was being examined because it had been in a shooting. It was visibly damaged with a smear, radiating cracks, etc. Along with noting the location, size, surfaces involved, etc, whether or not there was a perforation in the middle of those cracks would be an obvious question to answer .... an obvious finding to note ... either way. It's just one more finding being noted, as was Frazier noting that no bullet holes or additional frags were found in the limousine other than the 3 lead frags he had noted and drawn. It would seem odd to me, or at least incomplete, if it were not noted.

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

Interesting. In 31 years of being an attorney in the criminal justice system and having prosecuted and defended countless cases and with a son who is a police officer I have NEVER seen something like this. Also remember that Ferguson is not a police officer but is simply an employee of the Ford Motor Company. If you would find it normal protocal, then what is your explanation for Ferguson not mentioning smears and sizes and noting the cracks in a place that they obviously were not, directly beneath the mirror. If he is meticulous enough to note there was no hole (perforation) then why was he so sloppy about the rest of his description. Why did he only focus on the windshield? I am surprised that you would believe this. What do you think about the other parts of his account I mentioned in my postings?

Best,

Doug

I don't know why Ferguson made any notes on the windshield at all, you have researched the Ford Motor Co end of things, not I. What did Ford have to say about Ferguson's memo? How about Ferguson? Did Ferguson merely summarize what he learned the FBI had found in their exam? Sounds likely. Ford may have been interested in how their windshield performed. Frazier and the FBI exam was who/what my comments went to, but the same would be true of anyone doing an exam of the windshield. Perhaps it is my decades long background and work experience involving examinations in the medical world that makes this seem like such a no brainer to me. I guess I come at it from a clinical perspective. Sometimes what is not found is very important information and noteworthy. As was the case here. Had Frazier merely noted the smear and the cracks I can just hear the speculation and innuendo about why he didn't rule out a perforation when he was, afterall, examining the windshield for damage it sustained in a shooting. Not to mention, if he had not ruled out a perforation in his exam, it wouldn't have been known whether or not some fragment could have/did escape the car. Such an exam should tell the complete story of what the windshield experienced. He found that the inside surface had been hit by a projectile resulting in a smear and a stellate cracking pattern. You seriously don't think that looking for and reporting whether or not there was a perforation would be the normal course?

Interesting what happens when two people come at it from different perspectives. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

Barb:

We are all "victims" of our experiences and I understand how ourr backgrounds might cause us to have different perspectives on things. Ferguson is an interesting character. His December 18, 1963 memo was supposedly released by misstake to Pamela McElwain Brown. She can discuss those circumstances better than I. What is so odd is that he distoted so many known facts. It appears he actually examined the vehicle. He was actually in charge of the Ford vehicles at the White House garage. He clearly described the damage to the windshield in the wrong place. He said Arlington Glass came in on November 25 when the logs show it was November 26 (there will be something new on that I will share in the future) Later he describes himself driving to Dearborn and Cinncinnati under impossible circumstances and dates that do not match records in Cinncinnati. As you are aware, because of Whitaker, I believe the Ford Motor Company was complicit with the Secret Service in destroying evidence and participating in a cover-up. To my knowledge Ford has never said anything about the Ferguson memo. I tried to find people who knew Ferguson. I found one person who knew him well, Willard Hess, whose company built the limo. He referred to him as "Fergie" and laughed when I told him Ferguson's account. His company's records were given to the HSCA which noted the discrepencies with erguson about the record. There are many problems with his memo even as far as his addressing his cleaning of the vehicle. I believe his memo was designed to cloud the record. Why it was being held and not meant for release I cannot explain. Hess' comment to me was that Ferguson was very much a "Company man."

What do you think of of Vaughn's assertion that Officer B.J. Martin saw the limo at Parkland and stated there was NO damage to the windshield.

Best,

Doug

Doug,

Are you aware that Ferguson kept portions of the backseat leather and was involved in selling portions?

Here is the text from a recent description on Ebay offering for sale a 3x3 inch piece of the backseat leather for $50,000.00

QUOTE ON

A chilling relic from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. A section of the seat upon which he and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy sat when Lee Harvey Oswald pulled the trigger on his Mannlicher Carcano, tragically ending the young president's life. Light blue leather seat section which composed the main portion of the bench seat and clearly shows rust-colored staining consistent with long-dried blood. Bears a 0.5'' scratched circle, possibly made when the seat was examined by the FBI following the shooting. Measures approximately 3'' x 3''. Accompanied by a letter of provenance on White House letterhead, 1p. quarto, dated 22 November 1982 (twenty years after the assassination), written by White House Technical Service Rep. F. Vaughn Ferguson. Ferguson, whose involvement with the limousine before and after the shooting is well-documented, writes in part: ''...The leather…is from the automobile in which John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, was assassinated in on November 22, 1963...Four days after the assassination the White House upholsterer and I removed this leather at the White House. The light blue leather is from the center of the rear seat…The spots on the leather are the dried blood of our beloved President John F. Kennedy…'' Ferguson then describes the extensive modifications that were made to the vehicle so that it could be used by President Lyndon B. Johnson, and mentions that he drove the vehicle from Cincinnati to Washington in complete secrecy to avoid the press. He concludes: ''...My career at the White House spanned a twenty year period...It was so sad...'' Included is a color photograph of Ferguson signing the letter of provenance and a photo of the bloodied rear seat of the vehicle. Also included is a copy of a 1982 newspaper article featuring Ferguson and his involvement with the ill-fated limousine. In the article Ferguson states: ''[after the return of the car to Washington]...FBI agents had ripped the leather seats. They told me they had to do it to find the bullet particles from the shooting...Ferguson said he took a little of the memorabilia with him...'I still have some of the leather from the seats' he said...'' A heart-rending relic from a day that shook the world.

QUOTE OFF

Todd

Todd:

I was aware of that. Apparently someone else from Ford has pieces of leather from the vehicle. I have to search my records but I believe it was an unidentified calller to the Jim Bohanen radio show who claimed his uncle or someone he knew who worked for the Ford Motor Company and had some of the leather but was very afraid about anyone knowing he had it. What is interesting about this to me was that the leather was replaced at Hess and Eisenhardt in Cinncinnati, not at the Ford Motor Company so how did Ferguson and this alleged person get the leather. George Whitaker's account was that he saw the limo on November 25, 1963 at Ford in Dearborn and that the limo had been completely stripped down to bare metal. I hope you got my e-mail.

Best,

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Post deleted due to my factual error on the Dillard photo of the limo at Love Field. It is a pre-assassination photo. I confused it with a photo showing the dent in the windshield chrome strip. Many apologies, including to Doug Weldon.

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And now, here comes a tale to be investigated, and some photos to compare, also:

"White House Technical Service Rep. F. Vaughn Ferguson [...] whose involvement with the limousine before and after the shooting is well-documented, writes in part: '...The leather…is from the automobile in which John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, was assassinated in on November 22, 1963...Four days after the assassination the White House upholsterer and I removed this leather at the White House. The light blue leather is from the center of the rear seat…The spots on the leather are the dried blood of our beloved President John F. Kennedy…' '' (As quoted just above this post.)

I apologize for not being able to put up the photos that I am citing below, but --

1) There is a Dillard photo of the limo taken (from behind the rear seat) at Love Field after the assassination. It shows a clean limo seat, and just a little bit of blotted-out stain on the carpet in Kennedy's side of the footwell, as if some unfortunate had spilled a nice glass of tokay on the president. This photo was recently up on this forum.

2) There are other photos of the limo seat in the WH garage, covered in gore, and also showing the disputed Lambchop puppet/chrysanthemum bouquet.

Which of these photos is accurate? Can someone post these for comparison? The Dillard photo was recently used to "establish" that there was no hole in the windshield, so the topic is important to this thread.

David:

Again, this is so odd. I actually spoke with workers in Ohio who replaced the leather and Whitaker was clear that the vehicle was stripped to metal on November 25, 1963. It is literallly like a shell game.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are all "victims" of our experiences and I understand how ourr backgrounds might cause us to have different perspectives on things. Ferguson is an interesting character. His December 18, 1963 memo was supposedly released by misstake to Pamela McElwain Brown. She can discuss those circumstances better than I. What is so odd is that he distoted so many known facts. It appears he actually examined the vehicle. He was actually in charge of the Ford vehicles at the White House garage. He clearly described the damage to the windshield in the wrong place. He said Arlington Glass came in on November 25 when the logs show it was November 26 (there will be something new on that I will share in the future) Later he describes himself driving to Dearborn and Cinncinnati under impossible circumstances and dates that do not match records in Cinncinnati. As you are aware, because of Whitaker, I believe the Ford Motor Company was complicit with the Secret Service in destroying evidence and participating in a cover-up. To my knowledge Ford has never said anything about the Ferguson memo. I tried to find people who knew Ferguson. I found one person who knew him well, Willard Hess, whose company built the limo. He referred to him as "Fergie" and laughed when I told him Ferguson's account. His company's records were given to the HSCA which noted the discrepencies with erguson about the record. There are many problems with his memo even as far as his addressing his cleaning of the vehicle. I believe his memo was designed to cloud the record. Why it was being held and not meant for release I cannot explain. Hess' comment to me was that Ferguson was very much a "Company man."

What do you think of of Vaughn's assertion that Officer B.J. Martin saw the limo at Parkland and stated there was NO damage to the windshield.

Hi Doug,

The whole Ferguson/Whitaker thing sounds bizarre. Ferguson clearly had the date of the windshield replacement by Arlington Glass wrong. But what of the dates being in conflict as regard Whitaker who said the limo was stripped down to bare metal in Dearborn on the 25th? How can that be credible?

By "Vaughan's assertion" I reckon you mean Todd and not Ferguson.<g> I don't have enough information to be able to say much about that, other than that if, as Todd said, and there is certainly no reason to doubt Todd, that Martin claimed zero damage at all to the windshield, then Martin clearly was in error as we know there was damage. As I recall, you and Todd were going to get together so he could give you a copy of the document. Can one of you post a complete cite, in context, of what Martin was asked and his response in that Garrison interview?

Thanks,

Barb :-)

Edited by Barb Junkkarinen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John Gillespie
I have moved this topic because it did not fit well within the topic from which there had been some previous discussion. Barb and Jerry have examined some further evidence and have agreed to contribute to the exchange. I believe the prior discussion has been constructive and has demonstrated that disagreement can be expessed passionately, at times, without personal attacks. I submit, unequivocally, that it is a fact that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield and second that there is a strong possibility that the shot resulted in an entrance wound to the throat of President Kennedy. I would define a "fact" as testimony or evidence which would convince an impartial body of people that such was true. I sincerely believe that I could have convinced any unbiased jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that such a shot was fired and that a cover-up occurred at the highest levels of the United States government and that members of the United States Secret Service had to be complicit in allowing the assassination to occur. I have not reached my conclusions lightly or without great concern and disappointment. (Etc., etc......)

Best,

Doug Weldon

-----------------------------------------------------

Thanks very much for this contribution and others as well. I and various colleagues have long been of the belief that the entrance wound occurred exactly as you descirbed. I found this posting informative and compelling. Look forward to your book.

John Gillespie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have moved this topic because it did not fit well within the topic from which there had been some previous discussion. Barb and Jerry have examined some further evidence and have agreed to contribute to the exchange. I believe the prior discussion has been constructive and has demonstrated that disagreement can be expessed passionately, at times, without personal attacks. I submit, unequivocally, that it is a fact that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield and second that there is a strong possibility that the shot resulted in an entrance wound to the throat of President Kennedy. I would define a "fact" as testimony or evidence which would convince an impartial body of people that such was true. I sincerely believe that I could have convinced any unbiased jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that such a shot was fired and that a cover-up occurred at the highest levels of the United States government and that members of the United States Secret Service had to be complicit in allowing the assassination to occur. I have not reached my conclusions lightly or without great concern and disappointment.

There have been a number of people on this forum who have indicated that this is an extraneous issue. I would contend that issues such as this, the alteration of the body, and the manipulation of the Zapruder film, etc., each and of themselves, if proven, would have dramatic impact on the history of our nation. However. I also believe that truth in this matter would be the genesis for providing a positive change for our future.

Thompson, Jerry, and Barb have sought to refute that there was a hole in the windshield. They noted, "Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere... like on the Ed Forum."

If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. However, as I have noted. Fetzer, Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they posted I can neither support or defend any of their propositions. I am not aware that you or any of the people listed ever spoke to any of the witnesses and are not fully aware of everything they said.

I do have to take exception to a couple of your points. First of all, St. Louis Dispatcher newspaper reporter Richard Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole in the windshield of the Kennedy limo but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered the front or rear of the windshield.

You have questioned the account of U.S. Park police officer Nick Prencipe. I have provided you with a copy of my first conversation with the late Mr. Prencipe and I am willing to address any concerns you might have. I will neither seek to enhance or minimize anyone's account but I believe I can demonstrate that the overall record is compelling. It did concern me that you wrote that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet you were willing to post very definitive conclusions. It bothered me that you characterized two highly trained police officers as "casual observers" and the fact that three experienced police officers, including Nick Prencipe, unequivocally described the hole they witnessed as a "bullet hole." Dr. Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with firearms, was also unequivocal in describing what she witnessed as a "bullet hole." Charles Taylor of the Secret Service described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed. A key witness who you failed to mention was George Whitaker. a man who in 1963 had thirty years of experience working with glass and had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass, was 100 percent certain that he witnessed a bullet hole that penetrated the windshield from the outside to the inside of the windshield. What is ambiguous about Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, considered by his colleagues to have impeccable integrity, stating that he placed "a pencil in the hole?"

I am sincerely astounded by the contention Jerry made that witnesses "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield (assuming I guess that they saw the windshield at Parkland) but yet there are at least eight people (nine, if Prencipe is credible} who clearly saw a hole in the windshield! There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE. I would like to use that logic and state I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence to someone not witnessing a hole is when Officer Ellis loudly stated there was a hole in the windshield and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said "That's not a hole, it's a fragment." Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."

One of you wrote that "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were many civilians shown in the photographs standing in front of the limousine. Two police officers saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would cause one to conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who would have seen the hole while the Secret Service was pushing people away and drove the limousine away? As for Dr. Glanges she did say there was someone with her who saw the hole but when she spoke with me he was in fear for his job if he said anything. Is that reasonable. I believe so, simply based upon the fears, real or perceived, that so many witnesses expressed to me. If he was trying to distort her account would it not have been easier to say that she was by herself and thus no one could contradict her?

Jerry stated "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been a complete hole." What witness said they saw a SPOT? All of them said they saw a HOLE! How does Jerry or anyone have the knowledge to say they saw a SPOT or thought/speculated/assumed they saw a hole. If anyone has the ability to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is a skill far beyond anything I have ever known. When I mentioned to Stavis Ellis once that someone questioned whether he saw a hole, his response to me was "Were they there?"

I acknowledge and appreciate the new information you brought forth about Charles Taylor. However, I believe that there has to be some suspicion of someone who wrote in 1963 that he saw a hole, confirmed it in 1975, and then was approached by the government and suddenly an affidavit is signed that he was mistaken and that the windshield he saw then was the same one he saw in 1963 without a hole. Would that changed information be more reliable than those who never changed their accounts? Which would be more reliable, the account he wrote in November 1963 and verified in 1975 or a retraction noted in an affidavit after that time. Do we know that he even wrote that affidavit or if it was given to him by the government to sign? Why was this retraction classified as "Top Secret."

Isn't it somewhat ironic that a similar circumstance happened to Richard Dudman. Like Taylor, he wrote he saw a hole in the windshield. Lo and behold the government flew him from St. Louis to Washington D.C. and showed him a windshield that had no hole. Like Taylor, he renounced his prior position and wrote another article and would never speak about the assassination again and severed his deep friendship with Robert Livingstone. If you saw a hole and then were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful?

There are further problems. The windshield Taylor was shown in 1975 had to be the one you showed in your comparison study in your article by John Hunt. Martin Hinrichs did a detailed study and demonstrated that the cracks were not the same. Jerry himself now questions whether the two windshields in the article are the same. Jerry wrote on this forum "Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare."

Martin Hinrichs also pointed out a very pertinent fact: "A comparison of this two windshield cracks is nevertheless dominated by the following undeniable principal:

The windshield was kicked out at 11/26/63 by the feet of the Arlington Glass men. And that dominant cross crack should be visible in every photo post to 11/26/63."

There is also evidence that the Secret Service ordered twelve windshields after the assassination for "target practice." Did they need these windshields to attempt to duplicate the damage to the original windshield but without a crack," George Whitaker stated that the original windshield was "scrapped" (destroyed) on November 25, 1963 in Dearborn, Michigan.

I believe there has to be a stronger argument than I "think" all of the witnesses to the hole were mistaken or to state that you are sure that witnesses could be found who did not see a hole, when NO such witness can be presented. I appreciate this exchange. Barb, Jerry, and Josiah have all been very gracious in their responses. Jerry and Barb have now seen further evidence. I respect the intelligence of each of them and each brings a unique expertise to the discussion. I would have preferred that each had responded individually without the opportunity to corroborate with a response, but ultimately it does not make a difference. I am certain that others have shared the position that there was no hole in the windshield evidencing a shot from the front, but those beliefs should be based on more than feelings.

I have discovered many things that I have not yet published but hopefully will get the opportunity to do so in my book. I eagerly anticipate the reactions of Jerry, Barb, Josiah, and anyone. This is not an academic exercise for me nor do I have any interest in any notoriety for myself. I hope to be responsive and seek only truth.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

" There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE."

FWIW actually there is - DPD motorcycle officer B.J Martin. He says that in a Garrison investigation interview.

Todd

There was one person. A Texas Researcher by the name of Jay Harrison who had a affidavit from a Dallas Police officer who stated there was a hole in the windshield which he saw at Parkland. Jay Harrison had been a DPD investigative officer at the time of the assassination. He was engaged concerning subversive active groups in the Dallas area from 1961-63. I believe he showed those documents to Jim Marrs at Austin Texas before he (Jay) died of cancer. Another researcher has most of Jay's work today. I am not sure if he has that affidavit.

(on a sidebar.... I was told by Jay before his death that the DPD officer was killed in a car accident in Dallas Oakcliff, Texas in 1976.) There is a Texas Ranger in Austin who is the grandson of a murdered person at a golf course who it was alleged had an affair with LBJ's girlfriend, I think... not sure if I got this right. Its from memory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have moved this topic because it did not fit well within the topic from which there had been some previous discussion. Barb and Jerry have examined some further evidence and have agreed to contribute to the exchange. I believe the prior discussion has been constructive and has demonstrated that disagreement can be expessed passionately, at times, without personal attacks. I submit, unequivocally, that it is a fact that a shot was fired through the front of the windshield and second that there is a strong possibility that the shot resulted in an entrance wound to the throat of President Kennedy. I would define a "fact" as testimony or evidence which would convince an impartial body of people that such was true. I sincerely believe that I could have convinced any unbiased jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that such a shot was fired and that a cover-up occurred at the highest levels of the United States government and that members of the United States Secret Service had to be complicit in allowing the assassination to occur. I have not reached my conclusions lightly or without great concern and disappointment.

There have been a number of people on this forum who have indicated that this is an extraneous issue. I would contend that issues such as this, the alteration of the body, and the manipulation of the Zapruder film, etc., each and of themselves, if proven, would have dramatic impact on the history of our nation. However. I also believe that truth in this matter would be the genesis for providing a positive change for our future.

Thompson, Jerry, and Barb have sought to refute that there was a hole in the windshield. They noted, "Our purpose, as stated in the intro to our article, was to share what had been discussed and learned in a discussion that took place on a yahoo group. We dealt with what had been offered as proofs by Mr. Fetzer who brought others into it, like David Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. We dealt with those issues, those witnesses. And especially given the new documents regarding Taylor we decided to write it all up and share it elsewhere... like on the Ed Forum."

If this was a summarization of the exchange on the group then I have no problem. However, as I have noted. Fetzer, Lifton, Rich, White, Healy, etc. do not speak for me and not knowing what they posted I can neither support or defend any of their propositions. I am not aware that you or any of the people listed ever spoke to any of the witnesses and are not fully aware of everything they said.

I do have to take exception to a couple of your points. First of all, St. Louis Dispatcher newspaper reporter Richard Dudman had NO doubt he saw a hole in the windshield of the Kennedy limo but was unable to get close enough to determine if the hole entered the front or rear of the windshield.

You have questioned the account of U.S. Park police officer Nick Prencipe. I have provided you with a copy of my first conversation with the late Mr. Prencipe and I am willing to address any concerns you might have. I will neither seek to enhance or minimize anyone's account but I believe I can demonstrate that the overall record is compelling. It did concern me that you wrote that none of you had much knowledge about the limousine but yet you were willing to post very definitive conclusions. It bothered me that you characterized two highly trained police officers as "casual observers" and the fact that three experienced police officers, including Nick Prencipe, unequivocally described the hole they witnessed as a "bullet hole." Dr. Evalea Glanges, who was well experienced with firearms, was also unequivocal in describing what she witnessed as a "bullet hole." Charles Taylor of the Secret Service described a hole from which it appeared that "bullet fragments" had been removed. A key witness who you failed to mention was George Whitaker. a man who in 1963 had thirty years of experience working with glass and had been involved with many tests involving guns and glass, was 100 percent certain that he witnessed a bullet hole that penetrated the windshield from the outside to the inside of the windshield. What is ambiguous about Dallas Police Officer Stavis Ellis, considered by his colleagues to have impeccable integrity, stating that he placed "a pencil in the hole?"

I am sincerely astounded by the contention Jerry made that witnesses "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield (assuming I guess that they saw the windshield at Parkland) but yet there are at least eight people (nine, if Prencipe is credible} who clearly saw a hole in the windshield! There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE. I would like to use that logic and state I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence to someone not witnessing a hole is when Officer Ellis loudly stated there was a hole in the windshield and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said "That's not a hole, it's a fragment." Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."

One of you wrote that "How about the cops? They could have named others who were standing around the limo." There were many civilians shown in the photographs standing in front of the limousine. Two police officers saw the hole. Who else do they need? They corroborate each other. What would cause one to conjecture that they would have known the civilians and personnel at Parkland and would have taken names of all who would have seen the hole while the Secret Service was pushing people away and drove the limousine away? As for Dr. Glanges she did say there was someone with her who saw the hole but when she spoke with me he was in fear for his job if he said anything. Is that reasonable. I believe so, simply based upon the fears, real or perceived, that so many witnesses expressed to me. If he was trying to distort her account would it not have been easier to say that she was by herself and thus no one could contradict her?

Jerry stated "Latter day gilding the lily, perhaps, but outright lie...no. They saw a spot on the windshield. There was a spot there. They thought/speculated/assumed it was, or may have been a complete hole." What witness said they saw a SPOT? All of them said they saw a HOLE! How does Jerry or anyone have the knowledge to say they saw a SPOT or thought/speculated/assumed they saw a hole. If anyone has the ability to get into the mind of all of the witnesses and speak for them it is a skill far beyond anything I have ever known. When I mentioned to Stavis Ellis once that someone questioned whether he saw a hole, his response to me was "Were they there?"

I acknowledge and appreciate the new information you brought forth about Charles Taylor. However, I believe that there has to be some suspicion of someone who wrote in 1963 that he saw a hole, confirmed it in 1975, and then was approached by the government and suddenly an affidavit is signed that he was mistaken and that the windshield he saw then was the same one he saw in 1963 without a hole. Would that changed information be more reliable than those who never changed their accounts? Which would be more reliable, the account he wrote in November 1963 and verified in 1975 or a retraction noted in an affidavit after that time. Do we know that he even wrote that affidavit or if it was given to him by the government to sign? Why was this retraction classified as "Top Secret."

Isn't it somewhat ironic that a similar circumstance happened to Richard Dudman. Like Taylor, he wrote he saw a hole in the windshield. Lo and behold the government flew him from St. Louis to Washington D.C. and showed him a windshield that had no hole. Like Taylor, he renounced his prior position and wrote another article and would never speak about the assassination again and severed his deep friendship with Robert Livingstone. If you saw a hole and then were shown a different windshield by the government would you not be intimidated or even fearful?

There are further problems. The windshield Taylor was shown in 1975 had to be the one you showed in your comparison study in your article by John Hunt. Martin Hinrichs did a detailed study and demonstrated that the cracks were not the same. Jerry himself now questions whether the two windshields in the article are the same. Jerry wrote on this forum "Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare."

Martin Hinrichs also pointed out a very pertinent fact: "A comparison of this two windshield cracks is nevertheless dominated by the following undeniable principal:

The windshield was kicked out at 11/26/63 by the feet of the Arlington Glass men. And that dominant cross crack should be visible in every photo post to 11/26/63."

There is also evidence that the Secret Service ordered twelve windshields after the assassination for "target practice." Did they need these windshields to attempt to duplicate the damage to the original windshield but without a crack," George Whitaker stated that the original windshield was "scrapped" (destroyed) on November 25, 1963 in Dearborn, Michigan.

I believe there has to be a stronger argument than I "think" all of the witnesses to the hole were mistaken or to state that you are sure that witnesses could be found who did not see a hole, when NO such witness can be presented. I appreciate this exchange. Barb, Jerry, and Josiah have all been very gracious in their responses. Jerry and Barb have now seen further evidence. I respect the intelligence of each of them and each brings a unique expertise to the discussion. I would have preferred that each had responded individually without the opportunity to corroborate with a response, but ultimately it does not make a difference. I am certain that others have shared the position that there was no hole in the windshield evidencing a shot from the front, but those beliefs should be based on more than feelings.

I have discovered many things that I have not yet published but hopefully will get the opportunity to do so in my book. I eagerly anticipate the reactions of Jerry, Barb, Josiah, and anyone. This is not an academic exercise for me nor do I have any interest in any notoriety for myself. I hope to be responsive and seek only truth.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Doug,

" There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE."

FWIW actually there is - DPD motorcycle officer B.J Martin. He says that in a Garrison investigation interview.

Todd

There was one person. A Texas Researcher by the name of Jay Harrison who had a affidavit from a Dallas Police officer who stated there was a hole in the windshield which he saw at Parkland. Jay Harrison had been a DPD investigative officer at the time of the assassination. He was engaged concerning subversive active groups in the Dallas area from 1961-63. I believe he showed those documents to Jim Marrs at Austin Texas before he (Jay) died of cancer. Another researcher has most of Jay's work today. I am not sure if he has that affidavit.

(on a sidebar.... I was told by Jay before his death that the DPD officer was killed in a car accident in Dallas Oakcliff, Texas in 1976.) There is a Texas Ranger in Austin who is the grandson of a murdered person at a golf course who it was alleged had an affair with LBJ's girlfriend, I think... not sure if I got this right. Its from memory

You need go no further than around the corner to Spartacus bios - thank you John.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpeoples.htm

Clinton Peoples was born in Bridgeport, Texas on 25th August, 1910. He served as deputy sheriff in Conroe. Later Governor Miriam Ferguson appointed him as a special investigator of the state's four horse racing tracks.

In 1941 Peoples joined the Texas Department of Public Safety as a highway patrolman. Following the end of the Second World War Peoples joined the Texas Rangers in Austin. Peoples concentrated on political corruption and investigated the activities of George Parr.

In 1960 Henry Marshall was asked to investigate the activities of Billie Sol Estes. Marshall discovered that over a two year period, Estes had purchased 3,200 acres of cotton allotments from 116 different farmers. Marshall wrote to his superiors in Washington on 31st August, 1960, that: "The regulations should be strengthened to support our disapproval of every case (of allotment transfers)".

When he heard the news, Billie Sol Estes sent his lawyer, John P. Dennison, to meet Marshall in Robertson County. At the meeting on 17th January, 1961, Marshall told Dennison that Estes was clearly involved in a "scheme or device to buy allotments, and will not be approved, and prosecution will follow if this operation is ever used."

Marshall was disturbed that as a result of sending a report of his meeting to Washington, he was offered a new post at headquarters. He assumed that Billie Sol Estes had friends in high places and that they wanted him removed from the field office in Robertson County. Marshall refused what he considered to be a bribe.

A week after the meeting between Marshall and Dennison, A. B. Foster, manager of Billie Sol Enterprises, wrote to Clifton C. Carter, a close aide to Lyndon B. Johnson, telling him about the problems that Marshall was causing the company. Foster wrote that "we would sincerely appreciate your investigating this and seeing if anything can be done."

Over the next few months Marshall had meetings with eleven county committees in Texas. He pointed out that Billie Sol Estes scheme to buy cotton allotments were illegal. This information was then communicated to those farmers who had been sold their cotton allotments to Billie Sol Enterprises.

On 3rd June, 1961, Henry Marshall was found dead on his farm by the side of his Chevy Fleetside pickup truck. His rifle lay beside him. He had been shot five times with his own rifle. County Sheriff Howard Stegall decreed that Marshall had committed suicide. No pictures were taken of the crime scene, no blood samples were taken of the stains on the truck (the truck was washed and waxed the following day), and no check for fingerprints were made on the rifle or pickup.

Marshall's wife (Sybil Marshall) and brother (Robert Marshall) refused to believe he had committed suicide and posted a $2,000 reward for information leading to a murder conviction. The undertaker, Manley Jones, also reported: "To me it looked like murder. I just do not believe a man could shoot himself like that." The undertaker's son, Raymond Jones, later told the journalist, Bill Adler in 1986: "Daddy said he told Judge Farmer there was no way Mr. Marshall could have killed himself. Daddy had seen suicides before. JPs depend on us and our judgments about such things. we see a lot more deaths than they do. But in this case, Daddy said, Judge Farmer told him he was going to put suicide on the death certificate because the sheriff told him to." As a result, Lee Farmer returned a suicide verdict: "death by gunshot, self-inflicted."

Sybil Marshall hired an attorney, W. S. Barron, in order to persuade the Robertson County authorities to change the ruling on Marshall's cause of death.

One man who did believe that Marshall had been murdered was Clint Peoples. He had reported to Colonel Homer Garrison, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, that it "would have been utterly impossible for Mr. Marshall to have taken his own life."

Peoples also interviewed Nolan Griffin, a gas station attendant in Robertson County. Griffin claimed that on the day of Marshall's death, he had been asked by a stranger for directions to Marshall's farm. A Texas Ranger artist, Thadd Johnson, drew a facial sketch based on a description given by Griffin. Peoples eventually came to the conclusion that this man was Mac Wallace, the convicted murderer of John Kinser.

Peoples gained a reputation as someone who was incorruptible and in 1969 was promoted to Senior Ranger Captain for the Texas Rangers. He retired from the force in March, 1974. Soon afterwards President Richard Nixon appointed Peoples as U.S. Marshall for the Northern District of Texas.

After retiring Peoples continued to investigate the murder of Henry Marshall. In 1979 he interviewed Billy Sol Estes in prison. Estes promised that "when he was released he would solve the puzzle of Henry Marshall's death".

Billie Sol Estes was released from prison in December, 1983. Three months later he appeared before the Robertson County grand jury. He confessed that Henry Marshall was murdered because it was feared he would "blow the whistle" on the cotton allotment scam. Billie Sol Estes claimed that Marshall was murdered on the orders of Lyndon B. Johnson, who was afraid that his own role in this scam would become public knowledge. According to Estes, Clifton C. Carter, Johnson's long-term aide, had ordered Marshall to approve 138 cotton allotment transfers.

Billie Sol Estes told the grand jury that he had a meeting with Johnson and Carter about Henry Marshall. Johnson suggested that Marshall be promoted out of Texas. Estes agreed and replied: "Let's transfer him, let's get him out of here. Get him a better job, make him an assistant secretary of agriculture." However, Marshall rejected the idea of being promoted in order to keep him quiet.

Estes, Johnson and Carter had another meeting on 17th January, 1961, to discuss what to do about Henry Marshall. Also at the meeting was Mac Wallace. After it was pointed out that Marshall had refused promotion to Washington, Johnson said: "It looks like we'll just have to get rid of him." Wallace, who Estes described as a hitman, was given the assignment.

Billie Sol Estes also told the grand jury that he met Clifton C. Carter and Mac Wallace at his home in Pecos after Marshall was killed. Wallace described how he waited for Marshall at his farm. He planned to kill him and make it appear as if Marshall committed suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning. However, Marshall fought back and he was forced to shoot him with his own rifle. He quoted Carter as saying that Wallace "sure did botch it up." Johnson was now forced to use his influence to get the authorities in Texas to cover-up the murder.

The grand jury rejected the testimony of Billie Sol Estes. Carter, Wallace and Johnson were all dead and could not confirm Billie Sol's testimony. However, the Grand Jury did change the verdict on the death of Henry Marshall from suicide to death by gunshot.

On 9th August, 1984, Estes' lawyer,

Douglas Caddy, wrote to Stephen S. Trott at the U.S. Department of Justice. In the letter Caddy claimed that Estes, Lyndon B. Johnson, Mac Wallace and Clifton C. Carter had been involved in the murders of Henry Marshall, George Krutilek, Harold Orr, Ike Rogers, Coleman Wade, Josefa Johnson, John Kinser and John F. Kennedy. Caddy added: "Mr. Estes is willing to testify that LBJ ordered these killings, and that he transmitted his orders through Cliff Carter to Mac Wallace, who executed the murders."

Four days later, the Texas Bureau of Vital Statistics ruled that there was now "clear and convincing" evidence to prove Henry Marshall was murdered and State District Judge Peter Lowry ordered that the death certificate should be changed to "homicide by gunshot wounds".

Clinton Peoples was killed in an automobile accident on 22nd June, 1992.

(1) Bill Adler, The Killing of Henry Marshall, The Texas Observer (7th November, 1986)

In Washington, the House Intergovernmental Relations subcommittee was holding hearings on Billie Sol's cotton allotments. Among those testifying was Carl J. Miller, the Agriculture Department official responsible for allowing the Estes grain storage bond to remain at $700,000 instead of raising it to $1 million. Miller said he'd been visited by Estes, who mentioned names of the politically powerful to whom he was connected.

Meanwhile, the Robertson County grand jury heard testimony from a Hearne gas station attendant named Nolan Griffin, who said that reading about the case in the newspapers had reminded him of a fellow who stopped by the station to ask directions around the time Marshall died, a year earlier. The man asked Griffin where the county seat was and then he asked where "the Marshall place" was, Griffin told the grand jury. The following day, the man returned to the station and told Griffin, "You gave me the wrong Marshall, but that's all right. I got my deer lease."

Griffin said the man drove a 1958 or '59 Plymouth or Dodge station wagon. He said the man wore dark-rimmed glasses, had dark hair and a scarred, dark face. A Texas Ranger artist, Thadd Johnson, drew a facial sketch of the fellow, dubbed "Mr. X," which was circulated in newspapers across the state and country.

By the middle of August, the police had a lead in West Texas. On August 21, Texas Ranger Captain Clint Peoples flew with Griffin to Odessa, where a man said to resemble the composite drawing was interrogated by Peoples and positively identified by Griffin, according to a sworn statement Griffin made the fallowing week. The lead, howe~er, proved unfounded: the man, whose name was not released and has since been lost to time, was "checked out and completely cleared" by the Rangers after passing a polygraph test.

A few days after Griffin returned home, he received an eerie, anonymous phone call warning him to keep an eye on his children and to watch what he said, Griffin recalled recently. Shortly after that, Griffin said, Hearne Police Chief Perkins visited him at work one morning and told him Bryan Russ, the county attorney, wanted to see him right away. Griffin waited for his boss to return and rushed over to Russ's office, where he found Russ sitting with Sheriff Howard Stegall.

"While I was talking to Howard," Griffin, now a Hearne city councilman, told the Observer, "he handed me a pen and Bryan shoved a paper under me and asked me to sign it. I didn't know what it was, didn't read it or anything. They were my friends and I just did what they asked me to. A minute or so later, they got up, shook my hand, and I left."

What Griffin did, he now says, was unwittingly sign an affidavit stating that he positively identified the Odessa man on August 21, 1962. This meant, of course, that the testimony he gave the grand jury was effectively discredited, giving added weight to the local authorities and to the FBI's suicide theory. "I never positively identified the man. All I did was sign my name when they shoved the thing under me." The affidavit states: "I told the Rangers on that day that this was the man and I knew it on that date and I know it now. I cannot identify any other person for I am positive that this is the man."

Bryan Russ is now in private practice in Hearne after nearly a quarter-century as county attorney. Russ said he "doesn't even remember him (Griffin) signing anything. That's 20 some odd years ago. I have no recollection at this point. "

(2) James M. Day, Captain Peoples, Texas Ranger: Fifty Years a Lawman (1980)

Over the years Clint Peoples has become an expert in homicide investigation. He has worked hard at understanding the processes by which one undertakes to scientifically gather and sift evidence leading to solving a murder case. There is some intuition involved in each case, but mostly it is just hard work. And it is with the hard work in mind that Peoples states that he has missed on "very, very few" murder cases in his half century in law enforcement. But according to his wife, the most perplexed he ever was on an investigation of any sort was the

Henry H. Marshall case. "I'll go to my grave knowing Henry Marshall was murdered," Peoples says in acknowledging this, his most puzzling investigation, one of the "very, very few" he has not been able to solve.

Henry Marshall, age fifty-one, lived in Bryan with his wife and ten-year-old son Donald. He was employed by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Committee of the United States Department of Agriculture, working out of College Station. His boss described him as a "highly respected and dedicated public servant" who had been offered higher positions in Washington which he had refused, preferring to live in Bryan. Marshall carried a heavy work load which had caused him to have a "health problem" and threatened to reduce his working capacity to half-time. Some persons close to him were aware that Marshall had a bed in or near his office where he rested every day, and he told his brother-in-law, L. M. Owens, that he had a knot in his back which might be cancer. Others believed he had a heart condition, but whatever health problem he had it was not of recent origin. Marshall had lived with it a long time.

Saturday, June 3, 1961 was a day off, which offered Marshall the opportunity to go out to his ranch in Robertson County to look around and do some work. This "place"; as ranch or farm properties are sometimes called, was Marshall's hobby, his special interest, and he spent a lot of time at it. L. M. Owens worked for him on the place sometimes mending fences, seeing to crops and feeding the cattle. Owens noticed that Marshall recently had taken to driving in a back pasture where he looked over the feeder and talked quite a bit about it. It seemed a little unusual but Owens did not dwell on it. On June 3, Marshall stopped by the Owens house early before going thirteen miles northwest of Franklin to talk with Joe Pruitt and Wylie Grace, who with Lewis Taylor, were loading some hay on a truck. They were about ready to drive out of the Pruitt field when Marshall drove up in his Chevrolet pickup.

Marshall gave Pruitt a $36 check for baling hay and he tried to pay Grace for cutting the hay, but Grace declined. They visited for about twenty minutes and then, by 8:00 am, Marshall was gone. He went to his ranch and was involved in his normal activities and last seen at 10:30 a.m. by Jim and Martha Wood, a black couple who lived nearby. When he did not report home late in the afternoon, Mrs. Marshall called to get Owens to find him. Owens and Irving Bennett found him dead near the feeder at 6:30 pm.

When Robertson County Sheriff Howard Stegall, Deputy E. P. (Sonny) Elliott, and Ranger O. L. Luther arrived later, they looked around and decided it was suicide. Marshall had been shot five times with his .22 caliber rifle, which was found near the body. Marshall's glasses, watch, and pencils had been removed from their places and were on the seat of the pickup along with a single edge razor blade. At a quick glance it looked like suicide, and that is what they called it. No one paid attention to the fact that the rifle had a bolt action, one which had to be worked every time the rifle was fired. The following morning, Sunday, with the greenery of Central Texas at its best in late Spring (really early Summer in this locale) and the birds flitting and twittering overhead. Deputy Elliott took justice of the Peace Lee Farmer out to the scene. It looked like suicide to Farmer, so he recorded it as such in his official report. While there, Elliott picked up a spent .22 caliber cartridge casing.

Meanwhile the family gathered. From Denison about dawn on June 4 came Mrs. Marshall's sister and her two sons, nineteen-year-old Jackie Leroy Anderson and fifteen year-old Jerry Wayne Anderson. They were naturally curious as they looked at Uncle Henry's pickup which had blood smeared on it in several places, on the right side near the door handle, on the hood and right rear fender and on the left door just below the door handle. They also saw a dent, six to eight inches in diameter, centered in the lower half of the right door. Owens and the Anderson boys drove out to Marshall's farm that morning and just out of curiosity, placed the pickup at the same place Owens had found it. They then looked around and found a raisin box and some cigarette butts which had been smoked down to the filter so they could not tell what kind they were. They picked up the filters and put them in the raisin box which got lost later. Owens convinced them that it was suicide, saying, "Remember, I know more about Henry Marshall than you think I do. I worked for him and was with him a lot." When they got back to Franklin, Owens asked the young men to wash the truck, and they did.

Henry Marshall was buried as the family returned to normalcy. Mrs. Marshall soon went to Lee Farmer to ask that the cause of death be changed from suicide, but Farmer thought he was right, so he stuck to it. That ended things. Ended them that is, until May, 1962, when Secretary of Agriculture Orville Freeman stated that Henry Marshall had been a "key figure" in the investigation of the affairs of Billie Sol Estes. The connection was cotton allotments. Estes found cotton farming to be profitable so he set out in 1960 to grow all he could. He discovered that the only obstacle to growing more cotton and making more money was that the federal government imposed strict acreage controls in exchange for its price supports on cotton. The acreage allotment remains with the land and it cannot otherwise be sold or exchanged. Once acreage allotment for cotton is set, it stays with the land and is sold with it. The only exception to the rule is on land taken away by the right of eminent domain. When this happened, then the allotment could be transferred to other land bought by the same person within three years. These transfers had to be approved by the Department of Agriculture, and in Texas they were screened at College Station by Henry Marshall. Estes saw the loophole in cotton allotments and went right to it. He persuaded farmers in Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia and Alabama who had lost cotton land by eminent domain to purchase land from him. The plan was for a farmer to buy the land, place the cotton allotment on it, and then lease it to Estes for $50 per acre. The farmer was to pay Estes for the land purchase in four installments, but it was understood in advance that the farmer would fail to make the first payment, after which Estes would foreclose. The final result was that Estes still had the land, only now it was an acreage upon which cotton could be grown. By June, 1961, Estes was already in trouble over his cotton allotments because agriculture officials were onto his scheme, and it is a coincidence that he started getting in trouble at the same time as Henry Marshall's death. Homer Garrison had the "coincidence" called to his attention, after which he decided that a closer look should be had. Garrison assigned Peoples to investigate. Taking Ranger Johnny Krumnow with him, Peoples began on May 10, 1962, and he made his report to Garrison on July 13. In between, Rangers Krumnow, Hendrichs, Luther, Horton, Wilson, Riddles, J. S. Nance and Glenn Elliott had questioned everybody connected or possibly connected with the death. Mrs. Marshall, L. M. Owens, Irving Bennett, and Bob Marshall, Henry Marshall's brother, had all taken polygraph tests which showed that they knew nothing of how Marshall had met his death.

By May 21 Peoples had enough evidence to convince District Judge John M. Barron and County Attorney Bryan Russ to call a grand jury "for the purpose of obtaining evidence regarding Marshall's death." Peoples was the first to present for all the proceedings so he could hear witnesses' testimony. Fifty-five witnesses testified in the five weeks of hearings. The grand jury was concerning itself with whether it was suicide or homicide, but Peoples was already convinced it was the latter and he was trying to decide who had done it. That afternoon, judge Barron ordered that the body be disinterred for autopsy. Peoples was there when they brought the casket out of the ground to be taken to the Callaway-Jones Funeral Home in Bryan.

Dr. Joseph A. Jachimczyk, the chief medical examiner for Harris County, was called to Bryan to do the autopsy. Jachimczyk was a veteran in his trade, a man who had worked with some 15,000 corpses, one who performed autopsies daily. He was assisted by Dr. Ray Cruse of Hearne and James L. Turner, an investigator from his own staff. In addition to Peoples, those present were Judge Barron, Sheriff Stegall, Fred R. Rymer, DPS ballistics expert Charles H. Beardsley, Cal Killingsworth, and Dr. James I. Lindsay. The vault was opened at 7:30 a.m., the body identified by Manley Jones, the embalmer of almost a year ago, and the examination of the body began at 8:30. Jachimczyk was thorough in his work. He went through the body systematically looking at everything, describing the "thin layer of black mold, which scraped off fairly easily" and the "scalp which slipped readily off the calvarium upon touching." But such thing were incidental to the doctor's research. He wanted to know the cause of death. To this end he took ninety-seven specimens for examination.

His twelve-page report concluded that Marshall came to his death as a result of five gunshot wounds in the chest and abdomen. Three of the wounds were "rapidly incapacitating," while two would require a little more time. Marshall, he felt, could not have lived more that thirty minutes after he sustained the wounds. He found two further complicating factors. Marshall had a bruise on the left side of the head and he had a 15 per cent carbon monoxide saturation in the blood from the left chest cavity, which he said could have been as high as 30 per cent at the time of death. For the grand jury, the punch-line of the report was Jachimczyk's final conclusion: "Being familiar with bizarre gunshot injuries, one cannot say, however, on a purely scientific basis that a verdict of suicide is absolutely impossible in this case; most improbable, but not impossible." He pronounced it as a "possible suicide, probable homicide."

Dr. Jachimczyk telephoned his findings to Judge Barron on May 24 as the investigation proceeded. Peoples was in Austin the following day giving Garrison a briefing after which "The Boss" said to keep going. On May 29 and May 30 Peoples conferred with judge Barron, County Attorney Russ and the grand jury, and he did it again on June 4. June 3, the first anniversary of Marshall's death, found him in the maelstrom of a mystery. After the grand jury had considered the evidence presented, they concluded on June 25 that there was no reason to change the verdict from suicide. Jury Foreman Goree Matthews did state that they agreed to come back into session at any time to hear additional evidence. County Attorney Bryan Russ agreed, stating that he had "no evidence to indicate that it was other than suicide." Sheriff Stegall was asked if he thought Marshall could have worked the bolt on the rifle to reload after each shot, and he replied that he thought it possible. "I do know this," he continued, "a man can stand up under a lot of lead. A .22 does not have much shocking power... I saw a man hit four times once and walk off." Since that time the legal question of Marshall' death - suicide or murder - has not been opened.

For Peoples the case never stopped. He continued to have his Rangers follow every lead, doing the coordinating and analyzing himself. On July 13, 1962 he made an extensive report to Colonel Garrison, a part of which reads: Our investigation reveals that for Mr. Henry Marshall to have committed suicide the following acts would have had to occur:

[1] The first act of Mr. Marshall would have been to take carbon monoxide. (Pathologist's report reveals that 15% carbon monoxide was present at time of autopsy one year later and 15% would have been lost from embalming processes, a lethal dose consisting of 40%)

[2] Mr. Marshall would have had to dispose of the facilities with which the carbon monoxide was administered

[3] Mr. Marshall received a serious brain injury on the left side of his head from a fall and a cut over his left eye, causing the eye to protrude.

[4] Severe bruises with skin breakage on the back of his hands.

[5] Blood left on the right side of the pickup truck, also on rear and left side of pickup.

[6] Mr. Marshall would have had to cut off the motor on the pickup.

[7] Absence of blood inside of pickup after motor was cut off.

[8] Absence of blood on front of Mr. Marshall's shirt.

[9] Shirt of deceased was open with no bullet holes in front.

[10] Nitrites present only on tail of Mr. Marshall's shirt (back side).

[11] A deep dent present on right side of pickup caused by some type of instrument other than a human hand or head which was placed there on this date.

[12] Due to lack of blood on front of shirt but considerable blood present around pickup creates another mystery.

[13] Investigation revealed that it was difficult for Mr. Marshall to straighten out his right arm, which was due to a prior injury, and it would have been necessary for him to pull the trigger with his left hand.

After all of the above acts Mr. Henry Marshall would have had to have sufficient control of his equilibrium to have fired five bullets into the front of his left abdomen with a .22 bolt-action rifle, taking it down each time and ejecting the shell. The five bullets passing through Mr. Marshall's body traveled at a substantially straight angle which would indicate that he had to have extreme control of his equilibrium, after receiving all injuries from falls preceding the shooting of himself. From the direction of travel of bullets Mr. Marshall would have had entrance wounds which would have been more difficult. This fact was determined by the pattern of spent shells which were found by this Division and other parties after the death of Henry Marshall. Markers were placed by parties who found the spent shells at the time. Tests were made of the gun to establish a pattern of shell ejections which revealed that they were of a pattern identical to those found at the scene. Sand in the entire area was sifted; no bullets present. Mine detector was used; no other spent shells found.

A conclusion reached from this investigation is that had Mr. Henry Marshall shot himself before all of the acts above pointed out he would have had to return to where the empty shells were found and then collapse, which under the circumstances above mentioned would have been impossible for the following reasons: (1) Investigation reveals that there was no blood present on the ground other than where the body was found, (2) the only blood present on Henry Marshall's shirt was at the exit holes in the back and was a very small amount, (3) autopsy reveals that three of the shots were incapacitating, one severing the aorta and two paralyzing, and (4) autopsy report also reveals that the man died quickly from internal hemorrhaging.

It is a conclusion of this writer that Mr. Marshall did not live long after shots were fired into his body for the reason that so long as there is life in the body, the heart is pumping and so long as the heart is pumping, blood will flow from the exit of a gunshot wound. Reasonable deductions are that Mr. Marshall did not move from the location where the shots were fired into his body. It would have been impossible for him to have first fired the shots with such accuracy under the influence of carbon monoxide, secondly committed the acts above mentioned and return to the spot where the shells were found and died. It is reasonable to conclude that this would not have been possible for him to have returned and scuffed up the ground with his foot as indicated in a dying condition. Witnesses reveal that the ground was scuffed up with his foot where he was found lying.

An extensive investigation was conducted, as result of the suicidal ruling, to determine the reason for suicide motivation; no reason can be established. All reports reveal that Mr. Henry Marshall was a dedicated, honest and loyal government employee. Records also reveal that due to the vast operation of the cotton and grain program of Texas and Mr. Marshall's reluctance to approve many shady aspects he, without a doubt, created animosity among people who were attempting to accomplish their goals. From the findings of this investigation it is my personal opinion that it would have been beneficial to a vast number of shady operators for Mr. Henry Marshall to have been disposed of. It is my conclusion from the extensive investigation made by this department with the assistance of the scientific approach, evidence obtained, witnesses' testimonies, physical checks and tests made at the scene, it would have been utterly impossible for Mr. Marshall to have taken his own life.

(3) Glen Sample and Mark Collum, The Men On The Sixth Floor (1995)

A Texas Ranger, Clint Peoples, had befriended Estes and convinced him that he should come clean with the whole truth. True to his word, Estes agreed to appear before a Robertson County grand jury and clear the record concerning the cotton allotments, the death of Henry Marshall and the involvement of LBJ and others. He recounted the whole ugly picture - from the millions he had funnelled into Johnson's secret slush fund, to the illegal cotton allotment scheme, to the murder of Henry Marshall.

Estes testified that Lyndon Johnson, Cliff Carter (an aide of LBJ), Malcolm Wallace and himself met several times to discuss the issue of the "loose cannon" - Henry Marshall. Marshall had refused a LBJ-arranged promotion to Washington headquarters, and it was feared that he was about to talk. Johnson, according to Estes, finally said, "Get rid of him," and Malcolm "Mac" Wallace was given the assignment. According to testimony, Wallace followed Marshall to a remote area of his farm and beat him nearly unconscious. Then while trying to asphyxiate him with exhaust from Marshall's pickup truck, Wallace thought he heard someone approaching the scene, and hastily grabbed a rifle which customarily rested in the window rack of the truck. Quickly pumping five shots into Marshall's body, Wallace fled the scene.

(4) Dave Reitzes,

Yellow Roses (1999)

On June 19, 1992, US Marshall Clint Peoples told a friend of his that he had documentary evidence that Mac Wallace was one of the shooters in Dealey Plaza. On June 23rd, Peoples, a former Texas Ranger and a onetime friend of Henry Marshall, was killed in a mysterious one-car automobile accident in Texas.

On March 12, 1998, a 1951 fingerprint of Malcolm "Mac" Wallace was positively matched with a copy of a fingerprint labeled "Unknown," a fresh print lifted on November 22, 1963, from a carton by the southeast sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. This carton was labeled "Box A," and also contained several fingerprints identified as those of Lee Harvey Oswald. The identification was made by A. Nathan Darby, a Certified Latent Print Examiner with several decades experience. Mr. Darby is a member of the International Association of Identifiers, and was chosen to help design the Eastman Kodak Miracode System of transmitting fingerprints between law enforcement agencies. Mr. Darby signed a sworn, notarized affidavit stating that he was able to affirm a 14-point match between the "Unknown" fingerprint and the "blind" print card submitted to him, which was the 1951 print of Mac Wallace's. US law requires a 12-point match for legal identification; Darby's match is more conclusive than the legal minimum. As cardboard does not retain fingerprints for long, it is certain that Malcolm E. Wallace left his fingerprint on "Box A" on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository early on November 22, 1963.

(5) Rodney Stich,

Defrauding America (1995)

Publicity was given to one of the first whistle blowers to be killed, federal inspector Henry Marshall, an employee of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. He was killed in June 1961 on a farm in Texas, much to the relief of high federal officials. Marshall had evidence linking a multimillion-dollar commodity fraud to an LBJ aide, and to Lyndon Johnson himself. Alongside Marshall's body was the .22 caliber rifle that had fired the fatal bullets. Texas authorities obligingly ruled Marshall's death a suicide, even though the position of the wounds indicated it would have been physically impossible for them to have been self-inflicted.

An AP article prepared by the Dallas Times Herald reported that convicted swindler Billy Sol Estes secretly testified before a grand jury empanelled at Franklin, Texas, relating to the Marshall death. Estes testified that he was present when Lyndon Johnson and two other men discussed having Marshall killed because Marshall knew too much about illegal manipulation of cotton allotments. Johnson reportedly gave the order to have Marshall slain. Estes identified the two men as Clifton Carter and Malcolm Wallace. Carter was once Johnson's top political aide in Texas and later his White House liaison to the Democratic National Committee. Wallace was a former University of Texas student body president.

The Marshall killing and its relationship to Lyndon Johnson had been the subject of intense gossip and rumor in Texas political circles for years. Estes, who had aged considerably since Marshall was killed, agreed to testify about the Marshall killing at the urging of U.S. Marshal Clint Peoples of Dallas, who had pursued the case for more than two decades.

Other testimony in the grand jury hearings revealed that Johnson approved the killing out of fear that Marshall would give Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy evidence concerning cotton allotments incriminating LBJ. Kennedy was known to have no respect for Johnson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And now, here comes a tale to be investigated, and some photos to compare, also:

"White House Technical Service Rep. F. Vaughn Ferguson [...] whose involvement with the limousine before and after the shooting is well-documented, writes in part: '...The leather…is from the automobile in which John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, was assassinated in on November 22, 1963...Four days after the assassination the White House upholsterer and I removed this leather at the White House. The light blue leather is from the center of the rear seat…The spots on the leather are the dried blood of our beloved President John F. Kennedy…' '' (As quoted just above this post.)

I apologize for not being able to put up the photos that I am citing below, but --

1) There is a Dillard photo of the limo taken (from behind the rear seat) at Love Field after the assassination. It shows a clean limo seat, and just a little bit of blotted-out stain on the carpet in Kennedy's side of the footwell, as if some unfortunate had spilled a nice glass of tokay on the president. This photo was recently up on this forum.

2) There are other photos of the limo seat in the WH garage, covered in gore, and also showing the disputed Lambchop puppet/chrysanthemum bouquet.

Which of these photos is accurate? Can someone post these for comparison? The Dillard photo was recently used to "establish" that there was no hole in the windshield, so the topic is important to this thread.

David:

Again, this is so odd. I actually spoke with workers in Ohio who replaced the leather and Whitaker was clear that the vehicle was stripped to metal on November 25, 1963. It is literallly like a shell game.

Doug

Not to take away from anyone... BUT what about the "alleged" south knoll shooter? The Windshield hole or crack is a very interesting topic... so is the background leading up to the "alleged hole in the windshield.

Sometime ago I posted an overhead picture of Delay Plaza and drew a "line of shot" from the south side of the underpass and parking lot. Perhaps someone would care to locate that picture and post it and compare it to the hole or crack in the windshield. Remember the road curves and dips as it goes under the underpass. Shoots came from our left . I know some do not want to hear this... BUT... I post this for no other reason that to make some aware of this little known background.... I am sure this will kill this thread.... no Pun, intended.

OLD POSTINGS:

Mar 28 2007, 06:58 AM

Post #46

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 5179

Joined: 9-December 04

From: Europe

Member No.: 2082

QUOTE (Charles Drago @ Mar 27 2007, 10:51 PM)

I wanted to revisit this topic, if only to move it to the top of the list with the hope of stimulating additional postings.

Charles

Charles and all, I have been exploring things behind the scenes [not posting them as I do them on the Forum]. I have, as I said, some images by Tom and have located four other much larger clusters of them. If this were to really be moved forward it would need a core group with a lead person; a well organized plan of how to collect, preserve, validate the methodology of and present to the public (and in what forum?!); some money with which to do this; a permanent archive for these items that will be publicly accessable yet highly secure against tampering or theft, etc. Anyone with ideas toward these ends is certainly welcome to post those ideas or contact me by email. When things cystalize a bit more behind the scenes I'll post a bit more. Tom was highly secretive during his lifetime, but he made copies and placed them in secure places. I'd also like to make here a list with URLs, if available, of all presentations Tom did, as well as all recolections people have of meeting and talking with him about his technique, etc.

One interesting fact I came accross in what I've been working on is that Tom gave a very large amount of his conclusions and enhancements to the FBI! It would be most interesting to file a FOIA on those. All of that material exists in copies elsewhere, but to see if the FBI claims to have them, has done anything with them, passed them on to any other agencies, tested his enhancement process, etc. Anyone out there who can work with me on that for a fast-track FOIA contact me by email.

Tom was quite naive [iMHO] to the end of his life that goodness still could be found within the varous agencies of the USG and his presentation and 'donation' of these materials to the FBI he thought was sufficient to prove to them, and thus the Nation, that there had been a massive conspiracy and coverup [perish the thought!] and he was very disappointed that the FBI, as well as no other Government agencies, never got back to him over the materials he tendered. I'd almost bet that those materials were looked at carefully for the purposes of denying and refuting them and would like to try to find those analyses, if they exist. Tom died not long after his donation of these materials to the USG.

Peter

This post has been edited by Peter Lemkin: Mar 28 2007, 07:12 AM

William Plumlee

Feb 15 2008, 04:15 AM

Post #47

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 893

Joined: 11-October 04

From: d

Member No.: 1680

QUOTE (Jack White @ Mar 8 2007, 03:14 PM)

QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Mar 8 2007, 09:37 PM)

It is late here and I'm tired....and will try to put down a few thoughts

briefly and come back to put down more in a day or so. I'm probably one of the or the only researcher here to have had some of my work and photos 'enhanced' by Tom Wilson. I'm looking at them here on my desk. I've never put them on the internet...and likely not about to. I know some about Tom's computer program and there is much I don't. He was too secretive. There are those who could help, but I can't [yet] pry information out of them. I'll not mention who they are here and now. He was approved by the courts as an expert witness in forensics, using his techniques on forensic materials. Cyril is too busy with his own problems to help much on that now. What to say...I had him use his program on the ultra-high-quality Cancellare photo I got via the back door. He never explained totally how his system worked and thus what one gets [or sees] is, yes, hard to verify. Basicly, he had his system look for spectral patterns characterisic of specific materials: glass, metal, wood, cloth, etc. He claimed he could even 'see'/distinguish variants of these. OK, I can 'see' these in his enhancements...but without the independant test on a non-controversial item who is to say if the new image is an artifact or a real 'enhancement' of what was there. My problem and I'm trying to 'lean' on those who could answer....thus far with no success. My gut feeling is his technique worked, but not to the level he claimed in all cases. I have some very interesing 'images' here I can overlay on the original Cancellare and thus orient what is where...but ....too tired to go into it all now...tomorrow....more.... Peter

I am familiar with Tom's work for Peter, because it was I who persuaded Tom to take a look. However, he was very secretive

with both Peter and me about what he found. He would only tell me that he found TWO MEN in the tree shadows. I never saw

his work on this, and frankly was doubtful, since darkroom enhancement of the area showed nothing. He would not show Peter

what he found either, and soon his relations with Peter soured, because I feel he thought Peter was being too "pushy" and impatient

for progress...plus he was busy building his lawsuit against the govt.

Jack

What does the south knoll photo really mean? Two people in the shadows of a tree? It means nothing unless you take into account the story behind the photo and how it came into being and the background of the people in question..

(1) the location of these two people were first told to the FBI in Buna Vista Colorado in April and May of 1964. The FBI was not at all interested in the story and said there was nobody there because they had pictures of the aera and it did not show anyone at that location.

They also said their investigation proved I was at another location in Florida at the time of the assassination. I was not. ( THE Cancellara Photo had not surfaced at this early date, 1964) It was also stated by the FBI that if I (Plumlee) did not quit talking about Dallas and my wild stories concerning the assassination I would never get out of jail ( I was in lock up from about two weeks after the JFK until sometime shortly after the WC completed its findings. I was never interviewed by the WC)

Some years later (1980) Barnard Finsterwald Jr and Gary Shaw had a copy of the Cancellara photo which appeared in Gary Shaws early or first book (can't recall name about 1976 ??) I was shown that picture for the first time and I pointed out to them where Sergio and I were standing at the time of the shots. (near and within the shadows of the fork tree. I drew them a map of our route out of Delay Plaza. Shortly after that my house in Grant Colorado was burned down and I was beat up at a Evergreen Colorado Bar and had ten stitches in right forehead and eye. A few months later, I was shot at in my truck and ran off the road. There were passengers in the truck at the time who have given statements to law enforcement)

Some years later (1990 ??) Jim Maras and Peter Lambkin and I started research on this subject and others concerning JFK and OPS. It that point all hell broke loose and the FBI hounded me for years and IRS took all my holdings and bank accounts for back taxes) We, the three of us continued to work on trying to prove I and Sergio were there that day and at that location on the south knoll when the shots were fired Around that time Jim Maras introduced me to Jack White and the photo came up and I was under the impression that Jack White was going to look into the picture. I was told he had done that and he failed to see anything there. Soon thereafter Peter Lambkin retained Tom Wilson to take a look at the picture. Carl Which also looked at Tom's work, I was told. I was also told he (Wilson) had found two people near or at the forked tree, but he was working on it . Shortly after that and just before he died The FBI contacted me in Denver Colorado asking about the picture and they showed me a copy and wanted me to mark the location where we were standing. I refused. They also showed me an affidavit which my brother had signed that stated I was in Dallas early AM visiting my step-mother his mother. I refused to help them in any way because I was pissed at them because of the IRS matter. I told them to shove it and to talk to the CIA if they wanted to know anything about what I did and had done, including Iran-Contra operations. I felt I was being set up.

Now that is a very rough background as to the events which leads to this south knoll investigation and the photo.. (For the sake of time, I have been about as short as I Can make this)

The reason this is important to the investigation, is because it proves two people were there and when you take into account the background of these two people then it should be looked into. I have always felt that photo is an important link and should be looked into, perhaps more so than the north knoll..

How and why the software works and who did what back when is really not the issue.

Again. What does it prove if two people are proved to be at that location at the time of the shots?.

Add that to the "Tall Tales" of the Plumlee story and what have you? Include the new release documents and all the new evidence and take a hard look at what Plumlee has said before the new releases were released.. If two people are prove to be there, then why were they there? To kill the President? Well could they have been at that location for other reasons? I have been called "one of the assassins". Why? Could my story be true if it is proved I was at that location... Why one of the assassins? Why not one who tried to stop it?

Preponderance of the evidence over the years and the new declassified documents, I feel should be looked into in order to get the trail to point to the real assassination. That is the issue I feel.

Seems each time we start to go into a matter we get drawn away from the subject and our egos get in the way.

I say I saw JFK get assassinated. I saw we were sent in to stop it or as I have said long ago "ABORT IT"

I do not expect anyone to even read this long post about an old mans forty year plus story.. The JFK matter has been shut down and contaminated by dis information. This story also will die on the vine because this story goes beyond reason and it also conflicts with others theories and their life work has been dedicated to their theories and there is not room for a true tall tale... it goes against the norm and all the experts. If the real story did get out or released then all that has been written would have to be sent to the deep six... and the experts would not be of much help in any new investigations... we would have to breed another group of new experts and investigators, because all the old experts would have discredited themselves by their own works.

Peter Lemkin

Feb 15 2008, 08:27 AM

Post #48

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 5179

Joined: 9-December 04

From: Europe

Member No.: 2082

QUOTE (William Plumlee @ Feb 15 2008, 04:15 AM)

Carl Which also looked at Tom's work, I was told. I was also told he (Wilson) had found two people near or at the forked tree, but he was working on it . Shortly after that and just before he died The FBI contacted me in Denver Colorado asking about the picture and they showed me a copy and wanted me to mark the location where we were standing. I refused. They also showed me an affidavit which my brother had signed that stated I was in Dallas early AM visiting my step-mother his mother. I refused to help them in any way because I was pissed at them because of the IRS matter. I told them to shove it and to talk to the CIA if they wanted to know anything about what I did and had done, including Iran-Contra operations. I felt I was being set up.

Tosh, Who is Carl? Also, I know you were 'spooked' that the FBI had various materials and that they approached you at that point. I know think I understand, in part, what that might have been about. Before Tom Wilson died he had arranged to meet with some fairly high-level FBI agent at their Dallas offices. There he gave a presentation several times repeated of his technique and what he had uncovered about the assassination, using it. He then turned some of these materials over to the FBI - from which they went into a black hole. You are apparently the only person to have seen part of them when those FBI men came to you and asked for you to verify parts of what Wilson had told them. Wilson, in his naivete, had assumed the FBI would take his years of hard work and 'solve' or make major progress on Dallas. As we all know they have done nothing before, during or since. They closed the case on or about 11/14/1963.

William Plumlee

Feb 16 2008, 01:07 AM

Post #49

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 893

Joined: 11-October 04

From: d

Member No.: 1680

QUOTE (Charles Drago @ Mar 27 2007, 01:51 PM)

I wanted to revisit this topic, if only to move it to the top of the list with the hope of stimulating additional postings.

Charles

Charles. Its been almost a year of this thread and as yet nothing has been done in reference to any of the photos of the south knoll and others. The only thing which has been accomplished is the threads go nowhere and the subject matter goes into the black hole.

What is most important? How the work was done or what the work of Wilson's pointed out. As to the south knoll photo and if shown that two people were there in the shadow of the forked tree, then what does that mean? What questions will this raise if it is prove that there were two persons at that location? We will never get to that point. Its been over a year of back and forth as to the photo work and how it was or was not done. Seems we miss the real point of why these two people, if real, were there on the south knoll. Why were they there and too, why were they not interviewed. The story behind the photo is a interesting story when you mention that the FBI knew about these two people many years ago. Why were they not questioned even after one of these persons stated they were there?

I too, brought this thread forward, but it too will die on the vine and the subject matter will not be addressed. What would these two people in the photo, if real, have to say on the subject of what they saw and why they were there? To me that is the real issues. I understand the work has to be validated. However, we speculate on everything else that comes down the pike in reference to the assassination of JFK.... but this matter seems to be "Taboo" for whatever reasons.

For the benefit of doubt lets say there were two people there... what would that really mean? Would what these two persons have to say really mean anything? Did they hear any shots? From where? How many? What were they going to do? Were they there to kill the President? OR were they there for other reasons? We drift off into speculations on many matters as to JFK. But as to the two people on the south knoll we stay away from that subject and if we push we are attacked and called liars. But the FBI does come to one of them asking many questions about the south knoll and they take things out of your burned house. Why?

More south Knoll which went nowhere and the thread went dead much like thr hole in the windshield some years ago:

QUOTE (William Plumlee @ Oct 22 2006, 05:25 PM)

NEW TOPIC: being the other thread was diverted and a little off track:

Now I am going to "step out of line" again and ask a few questions that some do not want asked. I will not go into Central America. After all this is a JFK investigative forum. Right?

Have you noticed how everyone stays away from that "south knoll shooter", or that south knoll picture. Also who brought the "south knoll shooter", and the picture into this investigation?

"... a shot came from behind and to the left of us...". (previous quote)

"... we checked the south parking lot but did not notice anything". (previous quote)

"... the shots ECHOED through out the plaza"... ". (previous quote)

"... some years ago I set off a firecracker at the south end of the triple underpass and watched people look toward the north side of the Plaza and at the north end of the underpass. I think that was because of the echo effect from the tube like tunnels of the underpass...". (previous quote)

".... the Limo was directly in-line with the south shooter and the Presidents head was turned toward the south, Jackie (south knoll south end of underpass) ".

Note: Each time this south knoll information comes up; the thread is turned back to the "Badgeman" and other north side of Plaza matters and those theories and doctored photos. Why is it so important not to really look into that area of the south side? Each time that area is brought up it is past by or diverted into something else not related. It was the same in 1964, and again in 1974, and again in 1978, 81, 91, and now 2006. It was the same with the FBI, Secret Service, Congressional and Senate investigators of many years ago. It seems to be very important to focus on the North side and by pass the South. Why? Is it perhaps that is the area that best confirms the fake story played by the government of where the shooters or assassins really were?

Also note. I have put out a lot of information these past few years and months; most of it backed up with documentation and preponderance of evidence. None of that information is addressed directly. Each time it is moved away from and something else is put in place to investigate. What really happens is I get investigated and threated by federal sources, including IRS. I find this strange if we say we are truly looking at all available information in reference to who shot Kennedy. If we say we want the truth-- then should we not really look into this south area with a fine tooth comb?

Tosh,

I have believed in the South Knoll shooter for quite some time, and felt somewhat exonerated when I first saw Sherry G's analysis. And you're right, in that when the topic comes up, it invariably leads back to the North Knoll. Frankly, there are as many potentials in the Cancellare photo of the South Knoll parking lot as there are of the North Knoll area photos. For anyone who has been or will be in Dealey Plaza, or has seen some recent photos taken from the south end of the railroad overpass facing the TSBD, you'll see something you generally don't see from other angles. Stand in Elm St near the head shot X facing west and look straight ahead. You'll be facing the west end of the South Knoll, and not down Elm towards the Stemmons entrance. I would suggest the forum's resident photo experts take a look at the background of Cancellare with the same zeal as they have of Moorman, Betzner, Willis, the Z film, etc.

I have some photos, but unfortunately can't post here due to limited attachment space.

RJS

This post has been edited by Richard J. Smith: Oct 23 2006, 01:29 PM

Mr. Plumlee:

You are correct. This is killing the thread and I am not sure why you are doing this. I believe in a south knoll shooter and have written and spoken extensively about it. However, though I am deeply interested in this and would comment I am requesting that you begin another thread with this tpic. Thank you.

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And now, here comes a tale to be investigated, and some photos to compare, also:

"White House Technical Service Rep. F. Vaughn Ferguson [...] whose involvement with the limousine before and after the shooting is well-documented, writes in part: '...The leather…is from the automobile in which John F. Kennedy, President of the United States, was assassinated in on November 22, 1963...Four days after the assassination the White House upholsterer and I removed this leather at the White House. The light blue leather is from the center of the rear seat…The spots on the leather are the dried blood of our beloved President John F. Kennedy…' '' (As quoted just above this post.)

I apologize for not being able to put up the photos that I am citing below, but --

1) There is a Dillard photo of the limo taken (from behind the rear seat) at Love Field after the assassination. It shows a clean limo seat, and just a little bit of blotted-out stain on the carpet in Kennedy's side of the footwell, as if some unfortunate had spilled a nice glass of tokay on the president. This photo was recently up on this forum.

2) There are other photos of the limo seat in the WH garage, covered in gore, and also showing the disputed Lambchop puppet/chrysanthemum bouquet.

Which of these photos is accurate? Can someone post these for comparison? The Dillard photo was recently used to "establish" that there was no hole in the windshield, so the topic is important to this thread.

David:

Again, this is so odd. I actually spoke with workers in Ohio who replaced the leather and Whitaker was clear that the vehicle was stripped to metal on November 25, 1963. It is literallly like a shell game.

Doug

Not to take away from anyone... BUT what about the "alleged" south knoll shooter? The Windshield hole or crack is a very interesting topic... so is the background leading up to the "alleged hole in the windshield.

Sometime ago I posted an overhead picture of Delay Plaza and drew a "line of shot" from the south side of the underpass and parking lot. Perhaps someone would care to locate that picture and post it and compare it to the hole or crack in the windshield. Remember the road curves and dips as it goes under the underpass. Shoots came from our left . I know some do not want to hear this... BUT... I post this for no other reason that to make some aware of this little known background.... I am sure this will kill this thread.... no Pun, intended.

OLD POSTINGS:

Mar 28 2007, 06:58 AM

Post #46

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 5179

Joined: 9-December 04

From: Europe

Member No.: 2082

QUOTE (Charles Drago @ Mar 27 2007, 10:51 PM)

I wanted to revisit this topic, if only to move it to the top of the list with the hope of stimulating additional postings.

Charles

Charles and all, I have been exploring things behind the scenes [not posting them as I do them on the Forum]. I have, as I said, some images by Tom and have located four other much larger clusters of them. If this were to really be moved forward it would need a core group with a lead person; a well organized plan of how to collect, preserve, validate the methodology of and present to the public (and in what forum?!); some money with which to do this; a permanent archive for these items that will be publicly accessable yet highly secure against tampering or theft, etc. Anyone with ideas toward these ends is certainly welcome to post those ideas or contact me by email. When things cystalize a bit more behind the scenes I'll post a bit more. Tom was highly secretive during his lifetime, but he made copies and placed them in secure places. I'd also like to make here a list with URLs, if available, of all presentations Tom did, as well as all recolections people have of meeting and talking with him about his technique, etc.

One interesting fact I came accross in what I've been working on is that Tom gave a very large amount of his conclusions and enhancements to the FBI! It would be most interesting to file a FOIA on those. All of that material exists in copies elsewhere, but to see if the FBI claims to have them, has done anything with them, passed them on to any other agencies, tested his enhancement process, etc. Anyone out there who can work with me on that for a fast-track FOIA contact me by email.

Tom was quite naive [iMHO] to the end of his life that goodness still could be found within the varous agencies of the USG and his presentation and 'donation' of these materials to the FBI he thought was sufficient to prove to them, and thus the Nation, that there had been a massive conspiracy and coverup [perish the thought!] and he was very disappointed that the FBI, as well as no other Government agencies, never got back to him over the materials he tendered. I'd almost bet that those materials were looked at carefully for the purposes of denying and refuting them and would like to try to find those analyses, if they exist. Tom died not long after his donation of these materials to the USG.

Peter

This post has been edited by Peter Lemkin: Mar 28 2007, 07:12 AM

William Plumlee

Feb 15 2008, 04:15 AM

Post #47

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 893

Joined: 11-October 04

From: d

Member No.: 1680

QUOTE (Jack White @ Mar 8 2007, 03:14 PM)

QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Mar 8 2007, 09:37 PM)

It is late here and I'm tired....and will try to put down a few thoughts

briefly and come back to put down more in a day or so. I'm probably one of the or the only researcher here to have had some of my work and photos 'enhanced' by Tom Wilson. I'm looking at them here on my desk. I've never put them on the internet...and likely not about to. I know some about Tom's computer program and there is much I don't. He was too secretive. There are those who could help, but I can't [yet] pry information out of them. I'll not mention who they are here and now. He was approved by the courts as an expert witness in forensics, using his techniques on forensic materials. Cyril is too busy with his own problems to help much on that now. What to say...I had him use his program on the ultra-high-quality Cancellare photo I got via the back door. He never explained totally how his system worked and thus what one gets [or sees] is, yes, hard to verify. Basicly, he had his system look for spectral patterns characterisic of specific materials: glass, metal, wood, cloth, etc. He claimed he could even 'see'/distinguish variants of these. OK, I can 'see' these in his enhancements...but without the independant test on a non-controversial item who is to say if the new image is an artifact or a real 'enhancement' of what was there. My problem and I'm trying to 'lean' on those who could answer....thus far with no success. My gut feeling is his technique worked, but not to the level he claimed in all cases. I have some very interesing 'images' here I can overlay on the original Cancellare and thus orient what is where...but ....too tired to go into it all now...tomorrow....more.... Peter

I am familiar with Tom's work for Peter, because it was I who persuaded Tom to take a look. However, he was very secretive

with both Peter and me about what he found. He would only tell me that he found TWO MEN in the tree shadows. I never saw

his work on this, and frankly was doubtful, since darkroom enhancement of the area showed nothing. He would not show Peter

what he found either, and soon his relations with Peter soured, because I feel he thought Peter was being too "pushy" and impatient

for progress...plus he was busy building his lawsuit against the govt.

Jack

What does the south knoll photo really mean? Two people in the shadows of a tree? It means nothing unless you take into account the story behind the photo and how it came into being and the background of the people in question..

(1) the location of these two people were first told to the FBI in Buna Vista Colorado in April and May of 1964. The FBI was not at all interested in the story and said there was nobody there because they had pictures of the aera and it did not show anyone at that location.

They also said their investigation proved I was at another location in Florida at the time of the assassination. I was not. ( THE Cancellara Photo had not surfaced at this early date, 1964) It was also stated by the FBI that if I (Plumlee) did not quit talking about Dallas and my wild stories concerning the assassination I would never get out of jail ( I was in lock up from about two weeks after the JFK until sometime shortly after the WC completed its findings. I was never interviewed by the WC)

Some years later (1980) Barnard Finsterwald Jr and Gary Shaw had a copy of the Cancellara photo which appeared in Gary Shaws early or first book (can't recall name about 1976 ??) I was shown that picture for the first time and I pointed out to them where Sergio and I were standing at the time of the shots. (near and within the shadows of the fork tree. I drew them a map of our route out of Delay Plaza. Shortly after that my house in Grant Colorado was burned down and I was beat up at a Evergreen Colorado Bar and had ten stitches in right forehead and eye. A few months later, I was shot at in my truck and ran off the road. There were passengers in the truck at the time who have given statements to law enforcement)

Some years later (1990 ??) Jim Maras and Peter Lambkin and I started research on this subject and others concerning JFK and OPS. It that point all hell broke loose and the FBI hounded me for years and IRS took all my holdings and bank accounts for back taxes) We, the three of us continued to work on trying to prove I and Sergio were there that day and at that location on the south knoll when the shots were fired Around that time Jim Maras introduced me to Jack White and the photo came up and I was under the impression that Jack White was going to look into the picture. I was told he had done that and he failed to see anything there. Soon thereafter Peter Lambkin retained Tom Wilson to take a look at the picture. Carl Which also looked at Tom's work, I was told. I was also told he (Wilson) had found two people near or at the forked tree, but he was working on it . Shortly after that and just before he died The FBI contacted me in Denver Colorado asking about the picture and they showed me a copy and wanted me to mark the location where we were standing. I refused. They also showed me an affidavit which my brother had signed that stated I was in Dallas early AM visiting my step-mother his mother. I refused to help them in any way because I was pissed at them because of the IRS matter. I told them to shove it and to talk to the CIA if they wanted to know anything about what I did and had done, including Iran-Contra operations. I felt I was being set up.

Now that is a very rough background as to the events which leads to this south knoll investigation and the photo.. (For the sake of time, I have been about as short as I Can make this)

The reason this is important to the investigation, is because it proves two people were there and when you take into account the background of these two people then it should be looked into. I have always felt that photo is an important link and should be looked into, perhaps more so than the north knoll..

How and why the software works and who did what back when is really not the issue.

Again. What does it prove if two people are proved to be at that location at the time of the shots?.

Add that to the "Tall Tales" of the Plumlee story and what have you? Include the new release documents and all the new evidence and take a hard look at what Plumlee has said before the new releases were released.. If two people are prove to be there, then why were they there? To kill the President? Well could they have been at that location for other reasons? I have been called "one of the assassins". Why? Could my story be true if it is proved I was at that location... Why one of the assassins? Why not one who tried to stop it?

Preponderance of the evidence over the years and the new declassified documents, I feel should be looked into in order to get the trail to point to the real assassination. That is the issue I feel.

Seems each time we start to go into a matter we get drawn away from the subject and our egos get in the way.

I say I saw JFK get assassinated. I saw we were sent in to stop it or as I have said long ago "ABORT IT"

I do not expect anyone to even read this long post about an old mans forty year plus story.. The JFK matter has been shut down and contaminated by dis information. This story also will die on the vine because this story goes beyond reason and it also conflicts with others theories and their life work has been dedicated to their theories and there is not room for a true tall tale... it goes against the norm and all the experts. If the real story did get out or released then all that has been written would have to be sent to the deep six... and the experts would not be of much help in any new investigations... we would have to breed another group of new experts and investigators, because all the old experts would have discredited themselves by their own works.

Peter Lemkin

Feb 15 2008, 08:27 AM

Post #48

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 5179

Joined: 9-December 04

From: Europe

Member No.: 2082

QUOTE (William Plumlee @ Feb 15 2008, 04:15 AM)

Carl Which also looked at Tom's work, I was told. I was also told he (Wilson) had found two people near or at the forked tree, but he was working on it . Shortly after that and just before he died The FBI contacted me in Denver Colorado asking about the picture and they showed me a copy and wanted me to mark the location where we were standing. I refused. They also showed me an affidavit which my brother had signed that stated I was in Dallas early AM visiting my step-mother his mother. I refused to help them in any way because I was pissed at them because of the IRS matter. I told them to shove it and to talk to the CIA if they wanted to know anything about what I did and had done, including Iran-Contra operations. I felt I was being set up.

Tosh, Who is Carl? Also, I know you were 'spooked' that the FBI had various materials and that they approached you at that point. I know think I understand, in part, what that might have been about. Before Tom Wilson died he had arranged to meet with some fairly high-level FBI agent at their Dallas offices. There he gave a presentation several times repeated of his technique and what he had uncovered about the assassination, using it. He then turned some of these materials over to the FBI - from which they went into a black hole. You are apparently the only person to have seen part of them when those FBI men came to you and asked for you to verify parts of what Wilson had told them. Wilson, in his naivete, had assumed the FBI would take his years of hard work and 'solve' or make major progress on Dallas. As we all know they have done nothing before, during or since. They closed the case on or about 11/14/1963.

William Plumlee

Feb 16 2008, 01:07 AM

Post #49

Advanced Member

Group: Members

Posts: 893

Joined: 11-October 04

From: d

Member No.: 1680

QUOTE (Charles Drago @ Mar 27 2007, 01:51 PM)

I wanted to revisit this topic, if only to move it to the top of the list with the hope of stimulating additional postings.

Charles

Charles. Its been almost a year of this thread and as yet nothing has been done in reference to any of the photos of the south knoll and others. The only thing which has been accomplished is the threads go nowhere and the subject matter goes into the black hole.

What is most important? How the work was done or what the work of Wilson's pointed out. As to the south knoll photo and if shown that two people were there in the shadow of the forked tree, then what does that mean? What questions will this raise if it is prove that there were two persons at that location? We will never get to that point. Its been over a year of back and forth as to the photo work and how it was or was not done. Seems we miss the real point of why these two people, if real, were there on the south knoll. Why were they there and too, why were they not interviewed. The story behind the photo is a interesting story when you mention that the FBI knew about these two people many years ago. Why were they not questioned even after one of these persons stated they were there?

I too, brought this thread forward, but it too will die on the vine and the subject matter will not be addressed. What would these two people in the photo, if real, have to say on the subject of what they saw and why they were there? To me that is the real issues. I understand the work has to be validated. However, we speculate on everything else that comes down the pike in reference to the assassination of JFK.... but this matter seems to be "Taboo" for whatever reasons.

For the benefit of doubt lets say there were two people there... what would that really mean? Would what these two persons have to say really mean anything? Did they hear any shots? From where? How many? What were they going to do? Were they there to kill the President? OR were they there for other reasons? We drift off into speculations on many matters as to JFK. But as to the two people on the south knoll we stay away from that subject and if we push we are attacked and called liars. But the FBI does come to one of them asking many questions about the south knoll and they take things out of your burned house. Why?

More south Knoll which went nowhere and the thread went dead much like thr hole in the windshield some years ago:

QUOTE (William Plumlee @ Oct 22 2006, 05:25 PM)

NEW TOPIC: being the other thread was diverted and a little off track:

Now I am going to "step out of line" again and ask a few questions that some do not want asked. I will not go into Central America. After all this is a JFK investigative forum. Right?

Have you noticed how everyone stays away from that "south knoll shooter", or that south knoll picture. Also who brought the "south knoll shooter", and the picture into this investigation?

"... a shot came from behind and to the left of us...". (previous quote)

"... we checked the south parking lot but did not notice anything". (previous quote)

"... the shots ECHOED through out the plaza"... ". (previous quote)

"... some years ago I set off a firecracker at the south end of the triple underpass and watched people look toward the north side of the Plaza and at the north end of the underpass. I think that was because of the echo effect from the tube like tunnels of the underpass...". (previous quote)

".... the Limo was directly in-line with the south shooter and the Presidents head was turned toward the south, Jackie (south knoll south end of underpass) ".

Note: Each time this south knoll information comes up; the thread is turned back to the "Badgeman" and other north side of Plaza matters and those theories and doctored photos. Why is it so important not to really look into that area of the south side? Each time that area is brought up it is past by or diverted into something else not related. It was the same in 1964, and again in 1974, and again in 1978, 81, 91, and now 2006. It was the same with the FBI, Secret Service, Congressional and Senate investigators of many years ago. It seems to be very important to focus on the North side and by pass the South. Why? Is it perhaps that is the area that best confirms the fake story played by the government of where the shooters or assassins really were?

Also note. I have put out a lot of information these past few years and months; most of it backed up with documentation and preponderance of evidence. None of that information is addressed directly. Each time it is moved away from and something else is put in place to investigate. What really happens is I get investigated and threated by federal sources, including IRS. I find this strange if we say we are truly looking at all available information in reference to who shot Kennedy. If we say we want the truth-- then should we not really look into this south area with a fine tooth comb?

Tosh,

I have believed in the South Knoll shooter for quite some time, and felt somewhat exonerated when I first saw Sherry G's analysis. And you're right, in that when the topic comes up, it invariably leads back to the North Knoll. Frankly, there are as many potentials in the Cancellare photo of the South Knoll parking lot as there are of the North Knoll area photos. For anyone who has been or will be in Dealey Plaza, or has seen some recent photos taken from the south end of the railroad overpass facing the TSBD, you'll see something you generally don't see from other angles. Stand in Elm St near the head shot X facing west and look straight ahead. You'll be facing the west end of the South Knoll, and not down Elm towards the Stemmons entrance. I would suggest the forum's resident photo experts take a look at the background of Cancellare with the same zeal as they have of Moorman, Betzner, Willis, the Z film, etc.

I have some photos, but unfortunately can't post here due to limited attachment space.

RJS

This post has been edited by Richard J. Smith: Oct 23 2006, 01:29 PM

Mr. Plumlee:

You are correct. This is killing the thread and I am not sure why you are doing this. I believe in a south knoll shooter and have written and spoken extensively about it. However, though I am deeply interested in this and would comment I am requesting that you begin another thread with this tpic. Thank you.

Doug Weldon

Sir; This is all connected to your windshield thing which connects to the south knoll... sorry you can't see this. I will back off and let you solve this can of worms, being as you seem to know my motives... sorry I offended you Adios, Plumlee

Mr. Plumlee:

I thank you and I don't mind getting to the south knoll but I do not want to get off track. I have sourced you in my talks and was going to talk about you extensively in 1999 or 2u00 but Bob Vernon threatened to sue me if I used any of the information he shared with me about you. Your account of smelling smoke in that area is very valuable. I know where the windshield shot originated. It could have only come from the south knoll. I simply do not want to confuse the issues on the same thread.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this the Cancellare photo of the South Knoll you're referring to, Tosh?

Kathy C

Is this the Cancellare photo of the South Knoll you're referring to, Tosh?

YES... However, in order not to high jack this thread and offend some... I will not respond further. I see things different than some in reference to the windshield and the crack/hole: In my view I look at things a little different than some, because I was there.

Information only becomes intelligence, after its been deciphered: All information is important regardless of the source or how it is obtained.... sorry my information does not fit in this exchange on this thread. However, I believe it is important to the total picture and leads to the motive behind the shooting and those involved.

I am not here to 'tickle ears' or play word games. Thanks for posting the picture. Although, its out of place at this location I am sure some will see it as a step in the right direction as to a possible hole in the windshield. FWIW.

Mr. Plumlee:

I do want to get to the south knoll issue. Please watch my you-tube video from Minnesota in 1999. I knew Tom Wilson was working on the Cancellaire photo when he died. I know far more than you imagine. I think if we can get there again we can tie many things together and this issue won't just die as it appears to have happened before. If you want to start a parallel thread I would be glad to contribute. I need to establish the best evidence that there was a shot through the windshield before I can even address where the shot originated. I would be glad to find out more if you can send me a message through the forum.

My best,

Doug Weldon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this the Cancellare photo of the South Knoll you're referring to, Tosh?

Kathy C

Is this the Cancellare photo of the South Knoll you're referring to, Tosh?

YES... However, in order not to high jack this thread and offend some... I will not respond further. I see things different than some in reference to the windshield and the crack/hole: In my view I look at things a little different than some, because I was there.

Information only becomes intelligence, after its been deciphered: All information is important regardless of the source or how it is obtained.... sorry my information does not fit in this exchange on this thread. However, I believe it is important to the total picture and leads to the motive behind the shooting and those involved.

I am not here to 'tickle ears' or play word games. Thanks for posting the picture. Although, its out of place at this location I am sure some will see it as a step in the right direction as to a possible hole in the windshield. FWIW.

Mr. Plumlee:

I do want to get to the south knoll issue. Please watch my you-tube video from Minnesota in 1999. I knew Tom Wilson was working on the Cancellaire photo when he died. I know far more than you imagine. I think if we can get there again we can tie many things together and this issue won't just die as it appears to have happened before. If you want to start a parallel thread I would be glad to contribute. I need to establish the best evidence that there was a shot through the windshield before I can even address where the shot originated. I would be glad to find out more if you can send me a message through the forum.

My best,

Doug Weldon

I understand. We are on the same page. One point I must " point out" B Vernon or Wim never "owned" me or my story, in spite of what they claimed or threatened. I have never supported their theories, nor the theories of Joe West. I have tried to make this very clear after they started twisting the facts to fit their agendas. They did nothing except to try and block the total story and the facts thereof as I recalled them, because they could not make them fit into their theories.

I am glad to see you are working in the direction you are going.., and I might add I do not want to interfere with your work... that said, lets move along. If I can be of help when the time comes just let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
imo doug and ]all that would be a great source if we could have threads of both tosh's info of the south side of elm thread and this one to contine..there has been much information being released and offered by doug in this thread am i now surprised it has been mucked up..no not in the least it really was going too well, seems that always happens not faultng anyone but that does seem to happen often...please continue tosh if possible.and if you do want your information out there if not it cannot be looked into any further can it..??.tosh thanks for your information it is always of great interest to many others....why pack up your bags so quickly AND LEAVE STAY AND stART A NEW THREAD COPY AND PASTE YOUR INFO AND TEACH THOSE WHO DO WANT TO ACCESS YOUR INFO, or let them down, your call..best b..

Bernice:

I agree about Tosh I just do not want to lose focus on the thread I have going. That is why I opened a new thread to begin with. Plumlee is extremely important! I hope he will watch the you-tube presentation and see what a sniper would have viewed from the south side of the underpass with my video. I do want to get the questions I addressed in my long posting and I believe the dialog and responses will be important.

Take care,

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×