Jump to content
The Education Forum
Paul Baker

Julia Ann Mercer

Recommended Posts

Howdy,

I was reading JFK and The Unspeakable over the weekend. In the section that covered the 'control' of Dealey Plaza by mock Secret Service agents (dependent on the usual suspect witnesses), something occurred to me. Julia Ann Mercer claimed she recognised Jack Ruby on the TV when he murdered LHO (Jean Hill said so too). But in the TV footage I've seen, I don't believe it's possible to ID Ruby. So I was wondering, is he clearly identifiable at some point in the footage, and I just haven't seen all of it, or is this yet another reason to doubt Mercer's incredible story?

Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howdy,

I was reading JFK and The Unspeakable over the weekend. In the section that covered the 'control' of Dealey Plaza by mock Secret Service agents (dependent on the usual suspect witnesses), something occurred to me. Julia Ann Mercer claimed she recognised Jack Ruby on the TV when he murdered LHO (Jean Hill said so too). But in the TV footage I've seen, I don't believe it's possible to ID Ruby. So I was wondering, is he clearly identifiable at some point in the footage, and I just haven't seen all of it, or is this yet another reason to doubt Mercer's incredible story?

Paul.

Soon after the shooting, TV reportage on all channels identified the killer by name - per the DPD-supplied info - and showed his photo. No mystery here, as the slightest attempt at thought would disclose.

Those actively seeking to debunk Mercer's "incredible story" - for whatever spurious motive - need look elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P aul i see where your coming from with his fedora his face is hidden but keep in mind he immediately told the dpd as they tackled him to the ground that they all knew him and told them his name..also he admitted he shot lho, i do not see any problems with Mercer's story either...b

here are a few photos b..

Edited by Bernice Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No mystery here, as the slightest attempt at thought would disclose.

Oh good. Another blinkered moron to deal with. Why don't you consider indulging in a bit of thinking yourself, assuming that's something you're capable of?

Those actively seeking to debunk Mercer's "incredible story" - for whatever spurious motive - need look elsewhere.

So you believe that an assassin walked up the grassy knoll carrying what was obviously a rifle case, 90 minutes before the assassination? Isn't that a bit stupid? Her story has been thoroughly discredited, so I don't need to do that. I was merely adding something that I'd never heard dealt with before. As the pictures above demonstrate, Ruby is not readily identifiable at the time of the shooting of Oswald. Mercer claimed she recognised him at that moment (as does Hill), and I suggest that isn't possible. I appreciate that his name was established immediately, because many of the people in the basement knew who he was (I've listened to the radio broadcasts over and over), but how could his name mean anything to Mercer? It's the face that's important here.

I again recognised Jack Ruby when I saw him shoot Oswald and I said to my family, who were watching TV with me, 'That was the man I saw in the truck.'

Mercer, I think, has to go the same way as Arnold, Hoffman and Hill.

Thanks for posting the pictures Bernice.

Paul.

Edited by Paul Baker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No mystery here, as the slightest attempt at thought would disclose.

Oh good. Another blinkered moron to deal with. Why don't you consider indulging in a bit of thinking yourself, assuming that's something you're capable of?

Okay. You're even. He questioned your motive. You questioned his intelligence. Depsite one of you being right, both of you apparently breached the rules. I'd suggest calling it quits there. Rules are one thing -- a lopsided battle of wits is another. But as they say in the classics, it's your dime...

Those actively seeking to debunk Mercer's "incredible story" - for whatever spurious motive - need look elsewhere.

So you believe that an assassin walked up the grassy knoll carrying what was obviously a rifle case, 90 minutes before the assassination? Isn't that a bit stupid?

RD Lewis, the polygraph examiner of Buell Frazier described the infamous paper bag as looking like a "paper gun case". Yet Oswald casually strode up to Frazier's place carrying what was apparently an obvious weapon, unconcerned about being seen by neighbors; unconcerned about being seen by Buell or his family and then into his place of employment, again unconcerned about who might see him.

The difference is, these people knew, or knew of, Oswald and knew a rifle was not one of his usual tools of trade. A stranger on the knoll however, seen carrying a rifle case some time prior to a motorcade would be assumed to be part of Presidential Security. Indeed, that was Rowland's assumption regarding the men he saw on the 6th floor.

Her story has been thoroughly discredited,

Really? Who by?

She was a respectable member of the community without any apparent motive for lying, and Ruby's alibi for the time period is sketchy at best.

so I don't need to do that.

That's cool. All I'll ask is that you point to where it has been "thoroughly discredited", and let's see how well it stands up.

I was merely adding something that I'd never heard dealt with before. As the pictures above demonstrate, Ruby is not readily identifiable at the time of the shooting of Oswald. Mercer claimed she recognised him at that moment (as does Hill), and I suggest that isn't possible. I appreciate that his name was established immediately, because many of the people in the basement knew who he was (I've listened to the radio broadcasts over and over), but how could his name mean anything to Mercer? It's the face that's important here.

I again recognised Jack Ruby when I saw him shoot Oswald and I said to my family, who were watching TV with me, 'That was the man I saw in the truck.'

Mercer, I think, has to go the same way as Arnold, Hoffman and Hill.

On your say so based on the work of un-named "debunkers"?

Thanks for posting the pictures Bernice.

And thank you for the laugh :o

Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No mystery here, as the slightest attempt at thought would disclose.

Oh good. Another blinkered moron to deal with. Why don't you consider indulging in a bit of thinking yourself, assuming that's something you're capable of?

Immediate ad hom. Way to stay classy, there Paul. You are nothing if not consistent.

Since participation here is voluntary, you are not required to “deal with” us, but choose to do so. If you cannot abide our company, you know where the door is, don’t you?

Those actively seeking to debunk Mercer's "incredible story" - for whatever spurious motive - need look elsewhere.

So you believe that an assassin walked up the grassy knoll carrying what was obviously a rifle case, 90 minutes before the assassination? Isn't that a bit stupid?

This is straight from the David Aaronovitch school of logic. “I can’t be arsed to do the homework necessary, so I’ll just dispense with that formality by claiming something is too ludicrous to have occurred and hope that’s sufficiently persuasive.”

If you have investigated the case at all, you will be struck by the number of completely counter-intuitive events that transpired. The fact that you find Mercer’s tale hard to credit doesn’t make it wrong, and you certainly haven’t proven it is.

By your logic, President Kennedy wasn’t slain in Dealey Plaza because it would have been “a bit stupid” for Secret Service to allow the motorcade to turn onto Houston and then Elm, given that it violated their own protocols.

And by your logic, Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t slain on TV either, because it would have been “a bit stupid” for the DPD to let just any bozo into their midst at that critical juncture; particularly a man well known to them from his multiple arrests in Dallas, including at least one pinch for packing a concealed weapon.

“Things” happen all the time, even those you might insist are too stupid to occur. Moreover, had you done your homework on this, you’d have noted that both Mercer and Arnold Rowland reported seeing presumably different gunmen in the vicinity at different times prior to the event and - surprise! - assumed they must have been Secret Service.

By their own independent accounts these two people who were unknown to each other uttered a virtually identical phrase: “The Secret Service isn’t very secret.” And why? Precisely because they assumed it would be stupid for an assassin to be so bold as to hide in plain sight. Nothing is too absurd to be true, so long as it works.

Her story has been thoroughly discredited, so I don't need to do that.

Citation please? Hit pieces by McAdams and Reitzes, et al, don’t count. Or perhaps they will suffice for you, if you’re prepared to set the bar that low. Whomever “thoroughly discredited” the Mercer story certainly wasn’t with the Warren Commission or even the HSCA, both of which gave her a wide berth.

And little wonder. The wife of a former Congressman, Mercer wasn’t so easily dispensed with as the strippers, hookers and junkies who were habitues of Ruby’s milieu. What’s more, she had the means necessary to bring legal counsel with her had she been called to testify.

Perhaps you think her story is preposterous because she maintains that statements she gave to the local cops and FBI were altered., and that her signature was forged. Were this the only instance of such allegations, one could easily agree. But numerous witnesses claimed intimidation tactics, alteration of their statements and even alteration of their WC testimony.

Oddly enough, if one catalogues each such instance of claimed alteration, the result always runs in the same direction, counter to anything suggestive of conspiracy. Were these alterations the result of mere mistakes or misunderstandings, one would expect a rather more even distribution of outcomes.

I was merely adding something that I'd never heard dealt with before. As the pictures above demonstrate, Ruby is not readily identifiable at the time of the shooting of Oswald. Mercer claimed she recognised him at that moment (as does Hill),

Citation please? Provide documentary proof that Mercer claimed she identified the shooter as the man she’d seen in Dealey Plaza at the instant the shot was fired, rather than after seeing his picture on TV soon thereafter. Your Garrison memo quote from more than four years after the fact doesn’t quite make it clear. Failure to provide same only underscores that what you’re arguing against is your own preferred assumption as to what she said, and not necessarily what she did say.

Since she still seems to be alive, and would only be about 70 years old by now, perhaps you could undertake the effort to locate her and find out precisely what the truth of the matter is. At least at that point you’d either be able to make your claims with some basis in fact, or be forced as a matter of honour to retract them.

and I suggest that isn't possible. I appreciate that his name was established immediately, because many of the people in the basement knew who he was (I've listened to the radio broadcasts over and over), but how could his name mean anything to Mercer? It's the face that's important here.

I again recognised Jack Ruby when I saw him shoot Oswald and I said to my family, who were watching TV with me, 'That was the man I saw in the truck.'

Mercer, I think, has to go the same way as Arnold, Hoffman and Hill.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, perhaps before you dispatch her to whatever purgatory you think appropriate, you might explain the following:

Mercer didn’t come forward voluntarily, but was apprehended by police who overheard her make a comment. If she lied as an attention-seeker, why didn’t she rush forward to capitalize on her tale?

If her description of the vehicle (green Ford pickup with toolboxes in the rear) was invented, why is there precisely such a vehicle present in some Muchmore frames?

If there was no such truck broken down in Dealey Plaza prior to the event, why is there a police affidavit specifying that the reporting officer thought it was a legitimate breakdown in traffic? (CD 205, page 320)

If the men she saw in that truck weren’t real, why does her first-day description of them match exactly the description of men later seen in that area by Lee Bowers? Did Mercer and Bowers secretly collude to invent matching observations for no known reason?

That some aspects of her tale are corroborated by other facts and witnesses doesn’t automatically make her story entirely true or accurate. But one cannot simply dispose of such a problematic witness by first ignoring her in the hopes that her story will recede (WC, HSCA) and then pretending there was never any corroboration for it, as you seem intent upon doing.

It never fails to amuse me that those who rail against Jim Garrison as being incapable of tying his shoes nevertheless cite him as gospel when it suits their purposes.

Assume, presume and suppose whatever you please. Don’t insist that others share your bias without offering something more persuasive than "it's been done so I don't need to."

Thanks for posting the pictures Bernice.

And thanks for the whimsical bitch-slap, Greg Parker.

Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No mystery here, as the slightest attempt at thought would disclose.

Oh good. Another blinkered moron to deal with. Why don't you consider indulging in a bit of thinking yourself, assuming that's something you're capable of?

Immediate ad hom. Way to stay classy, there Paul. You are nothing if not consistent.

Robert, I bought up what I thought was a valid point. You kicked off the school playground stuff, unprovoked, with "... the slightest attempt at thought would disclose." Grow up FFS. Don't be surprised if people get angry when you act in this way.

Those actively seeking to debunk Mercer's "incredible story" - for whatever spurious motive - need look elsewhere.

So you believe that an assassin walked up the grassy knoll carrying what was obviously a rifle case, 90 minutes before the assassination? Isn't that a bit stupid?

This is straight from the David Aaronovitch school of logic. “I can’t be arsed to do the homework necessary, so I’ll just dispense with that formality by claiming something is too ludicrous to have occurred and hope that’s sufficiently persuasive.”

Could you tell me what's wrong with dismissing something that is ludicrous? The suggestion that these professional hitmen set up a full 90 minutes before the assassination in full view of the public and police is ludicrous. It is only the blinkered CT'ers, such as yourself, that would support such a ridiculous idea.

If you have investigated the case at all, you will be struck by the number of completely counter-intuitive events that transpired. The fact that you find Mercer’s tale hard to credit doesn’t make it wrong, and you certainly haven’t proven it is.

I don't need to. What's the point of re-inventing the wheel? It's already been done. Look at McAdam's site, it's all there to see, plain as day. I merely suggested something that, I think, discredits Mercer's story even further.

By your logic, President Kennedy wasn’t slain in Dealey Plaza because it would have been “a bit stupid” for Secret Service to allow the motorcade to turn onto Houston and then Elm, given that it violated their own protocols.

And by your logic, Lee Harvey Oswald wasn’t slain on TV either, because it would have been “a bit stupid” for the DPD to let just any bozo into their midst at that critical juncture; particularly a man well known to them from his multiple arrests in Dallas, including at least one pinch for packing a concealed weapon.

“Things” happen all the time, even those you might insist are too stupid to occur. Moreover, had you done your homework on this, you’d have noted that both Mercer and Arnold Rowland reported seeing presumably different gunmen in the vicinity at different times prior to the event and - surprise! - assumed they must have been Secret Service.

By their own independent accounts these two people who were unknown to each other uttered a virtually identical phrase: “The Secret Service isn’t very secret.” And why? Precisely because they assumed it would be stupid for an assassin to be so bold as to hide in plain sight. Nothing is too absurd to be true, so long as it works.

Er... do you know what logic is, Robert? I'd suggest you read up on the subject. You're taking the usual CT approach. Rather than directly addressing a single (and in this case, rather simple) idea, you prefer to load your blunderbus with xxxx and start firing.

Her story has been thoroughly discredited, so I don't need to do that.

Citation please? Hit pieces by McAdams and Reitzes, et al, don’t count. Or perhaps they will suffice for you, if you’re prepared to set the bar that low. Whomever “thoroughly discredited” the Mercer story certainly wasn’t with the Warren Commission or even the HSCA, both of which gave her a wide berth.

Look at the links under 'Julia Ann Mercer' on this page: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm

You'll find this on the 'Police Statements' page:

JOE MURPHY, Patrolman, Traffic Division, Police Department,

Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was stationed at the

Triple Underpass on Elm Street to assist in handling traffic. At

approximately 10:30 - 10:40 AM, a pickup truck stalled on Elm Street

between Houston Street and the underpass. He was unable to recall the name

of the company to whom this truck belonged but stated it is the property

of the company working on the First National Bank Building at Elm and

Akard in Dallas.

There were three construction men in this truck, and he took one

to the bank building to obtain another truck in order to assist in moving

the stalled one. The other two men remained with the pickup truck along

with two other officers. Shortly prior to the arrival of the motorcade,

the man he had taken to the bank building returned with a second truck,

and all three of the men left with the two trucks, one pushing the other.

MURPHY noted that the men did not leave the truck except for the

one he took to the bank building, and all three left together sometime

prior to the arrival of the President's motorcade. He described the

stalled truck as being a green pickup and noted the truck had the hood

raised during the time it was stalled. This truck had side tool bins on

it, and they had a considerable amount of construction equipment in the

back.

MURPHY futher stated it was probable that one of these men had

taken something from the rear of this truck in an effort to start it. He

stated these persons were under observation all during the period they

were stalled on Elm Street because the officers wanted the truck moved

prior to the arrival of the motorcade, and it would have been impossible

for any of them to have had anything to do with the assassination of

President KENNEDY.

Is it reasonable to assert that this is the same event that Mercer witnessed? If so, there is clearly a simple and innocent explanation. For whatever reason, Mercer decided to add the rifle (and later, Oswald!)

And little wonder. The wife of a former Congressman, Mercer wasn’t so easily dispensed with as the strippers, hookers and junkies who were habitues of Ruby’s milieu. What’s more, she had the means necessary to bring legal counsel with her had she been called to testify.

Perhaps you think her story is preposterous because she maintains that statements she gave to the local cops and FBI were altered., and that her signature was forged. Were this the only instance of such allegations, one could easily agree. But numerous witnesses claimed intimidation tactics, alteration of their statements and even alteration of their WC testimony.

Oddly enough, if one catalogues each such instance of claimed alteration, the result always runs in the same direction, counter to anything suggestive of conspiracy. Were these alterations the result of mere mistakes or misunderstandings, one would expect a rather more even distribution of outcomes.[/color]

I was merely adding something that I'd never heard dealt with before. As the pictures above demonstrate, Ruby is not readily identifiable at the time of the shooting of Oswald. Mercer claimed she recognised him at that moment (as does Hill),

Citation please? Provide documentary proof that Mercer claimed she identified the shooter as the man she’d seen in Dealey Plaza at the instant the shot was fired, rather than after seeing his picture on TV soon thereafter. Your Garrison memo quote from more than four years after the fact doesn’t quite make it clear. Failure to provide same only underscores that what you’re arguing against is your own preferred assumption as to what she said, and not necessarily what she did say.

B) What isn't clear? "I again recognised Jack Ruby when I saw him shoot Oswald"

Since she still seems to be alive, and would only be about 70 years old by now, perhaps you could undertake the effort to locate her and find out precisely what the truth of the matter is. At least at that point you’d either be able to make your claims with some basis in fact, or be forced as a matter of honour to retract them. [/color]

and I suggest that isn't possible. I appreciate that his name was established immediately, because many of the people in the basement knew who he was (I've listened to the radio broadcasts over and over), but how could his name mean anything to Mercer? It's the face that's important here.

I again recognised Jack Ruby when I saw him shoot Oswald and I said to my family, who were watching TV with me, 'That was the man I saw in the truck.'

Mercer, I think, has to go the same way as Arnold, Hoffman and Hill.

You are entitled to your opinion. However, perhaps before you dispatch her to whatever purgatory you think appropriate, you might explain the following:

Mercer didn’t come forward voluntarily, but was apprehended by police who overheard her make a comment. If she lied as an attention-seeker, why didn’t she rush forward to capitalize on her tale?

Is it uncommon for people to augment events just to make them seem more important? Perhaps it was enough for her to garner attention from people she knows, and she had no intention of letting the police know her false version of events. She could comfortably lie to friends, but not to the authorities.

If her description of the vehicle (green Ford pickup with toolboxes in the rear) was invented, why is there precisely such a vehicle present in some Muchmore frames?

Who said she invented it? I'd suggest she simple embellished her story.

If there was no such truck broken down in Dealey Plaza prior to the event, why is there a police affidavit specifying that the reporting officer thought it was a legitimate breakdown in traffic? (CD 205, page 320)

If the men she saw in that truck weren’t real, why does her first-day description of them match exactly the description of men later seen in that area by Lee Bowers? Did Mercer and Bowers secretly collude to invent matching observations for no known reason?

That some aspects of her tale are corroborated by other facts and witnesses doesn’t automatically make her story entirely true or accurate. But one cannot simply dispose of such a problematic witness by first ignoring her in the hopes that her story will recede (WC, HSCA) and then pretending there was never any corroboration for it, as you seem intent upon doing.

It never fails to amuse me that those who rail against Jim Garrison as being incapable of tying his shoes nevertheless cite him as gospel when it suits their purposes. [/color]

Hmm... more flawed 'logic'. Why shouldn't I believe that this is what Mercer told Garrison, whilst still believing that Garrison seemed to accept any and every story that towed the conspiracy line?

Assume, presume and suppose whatever you please. Don’t insist that others share your bias without offering something more persuasive than "it's been done so I don't need to."

Thanks for posting the pictures Bernice.

And thanks for the whimsical bitch-slap, Greg Parker.

Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

I think it is important to note that, according to Jim Garrison in "Heritage Of Stone", Mercer had identified Ruby from photos shown her by the FBI the day BEFORE Ruby murdered Oswald.

I found the following quote from "Heritage Of Stone" on John McAdam's site:

On Saturday, the day after the assassination and before

Oswald's murder by Ruby, FBI agents showed Miss Mer-

cer identification photographs. They lay in front of her

perhaps two dozen pictures of men. Among them she rec-

ognized the driver of the truck from which the rifle was

unloaded just past the knoll.

When the photograph was turned over by one of the

agents she saw the man's name: Jack Ruby. She remem-

bered the name afterward.

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case everyone does not know Mike Griffin, he is among the most meticulous

of JFK researchers, and a welcome contributor on any subject.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In case everyone does not know Mike Griffin, he is among the most meticulous

of JFK researchers, and a welcome contributor on any subject.

Jack

Hi Jack,

You are thinking of Michael Griffith, an easy mistake to make.

By the way, Jack, it is an honor to communicate with you. I greatly admire your work.

Best,

Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In case everyone does not know Mike Griffin, he is among the most meticulous

of JFK researchers, and a welcome contributor on any subject.

Jack

Hi Jack,

You are thinking of Michael Griffith, an easy mistake to make.

By the way, Jack, it is an honor to communicate with you. I greatly admire your work.

Best,

Mike

SORRY MIKE...the name is similar, and I misread it. Mike GRIFFITH is a great researcher,

and I hope I can say the same about you. Thanks for the compliment.

Welcome to the forum. Even though "moderated" (ha) it is still a nuthouse at times, but

at least is a well-attended by a few good researchers who actually post new information.

Try to ignore all those here just to cause controversy.

Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look at the links under 'Julia Ann Mercer' on this page: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dealey.htm

You'll find this on the 'Police Statements' page:

JOE MURPHY, Patrolman, Traffic Division, Police Department,

Dallas, Texas, advised that on November 22, 1963, he was stationed at the

Triple Underpass on Elm Street to assist in handling traffic. At

approximately 10:30 - 10:40 AM, a pickup truck stalled on Elm Street

between Houston Street and the underpass. He was unable to recall the name

of the company to whom this truck belonged but stated it is the property

of the company working on the First National Bank Building at Elm and

Akard in Dallas.

There were three construction men in this truck, and he took one

to the bank building to obtain another truck in order to assist in moving

the stalled one. The other two men remained with the pickup truck along

with two other officers. Shortly prior to the arrival of the motorcade,

the man he had taken to the bank building returned with a second truck,

and all three of the men left with the two trucks, one pushing the other.

MURPHY noted that the men did not leave the truck except for the

one he took to the bank building, and all three left together sometime

prior to the arrival of the President's motorcade. He described the

stalled truck as being a green pickup and noted the truck had the hood

raised during the time it was stalled. This truck had side tool bins on

it, and they had a considerable amount of construction equipment in the

back.

MURPHY futher stated it was probable that one of these men had

taken something from the rear of this truck in an effort to start it. He

stated these persons were under observation all during the period they

were stalled on Elm Street because the officers wanted the truck moved

prior to the arrival of the motorcade, and it would have been impossible

for any of them to have had anything to do with the assassination of

President KENNEDY.

Is it reasonable to assert that this is the same event that Mercer witnessed? If so, there is clearly a simple and innocent explanation. For whatever reason, Mercer decided to add the rifle (and later, Oswald!)

Herein we get to the heart of the issue. McAdams' Marauders - hardly dispassionately objective - invariably confer the worst human motives upon witnesses they seek to diminish. It is not enough to assert that Mercer was wrong; it must be assumed that she invented or fabricated or added or lied. Based upon evidence so transparently flimsy and skewed as Murphy's interview with the Bureau.

From his WC testimony and FBI interview, Murphy seems to have been a standup guy. But it is clear this report was drafted several weeks after 11/22 in direct response to Mercer's contentions. And in which FBI make Murphy both overstate what he can personally know, and understate what he should have been able to provide, but didn't. Nor did FBI.

Clearly, Murphy cannot personally know what transpired in Dealey Plaza while he was absent driving one of the workers to the National Bank building. According to FBI, Murphy claimed to know with certainty that the two workers he left behind never left the truck, because it was being guarded or watched by two unnamed officers. End of Mercer's story. Case closed. Couldn't have happened.

While this superficially appears to dispose of Mercer's tale - which was FBI's intent in creating the report - it fails to convince for a number of reasons.

Did Murphy not know the names of the officers he left behind? Or didn't care to disclose them? Did FBI not care to discover those names, if only to obtain corroboration for Murphy's account? If not, why? Given that the only ones who could really describe what transpired in Murphy's absence were the two officers left behind, not the one who drove away, didn't FBI interview the wrong guy? Was any effort expended to determine what the two unnamed officers had to say about the Mercer incident? Why was Murphy not asked about any of this stalled truck episode in testimony to WC counsel?

The FBI-Murphy report, and his handling by the Commission, more blatantly disclose official indifference to the details of Mercer's story than any interest in legitimately resolving them. The goal being pursued wasn't determining the truth, but the neutralization of what Mercer had to say.

Which is precisely the line being advocated by McAdams today.

It is also instructive to note what McAdams infers from the testimony of Forrest Sorrels. On the same site to which Paul Baker linked above, we find this synopsis for a hotlink: "Then the account of Secret Service agent Forest Sorrels, to whom Mercer told an early version of her story."

However, that relies purely upon a major assumption for which there exists no proof of which I am aware. First the pertinent Sorrels testimony:

Mr. SORRELS. There was another witness there that I started talking

to--I don't recall the name now, because I told him to go in--somebody

that saw a truck down there--this is before the parade ever got

there--that apparently had stalled down there on Elm Street. And I later

checked on that, and found out that the car had gone dead, apparently

belonged to some construction company, and that a police officer had come

down there, and they had gone to the construction company and gotten

somebody to come down and get the car out of the way.

Apparently it was just a car stalled down there.

But this lady said she thought she saw somebody that looked like they

had a guncase. But then I didn't pursue that any further--because then I

had gotten the information that the rifle had been found in the building

and shells and so forth....

(One should note Sorrels' failure to "pursue that any further" because a weapon had already been found elsewhere. Apparently the notion that there might have been more than one weapon in play that day received short shrift.)

Whatever the identity of the first witness alluded to, it was a man. As for the "somebody" who saw the stalled truck - which Sorrels calls a car - this was something Sorrels "later checked on," but while actually in Dealey Plaza he "didn't pursue that any further" because a weapon had already been found elsewhere.

Nowhere in this testimony do we see evidence that Mercer "told an early version of her story" to Sorrels. We see no indication that he knew her name or had spoken to her himself; only that he knew of "this lady who thought she saw somebody that looked like they had a guncase."

While it may be reasonable to assume Sorrels was referring to Mercer, for it mirrors her tale, there is no basis for the McAdams claim that Mercer told anything to Sorrels. In order to do so, one would have to present evidence that police took Mercer from Ft. Worth back to Dealey Plaza where Sorrels was, which - if it exists - I've been unable to locate.

Why split such hairs? Why is it possibly important? It has always seemed odd to me that nobody else seems to have seen what Mercer witnessed. With traffic stalled, surely more than one driver should have noticed something this puzzling. They might not have attached much significance to it when they saw it, thinking - as did Mercer - that the man with the guncase must have been Secret Service. But after the assassination made it apparent that this might not have been the case, why do we find nobody else with similar observations?

McAdams and his minions will assert this is further proof the event didn't occur. However, if it turns out that Sorrels did speak in Dealey Plaza with "this lady who thought she saw somebody that looked like they had a guncase," and it wasn't Mercer because she wasn't taken there - then to whom did Sorrels refer? While it is far from certain, there nevertheless exists the possibility that "this lady" wasn't Mercer, but somebody who provided corroboration for her account, yet remains unidentified for obvious reasons.

McAdams and his minions will also assert that such considerations are the contortions of a CT who cannot accept the obvious. When in reality what it indicates is how shockingly low they are prepared to set the bar for "evidence" they then mischaracterize as probative, with only assumptions for a basis. Both the Murphy FBI report and SS man Sorrels' testimony are misconstrued to contain the very things they lack. For anyone seeking actual resolution of troubling anomalies, it's no way to run a railroad.

Mercer didn't come forward voluntarily, but was apprehended by police who overheard her make a comment. If she lied as an attention-seeker, why didn't she rush forward to capitalize on her tale?

Is it uncommon for people to augment events just to make them seem more important? Perhaps it was enough for her to garner attention from people she knows, and she had no intention of letting the police know her false version of events. She could comfortably lie to friends, but not to the authorities.

Again, this so grossly overstates what transpired it cannot be accidental, nor rationalized.

Mercer did not tell anyone that she had seen conspirators. She glibly stated in a restaurant, before the assassination, that the Secret Service weren't very secret because she had seen them in Dealey Plaza taking a gun out of a truck. That would have been the end of it, had she not been overheard by police who, upon hearing of the assassination, took Mercer into custody to take her statement. As well they should have done.

There was no attempt by Mercer to make herself seem more important. She mentioned something to some acquaintances that would have been entirely innocuous at the time she said it, and would have remained so had the assassination not taken place after she made the comment.

It is by ignoring details such as these - important ones, as it happens - that people like McAdams wish to dissuade us from giving a full hearing to witnesses who contend uncomfortable things.

It never fails to amuse me that those who rail against Jim Garrison as being incapable of tying his shoes nevertheless cite him as gospel when it suits their purposes. [/color]

Hmm... more flawed 'logic'. Why shouldn't I believe that this is what Mercer told Garrison, whilst still believing that Garrison seemed to accept any and every story that towed the conspiracy line?

Again, we see something interesting. Per McAdams and his minions, Garrison didn't just collect data suggestive of conspiracy, but invented what he couldn't find and embellished upon what he could. He resorted to bribery, intimidation, drugging and hypnotizing witnesses to suborn perjury, and a number of other wilful acts unbecoming a DA.

Yet the same people will cite him as authoritative so long as the end product can be used to likewise smear another problematic person, in this case Mercer. In this instance, Garrison can be trusted because Mercer is the xxxx, and Garrison is just gullible.

Either Garrison is credible or he is not. Which is it to be?

Those unfamiliar with the ethics at play here - and by now they must be very few indeed - might wish to see an old but still germane tutorial:

http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/faq.html

Caveat emptor: the same methodology cited by Hargrove above is on display here. Daily.

Edited by Robert Charles-Dunne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Greg Parker' date='16

[...]

RD Lewis, the polygraph examiner of Buell Frazier described the infamous paper bag as looking like a "paper gun case". [...]

[...]

According to James Douglas in JFK and the Unspeakable ,

"As Mercer watched, a man walked around to the back of the [green] pickup [parked about halfway on the sidewalk on Elm Street near the Triple Underpass]. He reached in and pulled out a rifle case wrapped in paper. The man carried what was apparently a rifle up a slope that would soon be known as the grassy knoll."

The next day, Mercer photo-identified Jack Ruby as having been the man sitting in the driver's seat of the pickup.

The theory is that the plotters planned to use Ruby as a backup hitman in case the cops couldn't do the job on LHO in the Texas Theater. So they put Ruby in this situation where he would be identified, even before the assassination, as the guy who delivered the rifle to the Grassy Knoll. The fact that Mercer had identified Ruby from FBI photos must have been relayed to Ruby himself by someone in the FBI or Dallas Police Department, etc, and was sufficient leverage to force Ruby's hands in his stalking and killing of LHO.

--Tommy :)

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Greg Parker' date='16

[...]

RD Lewis, the polygraph examiner of Buell Frazier described the infamous paper bag as looking like a "paper gun case". [...]

[...]

According to James Douglas in JFK and the Unspeakable page 254

"As Mercer watched, a man walked around to the back of the [green] pickup [parked about halfway on the sidewalk on Elm Street near the Triple Underpass]. He reached in and pulled out a rifle case wrapped in paper. The man carried what was apparently a rifle up a slope that would soon be known as the grassy knoll."

The next day, Mercer photo-identified Jack Ruby as having been the man sitting in the driver's seat of the pickup.

The theory is that the plotters planned to use Ruby as a backup hitman in case the cops couldn't do the job on LHO in the Texas Theater. So they put Ruby in this situation where he would be identified, even before the assassination, as the guy who delivered the rifle to the Grassy Knoll. The fact that Mercer had identified Ruby from FBI photos must have been relayed to Ruby himself by someone in the FBI or Dallas Police Department, etc, and was sufficient leverage to force Ruby's hands in his stalking and killing of LHO.

It's interesting to note that mobbed-up Jack Ruby was known to have run guns to Fidel Castro in the late 1950's and that Julia Ann Mercer (apparently) told author Henry Hurt in 1983 that the man she saw carry the rifle up the grassy slope was another "Castro-connected" man, Lee Harvey Oswald. (ibid., p. 445, footnote #201)

(Or his double?)

So that the rogue CIA plotters could pin the assassination on Castro and/or the Mafia...

--Tommy :)

P.S. But I think Paul Baker does raise a valid point when he questions Mercer's ability to recognize the face of the man who was killing LHO at the very moment he was killing him. Mercer very clearly stated several times that at the moment Oswald was being shot she recognized/identified the dude doing the shooting as being the same guy whose photo (Ruby's) she'd chosen just the day before for the FBI.

expanded a bit and bumped again

Edited by Thomas Graves

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

×
×
  • Create New...