What interests you the most?

[Steve Thomas]

Ron,

Willis had to be mistaken because Sorrels wasn't there when the film was ready to view at Kodak. Sorrels had left for DPD.

Do you know where I can find Willis's statement about watching the Z film?

Both Marilyn and Phillip told Harold Weisberg that Sorrels watched the Zapruder film before he left.

Both Phillip and Marilyn Willis confirmed to Harold Weisberg that before Sorrels left, all the films had been processed, “and all viewed them.”

Weisberg, Harold. Whitewash II: The FBI – Secret Service Coverup. Harold Weisberg, 1966. p. 203.

Sorrels said that he left before the film was processed and told Zapruder he would get back to him.

From Sorrels' WC testimony:

We got a police car, and went right on out to the Eastman Kodak Co., and while there I met another gentleman who had seen some still pictures, and arranged with him for us to get copies of those.

Mr. STERN - What was his name---do you recall?

Mr. SORRELS - He is a salesman for the Ford Co. on West Commerce Street--Mr. Willis.

Hosty said in his WC testimony:

Mr. HOSTY. Yes, sir; at approximately 6 p.m. on the 22d of November 1963, Special Agent in Charge Forrest V. Sorrels of the United States Secret Service entered Captain Fritz' office with about five or six Secret Service agents. He then proceeded to interview Lee Harvey Oswald, I was not present during this interview.

I did see him take Lee Oswald to the rear of Captain Fritz' outer office and interview Lee Oswald. It appeared to me that Forrest Sorrels of the Secret Service had appeared for the purpose of representing the United States Secret Service in this investigation.

Why did Sorrels want to talk to Oswald alone and out of earshot?

Where was he between the hours of, oh say, 3:00 or so and 6:00?

Why did he tell the WC that he got back to police headquarters at 2:00, when he didn't go up to Fritz's office until 6:00?

Questions, questions...

Steve Thomas

[John Simkin]

The most interesting phenomeon to me is that there is so little outrage from the public in a democratic state while it is so clear they are being lied to. There is no indignation despite the fact they know they are being lied to (given the results of repeated polls).

I agree. Maybe this is an European response to the assassination. As Alan J. Weberman has argued, a Coup D'Etat took place when JFK was assassinated. This makes it much more important than many other political assassinations.

[Ron Ecker]

Wim and John,

I agree with you completely about the lack of outrage. This is a mysterious phenomenon not only with regard to the JFK assassination but to the lies and deceptions of 9/11. Part of it is no doubt the fact that America now basically has a state-controlled media. But I fail to see how Jennings, Rather, and Brokaw can suppress common sense. We have the Internet, but so-called CT sites appear to be marginalized, fringe groups talking to each other, i.e. preaching to the choir.

One theory I read a while back about the the lack of outrage was offered by a columnist (unfortunately I forget which one) who said that the American people have simply grown tired of democracy, that is, they are tired of bearing the responsibilities that go with it. Thus the old adage, attributed to Thomas Jefferson, that "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" no longer means anything to them. They want someone else, the government, to take care of things. Well, the government certainly is. And this is why, IMO, we are living in the decline and fall of the American democratic experiment.

Ron

[Shanet Clark]

Sheep, and they want an alpha sheep they can follow, a line of authority they can quote in the situations that (in us) demand thinking. The authority of the President and the Warren Commission are, for many people, holy and inerrant words, final authority of a higher power. Given a plausible explanation (Oswald with a Communist newspaper) they have no mental space, no critical function, no questioning mind ... this is the gulf in the public body, between those who investigate and question, and those that defend and excuse.

Sheep.

[Ron Ecker]

Both Phillip and Marilyn Willis confirmed to Harold Weisberg that before Sorrels left, all the films had been processed, “and all viewed them.”

Weisberg, Harold. Whitewash II: The FBI – Secret Service Coverup. Harold Weisberg, 1966. p. 203.

Steve,

Thanks for the source on that. As a principal source on the Zapruder film story I've been using Wrone's book The Zapruder Film. Zapruder's partner Erwin Schwartz was with them at Kodak, and told Wrone that Sorrels left to go to DPD while the film was still being processed, and that Sorrels told Zapruder as he was leaving, "If it comes out get me a copy" (p. 22). In addition, the Kodak lab production supervisor Philip Chamberlain told Wrone that those who viewed the film at Kodak in the small projection room were Zapruder, Schwartz, Harry McCormick, and Kodak staff. No Sorrels (and also no Willises) (p. 23). In a sworn affidavit Chamberlain even narrowed it down further (and falsely?), stating that the film "was not shown to any person other than employees of said laboratory" (p. 23).

I'll have to revisit Sorrels's testimony, but while he said that he left to go to DPD and told Zapruder he would contact him later to get the pictures, he may not have actually stated whether he saw the film or not before leaving. So it's possible that Sorrels did see the film, as the Willises recall, and that Schwartz's memory is faulty and that Chamberlain was busy stretching the truth in general about the film viewing.

Hosty said in his WC testimony:

Mr. HOSTY. Yes, sir; at approximately 6 p.m. on the 22d of November 1963, Special Agent in Charge Forrest V. Sorrels of the United States Secret Service entered Captain Fritz' office with about five or six Secret Service agents. He then proceeded to interview Lee Harvey Oswald, I was not present during this interview.

I did see him take Lee Oswald to the rear of Captain Fritz' outer office and interview Lee Oswald. It appeared to me that Forrest Sorrels of the Secret Service had appeared for the purpose of representing the United States Secret Service in this investigation.

Why did Sorrels want to talk to Oswald alone and out of earshot?

According to Sorrels's testimony, he simply told Fritz upon arriving at Fritz's office, "Captain, I would like to talk to this man when I have an opportunity." Fritz said, "You can talk to him right now," and Fritz "just took him on back around to the side of Captain Fritz' office." Sorrels apparently did not ask to talk to Oswald alone, Fritz just took them somewhere out of courtesy or whatever. And Sorrels states that even then there were FBI agents and detectives all over the place.

Where was he between the hours of, oh say, 3:00 or so and 6:00?

Why did he tell the WC that he got back to police headquarters at 2:00, when he didn't go up to Fritz's office until 6:00?

Sorrels was expressly guessing at the time he arrived at DPD from Kodak, and was off by more than an hour:

Mr. SORRELS - I was informed that an FBI agent had called the office and said that Captain Fritz of the Homicide Bureau had been trying to get in touch with me, that he had a suspect in custody.

Mr. STERN - About what time was that?

Mr. SORRELS - That would be fairly close to 2 o'clock, I imagine.

Mr. STERN - About an hour after you had returned----

Mr. SORRELS - Yes. I would say that it was at least that long--maybe a little bit longer.

Sorrels spent part of the time between 3 and 6, when Hosty saw him, searching for Howard Brennan.

Mr. STERN - Did anything else transpire between that time (his interrogation of Oswald after 3) and the Friday night showup?

Mr. SORRELS - I did not talk to Oswald again, and I was around there. When I contacted Washington, I was informed that Inspector Kelley was being directed to be there, and he would be there later on that evening, that they had caught him out on the road, and he would come there to help out.

I also got information to Captain Fritz that I had this witness, Brennan, that I had talked to, and that I would like very much for him to get a chance to see Oswald in a lineup. And Captain Fritz said that would be fine.

So I instructed Special Agent Patterson, I believe it was, after I had located Brennan---had quite a difficult time to locate him, because he wasn't at home. And they finally prevailed upon his wife to try to help me locate him, and she, as I recall it, said that she would see if she could locate him by phone. I called her, I believe, the second time and finally got a phone number and called him and told him we would like for him to come down and arrange for him to meet one of our agents to pick him up at the place there. And when they came down there with him, I got ahold of Captain Fritz and told him that the witness was there, Mr. Brennan.

He said, "I wish he would have been here a little sooner, we just got through with a lineup."

Ron

Edited December 21, 2004 by Ron Ecker

[John Simkin]

Wim and John,

I agree with you completely about the lack of outrage. This is a mysterious phenomenon not only with regard to the JFK assassination but to the lies and deceptions of 9/11. Part of it is no doubt the fact that America now basically has a state-controlled media. But I fail to see how Jennings, Rather, and Brokaw can suppress common sense. We have the Internet, but so-called CT sites appear to be marginalized, fringe groups talking to each other, i.e. preaching to the choir.

One theory I read a while back about the the lack of outrage was offered by a columnist (unfortunately I forget which one) who said that the American people have simply grown tired of democracy, that is, they are tired of bearing the responsibilities that go with it. Thus the old adage, attributed to Thomas Jefferson, that "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" no longer means anything to them. They want someone else, the government, to take care of things. Well, the government certainly is. And this is why, IMO, we are living in the decline and fall of the American democratic experiment.

I believe this is also true of the UK. There has been some concern about our government lying about the reasons why we went to war in Iraq. However, no one has resigned and the government is still ahead in the polls. It seems that to most people it is the state of the economy that is the only thing that matters. As long as they have a job and wages (and the price of their homes) are going up, they do not complain much. I would like to think if something like the assassination of JFK took place in the UK the people would become involved in forcing the government to tell the truth. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe we are also tired of democracy and cannot be bothered to defend it.

[Steve Thomas]

Ron,

Sorrels was expressly guessing at the time he arrived at DPD from Kodak, and was off by more than an hour:

If there was a Secret Service agent present during Oswald’s first interrogation, there is another reason I do not believe it could have been Forrest Sorrels.

Detective Elmer Boyd testified to the Warren Commission on 4/6/64. He said:

Mr. BALL. And Sims was there, and was there a Secret Service man in there?

Mr. BOYD. Let me see---I think there was a Secret Service man there, but I don't recall---I don't know what his name was.

Detective Richard Sims also testified on 4/6/64

Mr. BALL. How long was he in Captain Fritz' office?

Mr. SIMS. Well, let's see, we first went in there at 2 and we stayed in there evidently--this says here that the Secret Service and the FBI took part in the interrogation of Oswald with Captain Fritz, and we took him down to the first showup at 4:05.

In an undated after-action jointly filed with Chief Curry by Sims and Boyd, they report that the rifle was found at about 1:25PM and identify persons who were present when it was photographed. They knew enough of the federal agencies involved to make the distinction between the FBI, the Secret Service and officers of the ATF. They wrote, “Detective Studebaker and Lieutenant Day took pictures of the rifle. Mr. Pinkston of the F.B.I. and a Secret Service Agent were there at the time the pictures were being made. We don’t know the Secret Service agent’s name. Mr. Ellsworth and another officer from Alcohol Tax Department were also there.

"Report on Officer's Duty in Regard to the President's Murder, R. M. Sims. No. 629, and E. L. Boyd, No, 840. Dallas Police archives Box 3 Folder # 4, as cited in the City of Dallas Archives – JFK Collection, http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box3.htm

However,

Forrest Sorrels testified before the WC on 5/7/64. He said

And I started talking to Oswald, started asking him some questions, and he was arrogant and a belligerent attitude about him.

And he said to me, "I don't know who you fellows are, a bunch of cops."

And I said, "Well, I will tell you who I am. My name is Sorrels and I am with the United States Secret Service, and here is my commission book."

So, if Sorrels identified himself on 11/22/63, why were Sims and Boyd writing within days after the assassination that they did not know who the SS agent was that was up on the 6th floor and were telling the WC in April of 1964 that they did not know who the SS agent was that took part in Oswald’s first interrogation?

My comments about Sorrels taking Oswald in a back room alone came from SS Agent Winston Lawson.

By all accounts, Captain Fritz handled the first interrogation, but when Forrest Sorrels arrived to talk to Oswald, he took Oswald in a back room and handled the interrogation himself. Winston Lawson confirmed this and also appears to have confirmed James Hosty’s account of Sorrels, et.al. arriving at 6:00PM.

Mr. LAWSON. “Mr. Sorrels and a couple other agents and myself saw Lee Harvey Oswald when he was brought in for Mr. Sorrels to talk to at Mr. Sorrels' request.”

Mr. STERN. “Did you interrogate him”?

Mr. LAWSON. “No, sir; I did not.”

Mr. STERN. “Did Mr. Sorrels handle the interrogation alone?”

Mr. LAWSON. “Yes, sir; that particular one.”

Mr. LAWSON. “Mr. Sorrels in asking the questions already had some background on Mr. Oswald before he started questioning Mr. Oswald. The detectives or other individuals had told them what they knew up to this point about Oswald, his name, that he had been out of the country previous to this time to Russia, and a few other things. It was known at the particular time, perhaps 6 or 7 o'clock.

Steve Thomas

[Ron Ecker]

If there was a Secret Service agent present during Oswald’s first interrogation, there is another reason I do not believe it could have been Forrest Sorrels.

It has yet to be demonstrated that there was a Secret Service agent there before the arrival of Sorrels. Boyd and Sims don't do much to help your argument:

Detective Elmer Boyd testified to the Warren Commission on 4/6/64. He said:

Mr. BALL. And Sims was there, and was there a Secret Service man in there?

Mr. BOYD. Let me see---I think there was a Secret Service man there, but I don't recall---I don't know what his name was.

Boyd has to think about it but doesn't know. Was it Sorrels, arriving late? If so, Boyd obviously did not know Sorrels by name.

Detective Richard Sims also testified on 4/6/64

Mr. BALL. How long was he in Captain Fritz' office?

Mr. SIMS. Well, let's see, we first went in there at 2 and we stayed in there evidently--this says here that the Secret Service and the FBI took part in the interrogation of Oswald with Captain Fritz, and we took him down to the first showup at 4:05.

So Sims doesn't know either. He has to read something ("This says here") to find out who was supposed to be there.

In an undated after-action jointly filed with Chief Curry by Sims and Boyd, they report that the rifle was found at about 1:25PM and identify persons who were present when it was photographed. They knew enough of the federal agencies involved to make the distinction between the FBI, the Secret Service and officers of the ATF. They wrote, “Detective Studebaker and Lieutenant Day took pictures of the rifle. Mr. Pinkston of the F.B.I. and a Secret Service Agent were there at the time the pictures were being made. We don’t know the Secret Service agent’s name. Mr. Ellsworth and another officer from Alcohol Tax Department were also there.

This SS agent was apparently not Sorrels, who was busy talking to witnesses and escorting them to the sheriff's office. It is possible that Sorrels briefly joined the crew on the 6th floor, but he doesn't say so in his testimony. He does say that he heard that a rifle and shells were found. Did he go take a quick look, as the pictures were being taken?

Forrest Sorrels testified before the WC on 5/7/64. He said

And I started talking to Oswald, started asking him some questions, and he was arrogant and a belligerent attitude about him.

And he said to me, "I don't know who you fellows are, a bunch of cops."

And I said, "Well, I will tell you who I am. My name is Sorrels and I am with the United States Secret Service, and here is my commission book."

So, if Sorrels identified himself on 11/22/63, why were Sims and Boyd writing within days after the assassination that they did not know who the SS agent was that was up on the 6th floor and were telling the WC in April of 1964 that they did not know who the SS agent was that took part in Oswald’s first interrogation?

If the agent was Sorrels, Boyd and Sims would say what they did only if they did not know Sorrels by name. Sorrels identified himself to Oswald because Oswald took him for a cop, but we don't know that Sorrels identified himself to any of the cops or needed to, Captain Fritz obviously knowing who he was.

My comments about Sorrels taking Oswald in a back room alone came from SS Agent Winston Lawson.

I don't see anything surprising about Sorrels taking Oswald to a back room to question him. By all accounts, and as can be seen in the videos made in the jail that day, the place was a madhouse of cops, FBI agents, and news reporters. I wouldn't blame Sorrels for trying to find a decent place to interrogate the suspect.

I'm no fan of Sorrels or any other SS agent in Dallas that day, but I'm having trouble seeing anything sinister in Sorrels’s activity, or any clear evidence that there was actually an SS agent at the interrogation before Sorrels's arrival. In fact, Sorrels may be the most trustworthy of the bunch, as in his testimony he indicated that he first thought that the shots came from the grassy knoll (“the terrace”). Would any conspirator say that?

Mr. STERN - Now, as to the apparent source of these reports, did you feel that all three reports came from the same direction?

Mr. SORRELS - Yes. Definitely so.

Mr. STERN - And that direction, as nearly as you can place it, was what?

Mr. SORRELS - To the right and back. That is about the only way I can express it.

And, as I said, the noise from the shots sounded like they may have come back up on the terrace there. And that is the reason I was looking around like that when the first shot. And I continued to look out until the other two shots. And then I turned on around and looked back to where the President's car was, and that is when I saw some movement there, and the car just seemed to leap forward.

Mr. STERN - When you looked at the terrace to the right of Elm Street, did you observe any unusual movement?

Mr. SORRELS - No; I didn't see anything unusual at that time.

Mr. STERN - Were you looking at that terrace when either the second or third shot was fired?

Mr. SORRELS - Yes; I was. And I saw just some movement of some people, but no firearms or anything like that, because we began to move out rather rapidly. And we were quite a ways down the street at that time.

Mr. STERN - How do you mean movement of people?

Mr. SORRELS - It seems I recall someone turned around and was going in the other direction, like moving away from the street. And that is all I can recall.

Mr. STERN - But you didn't observe anything that led you to feel that the shots might have been fired from that terrace there?

Mr. SORRELS - No, sir.

Mr. STERN - It sounded to you at first as though it came from there?

Mr. SORRELS - That is the way it sounded--back into the rear and to the right, back up in that direction. And in the direction, of course, of the building.

Ron

Edited December 21, 2004 by Ron Ecker

[Dawn Meredith]

What interests the most:

confusion with evidence, disappearing evidence, false evidence, witness testimonies supporting conspiracy, dying witnesses. Evidence of foul play in the investigation of JFK's assassination and Lee Oswald. The impersenations of Oswald, the witholding of evidence and government documents under the excuse of national security....

...national security: I always wonder, are "they" afraid of riots in case the truth emerges, or are they simply afraid of exposing goverment secrets withheld among the documents.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

____________________________________

The German philosopher Carl Jaspers once wrote "We are all co-responsible for the way in which we are governed" (A Question of German Guilt).* Therefore

the need for truth, justice, and restoration of some semblance of "democracy"- (if any has ever existed )- is what has drawn me to this case for now 41 years.

This need, combined with hearing the lies from the media at the young age of 14,

while being told in civics class that we have "a free press"....one contradiction after another.

The belief that someday some would talk, in bits and pieces, and they did, many died for it, but some are still alive,so John is wrong: they aren't all dead.

BUT: the KISS method needs to be applied to educate others. Do this every day with at least one person, and then perhaps we will see some outrage. The media is the government, so it's up to us.

Dawn

[Tim Carroll]

BUT: the  KISS  method needs to be applied to educate others.  Do this every day with at least one person, and then perhaps we will see some outrage. The media is the government, so it's up to us.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is the KISS method?

[Tim Gratz]

BUT: the  KISS  method needs to be applied to educate others.  Do this every day with at least one person, and then perhaps we will see some outrage. The media is the government, so it's up to us.

Dawn

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What is the KISS method?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll let Dawn tell you what it is. It was a favorite phrase of James Carville, as I recall.

Anyone ever heard of the "SWAG" method?

[Tim Carroll]

Anyone ever heard of the "SWAG" method?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't "swag" bad pot?

[Tim Gratz]

Anyone ever heard of the "SWAG" method?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't "swag" bad pot?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

May be, don't know. Hate to use the language, but "SWAG" is a

"sophiticated, wild-assed guess"; the "sophisticated" is, I guess, the important adjective. Perhaps it means an "informed guess".

[Tim Carroll]

Anyone ever heard of the "SWAG" method?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't "swag" bad pot?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

May be, don't know. Hate to use the language, but "SWAG" is a

"sophiticated, wild-assed guess"; the "sophisticated" is, I guess, the important adjective. Perhaps it means an "informed guess".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds like something Carville would say

[Nancy Eldreth]

Maybe Kissinger method?

TO TALK IT OVER. (just a wild guess?)