Dixie Dea Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Denis said... QUOTE Good Day.... I decided to also repost what follows below as a seperate post since the location of the pool of blood "DMN" employees COLEY and HOOD observed is different than the blood pool COUCH, L'HOSTE and others described seeing. As detailed on my DP overhead map link below (and in Trask's book "POTP"), the blood that COLEY observed was south of the north "Bryan" pergola shelter #3, while the blood COUCH observed was east of the north pergola shelter #4. After a search online, I found an online version of MARK OAKES interview of 55 minutes with JERRY LANE COLEY, a "Dallas Morning News" advertising salesman on 22NOV63. COLEY's online interview is available for all here ("RealPlayer" needed).... thanks to researcher SCOTT MYERS http://users2.ev1.net/~bobdeb/jfk/coley.ram Perhaps MARK OAKES will jump into this thread with further details Apparently OAKES and a co-researcher located then interviewed COLEY after reading about him in the paperback book "Unsolved Texas Mysteries" by Wallace O. Chariton, With Kevin R. Young & Charlie Eckhardt, published in March 1991, ISBN=1556221363, December 1991 =1556221371, May 1992=1556222564. (NOTE: OAKES points out, and COLEY confirms in the online interview, that some non-blood-pool-related details CHARITAN wrote about COLEY's post-attack actions are incorrect) To summarize some of COLEY's interview with OAKES considerations: COLEY said that the pool of blood he saw was located about 10' south of the north pergola west shelter #3 door, on the sidewalk, near the retaining wall. COLEY said that JIM HOOD (now deceased) touched the "pool of blood" and tasted it, then said it was "definately blood," not spilled soda pop. HOOD captured only one photo of the pool of blood UNQUOTE Just some extra info. to add..... A few years ago, a researcher friend of mine by the name of Martin Barkley read about Jerry Cooley and Jim Hood, in, Texas Unsolved Mysteries. This story intrigued him, so he hunted down Jerry Cooley, who agreed to an interview and taping. So, Mark Oakes another friend of Martin's, did the actual interview. After the interview, Martin told me about it and of the plan to put it on the internet. But then, shortly after that, I went to Dallas for the Nov Conferences. One night while there, Martin surprised me by bringing his VCR and the Cooley Video for me to view. (He lived in an area near Dallas) I have to say I felt quite honored to have been one of the very first to get to view this Cooley/Oakes Video interview. After we watched it, I ask Martin if he thought Jerry Cooley was credible and he said that he felt he was very credible. Well he did actually meet and spoke with him. He ask what I thought and I had to agree with him. Yet, I don't always have that reaction and usually am more skeptical. Then, just one month later, Martin had a major aneurism and was not expected to live or possibly would remain in a vegetative state. For those of you who do know Martin and know what happened to him or perhaps wondered about him.....well, I saw him sitting over at Dealey Plaza for the 40 Year Anniversary!! Although unable to walk, it has been like a miracle to see how well he has improved. Although sorta like a bull in a China Closet in his approach to research, he was quite sincere and had some rather interesting theories. I don't really know if he intends to try and pursue projects he had started or not. However, we were quite pleased that Scott Myers added the Cooley interview to his own website. Many things tells me those pools were not really blood.....and yet...... Dixie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee Forman Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Confusing... Can we run this into the ground somehow? As per MIDP, Ira David Wood III's Chronology, page 48: "Jerry Coley (a thirty year old employee of the Dallas Morning News) amd his friend, Charlie Mulkey, cross Houston St. from their vantage point near the old county jail. They circle behind the TSBD and cross a dirt field (?) to reach the knoll. Heading to the TSBD from the knoll they notice a pool of red liquid on the steps leading down to Elm St. Mulkey touches the liquid with his finger, tastes it and says "My god, Jerry, that's blood." Both men return to the Morning News building and get photographer Jim Hood. Returning to the scene Hood takes several pictures of the red liquid from different angles. Both (?) men hurry back to the newspaper offices to develop the photographs." So where are those photos? Is this the same pool Jean Hill saw, or is it the one behind the retaining wall? Clearly it is not the one on the sidewalk at the TSBD, which apparently they failed to notice, since they 'circle behind the TSBD?' And I have to try to run down the one in the parking lot. Hang on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 (edited) Rather "on topic" footage I think. Edited February 8, 2005 by Alan Healy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted February 8, 2005 Share Posted February 8, 2005 A puddle of blood at the low wall and a black fedora behind the fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Alan Healy Posted Yesterday, 05:33 PM Rather "on topic" footage I think. Has the gentleman, holding his jacket conveniently over his right hand, ever been identified? Looks like another "agent". Covering ones hand with a coat completely seems a little suspicous, like one is trying to hide something. A gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 (edited) Alan Healy Posted Yesterday, 05:33 PM Rather "on topic" footage I think. Has the gentleman, holding his jacket conveniently over his right hand, ever been identified? Looks like another "agent". Covering ones hand with a coat completely seems a little suspicous, like one is trying to hide something. A gun? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The film footage was taken by Jimmy Darnell - not Couch. The man's fingers are clearly visible in some of the frames and he appears to have them in a normal posture for carrying his coat. The white hat was common among Dallas detectives in the Homicide diviision. I believe they were given the nickname "The White Hats". Considering the amount of liquid on the sidewalk and it's proximity to the bench it appears more likely than not that someone had poured out the rest of their soft drink once it had gotten warm. Had someone of been shot at that location, then to leave that amount of blood on the ground would mean they stood at that spot for a considerable amount of time. And if someone was bleeding that profusely, then they would have left a trail behind them as they left the area. I believe this walkway location often times gets confused with the blood that was said to be found over near the corner of the TSBD. At that location (TSBD) someone did claim to have tested the liquid by tasting it and determined that it was blood. Edited February 9, 2005 by Bill Miller Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Thomas Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Bill, The white hat was common among Dallas detectives in the Homicide diviision. I believe they were given the nickname "The White Hats". You are right about the white stetsons worn by members of the Homicide and Robbery Bureau. I asked two former Dallas policemen if they recognized the gentleman in the suit. Neitehr said they recognized him. I believe that the man in the suit is a civilian. If he was a Detective, the patrolman would not be shooing him away from the scene. The white hat on the patrolman indicates that he was a member of the Traffic Division. Steve Thomas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Bill, No wonder people suspect you of putting forth the GARY MACK line straight from the Dallas authorities at the TSBD.... Please ignore this, that, and the other evidence too, that seems to be your angle.... You remind me of McAdams sometimes.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Bill, No wonder people suspect you of putting forth the GARY MACK line straight from the Dallas authorities at the TSBD.... Please ignore this, that, and the other evidence too, that seems to be your angle.... You remind me of McAdams sometimes.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shanet - you are welcome to address how such a large pool of liquid got on the sidewalk in less than a couple of seconds if you like. Your general statement about me talking for Gary Mack is asinine IMO. Your approach to the evidence seems to always be based on emotion and not common sense. If you think otherwise, then be prepared to explain in detail how you reached your conclusions as I have for debate is how we weight the evidence amongst ourselves. The area where the liquid is seen is visible in the Willis and Moorman photos and no one is standing there. Keep in mind that Willis took his photo about 1/4 of a second at the first shot. You may note that a close up was taken by Flynn of the sack lunch on the bench and he didn't see anything about the liquid on the sidewalk that he felt was worth wasting a picture over - that should be just one hint that it wasn't blood in Flynn's opinion. Anyone taking a hit by gunfire and having blood run down onto the ground to leave a puddle that large would had to of stayed standing there for a considerable time and that is not supported by the evidence at all. And as I said before - anyone who ran off immediately and left a pool of blood that large in a matter of a second or two would have left more blood on the ground as then moved along ... there is no evidence of this either. So believe that Flynn didn't think taking a photo of a large pool of blood was as important as taking a photo of a bag of buns if you like. Think that someone doesn't have to be seen at that location during the assassination to bleed a large pool of blood out on the ground if it pleases you. All I am doing is pointing out the common sense side of the equation as I see it and then leaving it up to others to decide for themselves based on their ability to think logically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanet Clark Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 You defend yourself well. I guess you are pretty independent and thorough, but some of us think you might be prone to seeing things that really arent' there, this applied material, and maybe missing things intrinsic... like the blood and Classic Gunman and fully halted limousine. The puffs of smoke and deeply veiled figures are not as pressing, to me... Remember Missing the Forest for the Trees...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 You defend yourself well. I guess you are pretty independent and thorough, but some of us think you might be prone to seeing things that really arent' there, this applied material, and maybe missing things intrinsic... like the blood and Classic Gunman and fully halted limousine. The puffs of smoke and deeply veiled figures are not as pressing, to me... Remember Missing the Forest for the Trees...? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The 'some of us' you speak of are of little importance for they are not that knowledgeable about the photographical record IMO. I post the things I do for their benefit - how they use it is their business. As far as the limo being fully halted - we must be talking about two completely different assassinations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 BM wrote: The 'some of us' you speak of are of little importance for they are not that knowledgeable about the photographical record IMO. [...] ROFLMAO! When are you going to work for the 6th Floor Mausoleum? Enquiring minds are asking that question... Apparently, your 'heir apparent' - there are vacancies you know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 When are you going to work for the 6th Floor Mausoleum? Enquiring minds are asking that question... Apparently, your 'heir apparent' - there are vacancies you know! Another typical reply from someone who has nothing else to offer. You are another one who has little knowledge of the photographical record and from the past postings you have made on this forum - you know little else about the assassination as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Just to confirm that that is from Jimmy Darnell & not Couch(thanks Gary). Thanks also to Don for supplying the source for the frames. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Healy Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 If you look at the Mal Couch WC testimony again, he also mentions "the steps & the pathway" when trying to explain where he saw this blood. It isn't clear he was talking about this area in the filmed sequence above but it is a real possibility. What I see in the footage, is the public being ushered away from the walkway area & numerous photos taken later,show people gathering below this area at street level(Even the Couch film). The man with the coat, a detective, looks back at the policeman who has just told the girl to move away, ignores him & continues to walk towards the dark patch on the path for a closer look & almost bumps heads with another detective(older guy in black, who resembles the CSI scene on the sixth floor) who also wants a closer look. That's all, these were the beginnings of an investigation of the knoll that very quickly disapeared. The patch could be blood but it could also just be a spilt drink, plenty of kids ran up there behind the wall too. If you want to rule out this as being blood then I guess you could show the scene to a pathologist or someone. It is theorised that Gordon Arnold laid on the ground for a minute by his supporters(I am not one of them), I am of the opinion that even as late as Bond6(well over a minute) there is still no sign of anyone getting up from behind the wall. So anyone laying up there with his hand blown off, or shot in the gut, has well over a minute to get away too & that is what the doctor has to consider; what wound could expel this much blood in under a minute. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now