Tim Gratz

I do not even see where Wikipedia claims this.

This is utter nonsense, IMO. Don't believe everything you read in Wikipedia.

I would be interested if anyone can identify any error in an assassination book (either pro- or anti- conspiracy) where the error goes against the POV of the author.

Denis wrote: Not a small mistake, the 20 minute time difference is crucial. And I use the word "mistake" with a great deal of generosity. It is indeed curious that whether the writer making a mistake is pro or anti conspiracy in almost every case the mistake supports the writer's POV. It is hard to decide when the errors are the result of sloppiness or may in fact be deliberate. And I suggest one way that errors can proliferate is when a second writer simply uses the work of an earlier writer in support of a statenent of fact without bothering to independently validate it via a primary source. For instance, I could write a book making the claim that Oswald was seen on the second floor a mere 46 seconds after the shooting stopped. I would footnote the assertion. As support, I would simply put: Groden, "The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald", page 111. There would now be TWO books making the erroneous assertion. Add a third and pretty soon that datum would start to become the accepted version of the facts, even though the original source. Groden, offers no primary source whatsoever for his assertion. As Denis points out the literature is simply replete with these errors. And I refer not to errors of opinion, over which there can be legitimate differences of interpretation, but to clear errors of fact. This phenomenon is indeed unfortunate and it hampers the truth-seeking process. But a forum like this can serve as a good venue for enumerating these errors.

In Craig Zirbel's "The Texas Connection", this statement is made: " . . /[E]yewitnesses saw Tippit get out of his car (with no broadcast having been made over the police radio identifying Oswald, or anyone with his appearence as being an assassination suspect)." (Paperback edition pages 176-177.) But we all know that statement is false. There was a description of the suspect in the assassination broadcast as early as 12:45 p.m. as I recall that fit Oswald and many many other young men. So how can Zirbel say there was no such broadcast? Is he dishonest or is he woefully ignorant of some of the fundamental facts of the case? Just another example of errors in the literature!

Robert wrote: William Harvey had met with Harvey once at a restaurant, city not specified. You gotta be a serious alcoholic to have luncheon meetings with yourself! If Robert means Harvey met with Roselli in 1963 the meeting may have been in Islamorado in April of 1963. I assume readers are familiar with that story?

Now this is unbelievable. In "Conversations with Kennedy" JFK's friend Benjamin Bradlee dates the assassination as November 23rd. Surely he knew the actual date and surely whoever proof-read the galleys must have known the date as well. It astounds me that this error was allowed in "Conversations with Kennedy."

Of course one should also note clear errors in the anti-conspiracy literature as well. Manchester's "The Death of a President" is not an anti-conspiracy book as such but it clearly adopts the position of the WC in toto and without question. In the book, Manchester states that Oswald was alone on the sixth floor for a full half hour with plenty of time to construct the sniper's nest. Of course, the Warren Report itself states that Bonnie Ray Williams ate his lunch on the sixth floor after noon, so Manchester should have known better. And of course had he bothered to read Williams actual testimony, which was of courese available before Manchester completed his book, Manchester would have known how long Willams stated he stayed on the sixth floor. It is inexcuasable IMO for a person who held himself out as a historian to make that error of fact.

Peter wrote: This Judge has been biased against the Defense from the get-go! He had not allowed any mention of the political nature and issue of selective prosecution, Readers will recall that days ago I asked Mr. Lemkin to post any proof whatsoever that the Wecht trial constituted "selective prosecution" and he failed to post anything to prove that. And yet he now repeats the assertion that I submit he knows is utterly lacking in merit. Just incredible.

Here is a quote from "High Treason" by Groden and Livingstone (page 175 in my paperback edition): It has been established that at exactly 12:15, Arnold Rowland (as well as Carolyn Walther and Ruby Henderson) saw two men with a rifle in the sixth floor window, and this is backed up by Rowland's wife, who also saw them. As we stated previously, Mrs. Rowland stated she NEVER saw any person in a sixth floor window. She also testified that her husband never told her that he had seen TWO men. She testified: "He never said there was another man on the sixth floor, in my presence, that I can remember." WC Hearings, Vol. VI, page 188. Carolyn Walther was not called to testify but her statement is Warren Commission Exhibit 2086. She saw a man with a rifle (or a machine gun) and a man standing next to him but she stated she saw these men on the fourth or fifth floors, that she was "positive" the window was not as high as the sixth floor. Now she may have been mistaken about the floor, granted, but how can Groden & Livingstone state that Walther saw these men on the SIXTH floor when her statement is to the contrary? In her statement to the FBI, Ruby Henderson stated she saw two men in an open window on one of the upper floors of the TSBD, but she ws not sure which floor it was. She never stated anything about a rifle. So how can Groden & Livingstone write that Mrs. Henderson saw two men, one with a rifle, on the sixth floor when she makes no reference whatsoever to a rifle? (Her statement is Warren Commission Exhibit 2089 in Vol. XXIV--read it yourself and determine if I overlooked the part where she mentioned a rifle. I think that one sentence in "High Treason" contains these errors: 1. Mrs. Rowland saw two men in on the sixth floor, one with a rifle. 2. Mrs. Walther saw men on the sixth floor. 3. Mrs. Henderson saw two men on the sixth floor. 4. One of the men Mrs, Henderson saw had a rifle. Finally, neither Mrs. Walther nor Mrs. Henderson states she saw the men at "exactly" 12:15 p.m. So I count FIVE errors of fact in that one sentence! I think when one reads a book on the assassination one should be entitled to assume the author is accurately stating what is said in a primary source document without having to go to the footnote and check every statement the author has made.

Bill, of course I agree there are numerous errors in Posner's book but perhaps we should first clean our own house. You wrote: And for Mrs. Rowland. She may not have seen the two men in the window, but her husband did, as did others. All of them described the man with the rifle as wearing a white shirt, and the other man wearing a brown sports/suitcoat blazer. What do you mean she MAY not have seen the men her husband claimed he saw? She clearly testified she DID NOT see the men--no ifs ands buts or "maybes" about it. Any book (and it is not just "Crossfire") that states Mrs. Rowland saw the men misstates the testimony. I see no excuse for that. One reason may be laziness. One book cites Summers' "Conspiracy" when discussing Mrs. Rowland. A sentence in his book is written inartfully and COULD be read that Mrs. Rowland saw the men, but I am sure that was not Summer's intent. I think someone just read and misinterpreted Summers on Mrs. Roland without making the effort to actually read Mrs. Rowland's testimony. That is why it is important to verify with primary sourcers and why I am extremely cautious about Marrs' statements.

There are also errors in films re the assassination. For instance, in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" after showing Mr. Burroughs stating that he saw LHO in the Texas Theatre as early as 1:07, the narrator states that 1:07 was the "official" time for the murder of Officer Tippit, a clearly erroneous statement. AS most know, Mr. Bowley stated he arrived on the scene at 1:10 p.m. and Tippitt was dead when he arrived. But there is no "official" report from any source of which I am aware that Tippitt was shot before 1:10 p.m. I believe the "official" time was 1:15 or 1:16 p.m.

On page 111 of "The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald" Robert Groden states that LHO was seen on the second floor forty-six seconds (from my memory: either 46 or 42) after the shooting stopped but he does not state who saw him. This has to be an error, doesn't it? Did anyone see LHO on the second floor before Officer Baker and Mr. Truly?

The more I read of the case, the more frustrated I am with the numerous factual errors in the books written about it. I think a thread limited to noting such errors may be useful amd I would invite anyone knowing of any errors to post them here. Note I am not talking about errors of interpretation or opinion but only clear errors of fact. I will begin with two from Crossfire: 1. It states that LHO had to descend five flights of stairs to get from the sixth floor to the second floor, assuming Oswald had been on the sixth floor. But there are only four flights between the second and sixth floor. 2. It states Mrs. Rowland saw the two men on the sixth floor that hrt husband saw. But it is clear from her testimony that she did not.

No Name Key is north of Key West, not east. But so far as I have determined there was never any training for the BOP on No Name Key. (No Name Key is of course the name for No Name Key so despite what its name proclaims No Name Key in fact has a name.) But Perry is correct--no one who has been to NNK would place it in the Everglades!

Re Larry King's failure to transmit a donation intended for the Garrison case from a philanthropist named Wolfson, see: http://cuban-exile.com/doc_051-075/doc0071.html

There are several factual errors in the first post including but not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Allen Dulles was not directly involved in the recruitment of the mafia. (2) Neither Bissell nor Dulles talked with the mafia leaders. (3) John's narratiuve omits the CIA's use of Robert Maheu as a cut-out. It was Sheffield Edwards, head of the CIA Office of Security, who brought Maheu into the operation. Maheu first met with Rosselli at the Brown Derby Restaurant in Hollywood. (4) No CIA leader brought Giancana into the plot. It was Rosselli who brought in Giancana and Trafficante. And why not also state that Giancana used the alias "Sam Flood'? To only state JR's alias may imply that Giancana did not use one. Trafficante was simply "Joe the courier". (5) O'Connell was Rosselli's original "case officer" until he was replaced by Harvey sometime in 1962. Harvey had nothing to do with the March 1961 delivery of the poison to Rosselli in Miami. Harvey was not even present. (6) I believe the transmittal of the poison and cash in Miami in March of 1961 was from Maheu to Rosselli not from O'Connell to Rosselli. I am not 100% certain from my memory whether O'Connell attended the meeting. (7) I do not believe that Rosselli went any place with Plumlee on November 22nd. (Sorry, Tosh.) JR testified to the Church Committee that a Hollywood producer called him in Vegas with news of the assassination. Unless JR had persuaded the producer to lie (which obviously would have told the producer that JR was involved in the assassination) we have to assume that JR did indeed take that call in Vegas. Nevertheless, I believe, as Richard Mahoney does, that JR helped plan the assassination. By the way, does Plumlee's story that JR went to Dallas on a mission to abort the assassination make ANY sense? Who was behind the assassination he was attempting to abort? The CIA? His friends in the Mafia? It makes no sense that JR would attempt to abort an assassination planned by either the CIA or the Mafia. (8) JR was not charged with illegal gambling in Vegas. He was charged with being a party to defraud (some Hollywood celebrities by the way) in rigged card games at the Friars Club in Hollywood (where his membership had been sponsored by Frank Sinatra). In the overall scheme of things these factual errors may not matter (except for JR's "alibi" which if true impeaches Plumlee's story) but I do think it is nonetheless important to keep our facts straight.

http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/04/32/26/image_5526324.jpg This should be a photo of Tennessee Williams residence at 1431 Duncan Street in Key West. He purchased it in 1949 and owned it until his death. A nice but smallish Key West home. Hemingway owned what could be called a mansion.

Bobby Kennedy asked this guy to murder Jimmy Hoffa and Carlos Marcello but he declined? Please answer this question: If this fellow's name was Pinocchio, what would be the length of his nose?

I just skimmed the Chamelon article and Huggins says he first met JFK and RFK at a Key West mansion owned by Tennessee Williams. If we can use this statement to evaluate this man's credibilty, I can assure you he ain't got any. Tennessee Williams never owned a mansion in Key West.

In his testimony before the Church Committee Rosselli named the Hollywood producer who had called him in Vegas with the news of the assassination. Not sure whether any investigative agency ever verified this with the man from Hollywood but it is doubtful Rosselli would have stated this if the story could not be verified. I do believe Rosselli helped plan the assassination but there was no reason for him to have been at "ground zero" when the event went down. So, since it is at a minimum very probable that Rosselli was in Vegas (if he was not, he would have somehow had to cooerce the Hollywood producer to lie for him), anyone who states he was with JR or saw JR in Dallas on the 22nd has a vivid imagination, to put it mildly.

Early this afternoon this story was at the top of "Yahoo News" but now at least on Yahoo it is no where to be found!! It went from the top story to oblivion. Interesting.

All assassination researchers owe a large debt to Mr. Bradford for all of the work he has done over the years! I believe in an after-life and for all that do, I hope that Mary Ferrell is aware of the importance of the site that bears her name.

Rosselli was in Vegas on the day of the assassination (which he helped plan). If anyone says they have personal knowledge that JR was in dallas, IMO that is evidence that whatever that person says must be accepted with a rather large "suspension of disbelief" since a man cannot be in two places at the same time.

And of course Prof. Gerald McKnight is a historian. His book "Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why" is one of the best I have read. So the reviewer missed two previous JFK books writtem by historians.