Duke Lane

Why send me on a wild goose chase if you can give the answer in two sentences ? Why beat around the bush? Reading your posts so far, I get the impression you are everything except what John McAdams labeled you. Do you profess a "neutrality" like Gary Mack?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=158218

... If Oswald had gone to trial and those casings produced as evidence for those officers to identify, the chain of possession would have passed the criteria and they would have been accepted as admissible evidence. That's what our debate is about, remember? ...

Short enough for you? I'm trying hard not to be arrogant and stubborn and use ten words where one will do. May I recommend Dale Carnegie to you? Nobody forces you to waste your time reading and responding to my posts, least of all me. You could put me on your "ignore" list and then you wouldn't feel compelled, you wouldn't even see them. Give it some thought.

... My question only seeks to find where Duke Lane stands on the JFK assassination in terms of a conspiracy versus the act of lone nut Lee Harvey Oswald. So far I don't have an answer.

Right. But you could have if you'd used the time you've been waiting for one more constructively by reading any of my posts. If you don't want to, you don't have to, but that's where your answer lies.

What were the building codes in Dallas when the building was approved. What were the codes followed. What were the safety codes. What was RRC's actual job. As a vet, what was his physical condition. Are we seeing girders or scaffolding. Safety scaffolding? Would RRC venture out on a girder to see what Holmes meters to his left (east) with a straight-on view of the sixth floor, with binoculars, as the limo diosappeared behind trees etc., did not. Why did RRC not see the headshot but Holmes gives perhaps the most graphic view/testimony. Why was FLB's pre post Pres. Comm. reports ignored. What did the prisoners see that led to the first investigation re sots(over in moments) by ringing Holmes ("the agencies" ??? ) and him having the power to halt that by a simple questioning of staff say no there were no shots from the PO and the agencies accepting that totally. Why did Holmes state there was no suspicious acts or persons anywhere near the TSBD building. ????

Carr said - in his statement to the FBI in 1964, not in his 1969 Shaw testimony - that he'd gone downtown in search of work, so he apparently didn't have an actual job at the courthouse building. According to these statements, he went to the courthouse and asked to speak to the foreman. He was directed to the ninth floor where the foreman was supposed to have been. On his way upstairs, he heard the shots, saw people hitting the ground, and went back down to investigate ... without having seen the foreman.

He originally said that he'd seen a man hurrying from the direction of the TSBD when he, Carr, was on the ground; he thought the man was the same one he'd seen on the top floor of the TSBD. The man was hurrying southward, turned east on Commerce, walked up a block and got into a Rambler driven by "a young Negro man," who then drove away going northward on Record Street. This is substantially different than what he said in 1969, which did not include returning to the ground level and which no longer had a Rambler on Record Street, but on Houston, next to the TSBD. His 1964 statements also did not include any "Latin" men, while his 1969 testimony did not include any Negro man.

The photos I took on Houston Street show that the portion of the street east of the TSBD could only be seen from a very small portion of the very upper floors of the courthouse building, which goes up some 12 or 14 stories. Carr did not claim to be that high. Anything below it was and is invisible from the lower floors, especially as one move north along the street ... which in any case was closed by construction beyond the TSBD, and Carr's supposed "getaway car" - which he could not have seen - also could not have gone north on Houston Street past the TSBD like Carr said it did because of the road's closure.

The story's bogus, with or without scaffolding.

Neville, I very much doubt if the physical evidence was analysed and publicly announced before the death of LHO because of the time frame. But that doesn't alter the content of the physical evidence one iota. ... I prefer facts and the facts show that the physical evidence re the Tippit murder IE the shells found by the Davies is solid and would have been admissible in court....

Joe Poe thought that he'd put his initials on the first two shells, found by Benavides. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't, but his inability to state that the shells that he was shown were, in all fact, the shells that he'd handled on November 22, they, too, must be excluded. Their exclusion must be upheld if the fourth-person FBI report in which it is purported that Captain Doughty "positively identified" the shell that he'd handled is sufficient to establish such "positive identification," since in it, Poe also stated in no uncertain terms that he did mark the two shells.

Sergeant Jerry Hill also testified that "I told Poe to maintain the chain of evidence as small as possible, for him to retain these at that time, and to be sure and mark them for evidence, and then turn them over to the crime lab when he got there, or to homicide." While it may be possible that, on his own, Poe would have forgotten to mark the shells, but is it likely that he would have forgotten to mark them after having been reminded to?

Sergeant Pete Barnes of the Crime Lab testified that "empty .38 caliber hulls was turned over to me at the scene by patrolman -- I believe I would be safe in saying Poe, but I am not sure about that." Poe cannot find his initials which the believes that he put in the shells, and Barnes isn't sure it was Poe who gave them to him. Might have been, but couldn't say for sure.

... And no, I cant see that the death of the accused changed things considerably as far as the physical evidence IE the shells are concerned. Do you really not think if there was any planting going on the police wouldn't have planted bullets that actually matched Oswald's gun? ...

Denis, I appreciate your persistence, but you stray off point. That point, in the original, complete post was:

... As for the other two shells, well Duke its not really too difficult now is it? The Davis girls found the shells, handed them to a police officer, they were marked by Captain G.M. Doughty, placed in a filing cabinet, retrieved by an FBI agent and the ID marks positively identified by Captain Doughty.

I then asked you:

They were? When? By what instrument? In the testimony he didn't give? In the affidavit he didn't make? Who was the police officer who got them from the Davises? Whom did he give them to, and he to whom?

You then came back at me with:

Testimony such as this perhaps? Its there to be found if you look Duke.

You thereafter quoted testimony by Patrolman Brown, who did not handle or have anything else to do with the shell Doughty presumably marked.

There is no testimony at all by Captain Doughty, whether about the shell or anything else. He did not file an affidavit. His "positive identification" of that shell, the first one found by the Davis girls - the "third" shell found, after the first two by Benavides - exists only as a statement by an FBI agent about what another FBI agent claims Doughty said to him. Hearsay; inadmissible.

The fourth shell, found by the Davis girls later in the afternoon, is the one that both Brown and Detective Dhority testified about, but they did not identify the shell because they were never given the shell to examine; they merely talked about it.

But yet you persist:

... I'm pointing out that testimony you said didn't exist does exist. Anyway, forget semantics and move on.

Get a grip: Captain Doughty's testimony does not exist. There's no "meaning" to that, so "semantics" can't be set aside. There is no testimony about the third shell, and there is no identification of the fourth. Your pretense about "semantics" doesn't make it anything else.

Read this below from: "Evidence for the Law Enforcement Officer" by Gilbert B. Stuckey. Pay particular attention to#3. If there had been a trial those shells would have been admissible as they were marked by both Brown and Dhority. Case closed?

... There are three procedures which may be followed by the officer that will enable him to positively identify an object as the one he found, and to establish that it has a relation to the case at hand ....

1. He may keep the object in his complete and exclusive custody and control from the time it was found until it is presented in court.
   We know that none of the men did this.
   
2. He may maintain a complete and accurate record of the chain of possession.
   If this was done, nobody produced such a record.
   
3. He may mark the object in some distinctive manner which will enable him to recognize it at a later time.
   This may have occurred, but none of them were asked to "recognize" it. Doughty was asked nothing, and Brown and Dhority only swore that they marked "a" shell, but were not shown the shell in order to "recognize" it.
   

There is no question that any one of these methods would have been sufficient to allow the items to be admitted as evidence, if their testimony to that effect had been adduced. It was not. The prosecution has rested, the "trial" is over, the bullets were not identified by any of the men under oath - not even in a sworn statement, an affidavit - and conjecturing what any of the men might have said if asked doesn't cut muster. There is no "chain of evidence" because one was not established. Period.

name='Wim Dankbaar' date='Nov 28 2008, 03:23 PM' post='159055']Nothing new to add, only old stuff and a question: Where did you learn that the plaid jacket man posed as an SS agent?

Good question ... You can look this up and check it for accuracy because I am going on memory here - Lee Bowers said that he lost sight of one of the two men who said was along the fence (the heavy set man) and the other man (plaid clothing man) was still visible to him. Then I seem to recall Bowers talking about a policeman coming up to the man that Lee could still see. I believe it was Officer Smith who said that he met a man at the fence who showed him credentials as a SS man. This description and encounter does not match the alleged movements of Files post shooting.

Duke, John McAdams presents you as a conspiracy theorist. He even places articles from you on his website. Are you indeed a "conspiracy theorist"? Are you okay with that label from McAdams? What is it that you believe about the JFK assassination? I still don't know, since what I found on your website, you seem to leave it in the middle.

If you've seen Oliver Stone's 1992 movie JFK, you may wonder who among a wide array of possible conspirators really killed the 35th President of the United States ... or you may remain convinced that it was the work of a deranged sociopath named Lee Harvey Oswald (or maybe you've seen him with Elvis at a nearby 7-11!).

Thanks in advance for some clarification.

Holy moley, Batman! What would Miss Puss have to say?!?

I guess this ranks me up among those who also get threads named after them, like Mack and Perry and White (Jack and Roscoe!) and ...?

Wim, if you or others don't yet have a clue as to my perspective, you probably never will. What more can I say? There are about 1000 posts on this forum alone to give you some insight into my point of view; if you don't have one yet, I really don't know what else to say.

This thread ends here.

... James Files says he wore a plaid poplin jacket. Lee Bowers described a young man with such a coat:

Mr. BOWERS. Directly in line, towards the mouth of the underpass, there were two men. One man, middle-aged, or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about midtwenties, in either a plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket.

Mr. BALL.. Were they standing together or standing separately?

Mr. BOWERS. They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.

JF: As for Ed Hoffman's statement, I think he got a little confused or tried to add a little extra, kind of dress it up. Then again, maybe he believes he saw it that way. The only thing he got right was me kneeling down putting the weapon away.

I realized while listening to the man that I knew those things too, so I must've been there too, for how else could I have known them? Not only that, but I knew things that the subject didn't know until I'd pointed them out. I wondered: gee whiz, is it possible that he learned about those things we both knew the same way I did, by reading about them?

So I wish to "prove" my having "been there." I find that Lee Bowers described a man in a "plaid shirt or plaid coat or jacket." Okay, so I was wearing a plaid garment and let's clarify that by noting it was a sport coat; Bowers got it right, wow! And to prove it was me, I'll add in my concern about being noticed, gun in hand, by any of those three cars ol' Bowers had noticed driving around the parking lot. See? That proves I was there, cuz how would I know about those three cars if I hadn't been there?

And oh! I remember a cop - I don't know his name - who pulled a gun on a guy in a suit but then looked a little sheepish when the guy pulled out his wallet. Oh, it wasn't a wallet, it was Secret Service credentials? Well, I wasn't close enough to be able to tell what he showed that cop, but boy, whaddaya know, see? There's additional proof that I was there, otherwise how would I know about the cop and the gun and what I'd thought all these years was a wallet? Wow. That's a revelation. I had no idea how close I might've been to getting caught! Whew. Count my lucky stars, that's what I'm-a gonna do!

I believe that I've now established my presence on the grassy knoll. Let me tell you next about what I did down in Oak Cliff to get Oswald captured. Y'see, I had the use of this red Falcon from some guy who worked at a radio company, connected with LBJ somehow. We parked by this Mexican restaurant, I forget its name right now, and I remember this mechanic crossing the street, giving us "the eye," y'know what I mean? ....

It's fairly easy to put all this stuff together; if I can do it, can't someone else? Especially someone who maybe gets some coaching from someone else keen on having "discovered" him? "Y'know, Lee Bowers also said there was a man, a big man, heavyset, wearing dark pants and a white shirt standing nearby. Did you see him?" Well, golly gee whiz, yeah, he was maybe 250 lbs., wasn't he? Short hair? Yeah, he was there; I remember him. I didn't pay much attention to him at the time, y'know, I was busy waiting to take my shot when the parade came by, but now that you mention it, yeah, he was there.

Well, duh.

I'm impressed. Not.

No, you said that Healy has as much to do with the JFK assassination as Files. Since Files was shooting from the knoll, I figured you meant to say that Healy was the still unknown shooter from the sixth floor.

Has anything changed that would make one believe Files was in the RR yard shooting at JFK? Bowers saw two mean along the fence between he and the underpass. One wore a plaid jacket posing as a SS Agent - doesn't seem to fit Files description. The other man was said to be heavy-set, which doesn't fit Files description either. Anything new to add???

Maybe we can all agree that Lee Bowers was "mistaken," eh?

They were? When? By what instrument? In the testimony he didn't give? In the affidavit he didn't make? Who was the police officer who got them from the Davises? Whom did he give them to, and to whom?

Testimony such as this perhaps? Its there to be found if you look Duke.

So the testimony you've cited, although it is given by Patrolman C.W. Brown, is what you're emphasizing as testimony given by Captain G.M. Doughty (the bolded "testimony he didn't give," which reference to Captain Doughty as "he" you omitted from your reference)? Doughty didn't give any testimony, which is what I'd said in response to your saying, "The Davis girls found the shells, handed them to a police officer, they were marked by Captain G.M.Doughty, placed in a filing cabinet, retrieved by an FBI agent and the ID marks positively identified by Captain Doughty."

And, gosh, forgive me, but I'm not seeing where Officer Brown - who was only temporarily assigned to the Robbery & Homicide Bureau, by the way - identified any shells that were in evidence, merely that he initialled "a" spent shell, not "this spent shell that I'm examining now" or pointing out his initials, there, on the shell he was examining ... because he wasn't examining one. He did not identify a shell, he merely discussed one and we don't really know which one it is except by inference.

So is the shell that he initialled the one that's in evidence? You can state this with certainty based on the fact that he'd initialled "a" shell along with Detective C.N. Dhority, which Dhority alone took to the crime lab and gave over to a person, unknown to Brown, at the crime lab, which DPD later apparently (according to Agent Cortlandt Cunningham of the FBI) claimed not to even have, but later was found not by DPD but by Cunningham when he undertook a search of DPD's files nearly six months after the bullets were supposedly fired, and after God-only-knows who'all else handled them, mishandled them, or did who-knows-what with them ... you're certain that this is the same shell?

To save you a moment looking for what Detective Dhority had to say about the shell - all that is on record about it - here it is:

Here again, I fail to note his saying that he'd initialled it, much less his making any identification of a shell that he was given to examine and identify ... because he wasn't given one to examine and identify. Just like Patrolman Brown and Captain George Doughty weren't and didn't, the latter as we've already been previously so you don't forget.

You might find that Carl Day identified a shell or shells, but you'll probably find that he wasn't even asked about them.

And it really doesn't matter if an FBI agent not under oath reported that another FBI agent also not under oath told him that Brown, Dhority, Doughty and a dozen other people told him while they were not under oath that they recognized the bullets he proffered them, presuming that he actually did show them the shells which he also did not swear to having done; he merely told another agent that he had.

Two shells that can't be positively identified by all of the officers who handled them, one that was not identified by either of the two officers who handled it, and a fourth that nobody identified except to an FBI agent who told another FBI agent ... which might be ruled inadmissible as hearsay in some jurisdictions, you think?

"Solid chain of evidence" you say? You mean "solid" in the sense that a sponge is solid, right?

Apologies for doing part of your work for you, but you'd never have found what you were looking for anyway.

I've recently learned that one actual witness, whose story has been published by "a noted historical research company" and who should be "embraced for coming forward" was instead "crucified by the electronic and print media." Who could that be? "Crucified by the electronic and print media?!?"

So DPD officer Robert Rowe was working undercover on 11/22/63, wearing a poney tail and dressed like a beatnick, and was in on the arrest of Oswald at the Texas Theater, but all photos of him have been docktored to protect his identity? Now you're gun shy about discrediting witnesses?

Maybe I should offer to ghost his book. Ya think? Then I could be a shameless promoter like some people, or a prostheletyzer like others crying, "How could he know about the snap of the pistol if he wasn't there? How else would he have known that Oswald was complaining about 'police brutality' unless he was there?" (Y'know, since I know about those things, I must've been there too! Gosh, and I didn't even realize it! Watch for my forthcoming book instead!) It makes for great, harmless entertainment, doncha think? Add tears for effect and you get theater! I'm lovin' it already!

I've never discredited - or even attempted to discredit - an actual witness. Bob Rowe says that he's an actual witness. What reason do I have to doubt him? What reason would he have to lie about it? Gosh, I can't think of a single one. Can you?

Who gets to choose which "witnesses" "deserve" to be discredited and which don't?

... As for the other two shells, well Duke its not really too difficult now is it? The Davis girls found the shells, handed them to a police officer, they were marked by Captain G.M. Doughty, placed in a filing cabinet, retrieved by an FBI agent and the ID marks positively identified by Captain Doughty.

The only "positive identification" I've ever heard of is an FBI report that reported, in the third person, that an agent reported that Doughty, in the fourth person, identified one shell as having been in his possession; in that same report is a report that the same agent also was told that Poe said (again in the fourth person) who said, on two separate occasions, not only that he thought he made a mark on two shells, but that he did make such a mark, "JMP," which he could not find. The earliest "report of a report" was made in June 1964, the last report in that report being in July.

What we do know from the report is that no identification was made under oath, not even in affidavit form. What we don't know from this fourth-person report is whether the officers in question said "yes, that is (are) the shell(s) I had possession of, no question about it" or "yeah, it looks like it," or "well, if my initials are there, it must be the one," or if they said "well, it could be, probably is, might be."

If that report's good enough for a "positive identification" of the shells, then the same report is also "proof" that Joe Poe did put his initials on the shells, and thus the shells are inadmissible since there does seem to be some confusion. We likewise don't know who if anyone had access to the shells, we cannot absolutely preclude that others were substituted for the originals, that the marks on them were not duplicated by someone else, or even in whose custody they were when they were found.

Isn't that something you'd want to know in your murder trial? Shouldn't you have that confidence? Shouldn't the prosecutor? If we don't know the evidence had always been secured, we cannot know that it was the original evidence in its original state, can we.

Of course, if your of the mindset that anything that makes Oswald appear guilty even as so much as jaywalking was either: planted, fabricated, substituted, forged or altered, then yes, it is impossible to know anything.

I'd love to, Bill, but I'd be accused of discrediting another "eyewitness." But if you find someone in a theater photo with a ponytail, let me know.

If you search JFK Assassination 45th Anniversary YouTube you will get a half dozen videotaped reports from Dealey Plaza.

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/jfk-45th...cid=VIDURVNWS03

There's one segment from Dallas that includes a new interview with former Dallas policeman Robert Rowe, who is identified as having worked "undercover" and who was in on the arrest at the Texas Theater.

Bill Newman recently made note that his impression of a shot from behind him was more based on the visual impact of what he'd seen than on what he'd heard. Someone else would have to tell us whether this is a recent change from what he's said before, or if he's said the same thing before many times.

Three different times I have heard Newman tell his story. It has never varied.

...

I have never heard him make the statement Duke attributes to him.

I'm asking the question here, not making an assertion, but unless he was merely accomodating the supposed wishes of his hosts at the Sixth Floor Museum, he said exactly that last week for an Oral History before an audience of 75-100 people. It was taped, and may already be available online(?).

Best source for Newman's original impressions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pweuPLTVfl4

Bill Newman recently made note that his impression of a shot from behind him was more based on the visual impact of what he'd seen than on what he'd heard. Someone else would have to tell us whether this is a recent change from what he's said before, or if he's said the same thing before many times.

Officer Poe was faced with a conundrum: he recalled having marked the shells, but the evidence before him was that he hadn't. Either his memory or training had failed him, or the shells were not the same as those he'd taken. It is much simpler to believe that he'd not marked the shells than it is to prove they'd been substituted.

or:

Mr Ball. Now, I have here a package which has been marked "Q"--FBI lab. Q-74 to Q-77. Would you look those over and see if there is any identification on there by you to indicate that those were the hulls given to you by Benavides?

Mr. Poe. I want to say these two are mine, but I couldn't swear to it.

Mr. Ball. Did you make a mark?

Mr. Poe. I can't swear to it; no, sir.

Mr. Ball. But there is a mark on two of these?

Mr. Poe. There is a mark. I believe I put on them, but I couldn't swear to it. I couldn't make them out any more.

Mr. Ball. Now, the ones you said you made a mark on are you think it is 'these two? Q-77 and Q-75?

Mr. Poe. Yes, sir; those two there.

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

Which would imply that by this time the shells had so many identifying scratches on them from others at the DPD, that he could not tell whether his mark was present or not. There was also two other shells found at the scene. The chain of evidence for these is solid.

Which could imply that by this time the shells had so many identifying scratches on them, etc. It could also imply that they were simply not visible due to any of a number of other reasons, including that the marks were not his. It could imply anything within a whole range of possibilities, including the one that Officer Poe testified to himself:

Mr. Ball. Did you make a mark?

Mr. Poe. I can't swear to it; no, sir.

Did you miss that when you copied the testimony? He could not swear to even having put a mark on them at all! That's not an implication, that's a statement, under oath, by an honest cop!

You make my point for me: no positive identification, no longer evidence. At least, not in an American court.

As to the other two shells, we know the chain of evidence is solid on them because ... why? Two shells that DPD claimed not to know their whereabouts, then they're found by an FBI agent - not even by a Dallas cop! - loose in a file drawer and we know that they're the exact same bullets found at the scene of the crime because ... why? We know that nothing's been done with or to them because ... why?

We don't know - whether or not we can prove anything had been done - we don't know nothing had been done, we don't know who had them, we don't know why they were put in a file drawer, we don't know how or when they got there, we don't know why DPD didn't turn them over to the FBI with any or all of the other evidence they transferred, we don't know why nobody could find them, we don't know why it took an outside investigative agency to find them for DPD who'd apparently "lost" them ... and you call the chain of evidence (certainly not the chain of possession!) solid?!? Since you apparently know something nobody else does, perhaps you can trace that chain of possession from start to finish to show just how solid it is?

It seems clear where behind the bar you're seated, and it's not on the bench making impartial rulings.

More baloney from Myers. There is no proof that Oswald was ever at 10th and Patton.

Really Jack, then how do you explain the fact that the shell casings found at the Tippit murder scene matched Oswald's gun? The bullets were too mangled to positively ID but the casings were positive. A plant by the DPD regarding either the castings or the gun no doubt?

Read Officer Poe's testimony that he scratched his initials on the shell casings. His initials are not on the extant casings.

The fact is that Officer Poe could not positively identify the shells as those he'd received into evidence. It doesn't matter whether or not they were, only that he could not positively identify them as such. If he could not positively state that they were the same shells, they would have been excluded from evidence in any court of law, and especially in a murder trial.

It is an entirely separate matter what the shells might have been, whether Poe marked them or not, and/or if the shells may have been substituted at any time that they languished in a filing drawer at DPD for nearly six months. The basic point is that, if they cannot be positively identified, they can't be used against the defendant.

It was presumably a fact that the bullets in evidence were those extracted from JD Tippit's body; there is no question about their authenticity. Those bullets, while conclusively the cause of Officer Tippit's death, could not conclusively be tied to the weapon to the exclusion of any others (except those of smaller and larger calibers, of course); they likewise could not be tied to the (excluded) shells, and therefore any competent defense attorney would move for the exclusion of the S&W .38-cal as the weapon used to kill Officer Tippit as well.

Officer Poe was faced with a conundrum: he recalled having marked the shells, but the evidence before him was that he hadn't. Either his memory or training had failed him, or the shells were not the same as those he'd taken. It is much simpler to believe that he'd not marked the shells than it is to prove they'd been substituted. In either event, we have an officer who cannot swear that those are the shells taken into evidence, and that is a basic requirement of evidence: that you know that what you've got in your hand now is what you had in your hand then.

That you've got - as Larry Ray Harris phrased it so pithily - "Four + Four = 'A Slight Problem'" adds weight to the possibility of substitution - there was unquestionably ample means and opportunity, and motive might be arguable (to "make sure that cop-killer fries?") - since there was no direct match between the shells' manufacture and the bullets', and no evidence of a shot that missed.

Evidence isn't evidence simply because we agree with the conclusion it leads us to. It is that which rises to the standard by which you would want that which was to be used against you to meet. No questions, no doubts ... and from the prosecutor's perspective, no appeal.

But then, perhaps there are some who wouldn't mind going to prison or having a last, lethal cocktail in a reclining position based upon "this gun could have killed the victim because these shells might have actually held the bullets that we know killed the victim, just like we know that the shells were fired in the defendant's gun and that the gun is the defendant's, and when you add the fact we know the cops would never, ever lie, tamper with or substitute evidence or do anything else wrong, what we know outweighs what we don't know, and so three-out-of-five says he did it," which is the essence of this whole question, isn't it, whether you'd want your trial to go the same way?

I've made no false allegations anywhere; if you can prove that Carr saw the unseeable, then you're certainly welcome to disprove my analysis. So far, you've only "disproved" something I'd never said.

Well, you started this thread with the claim (or at least the allegation) that Carr could not have witnessed what he describes from his position.

Looking back on the first post of this discussion, my first "claim" seems to have been:

Of course, the last question led me to Carr's original statements to the FBI, which you rejected out of hand and in full because, well, you know how the FBI was about all of this, making people change statements and so forth.

Based on Carr's original statements - his handwritten statement quoted in the February 3 FBI report reads exactly as quoted, as I will show when a copy arrives in the mail - I had no difficulty with his claims of seeing someone in the "top floor" of the TSBD or his seeing, from ground level as he then purported, a man hurrying from the TSBD direction to a car "driven by a young negro man" parked at Commerce and Record. All perfectly do-able; thought so, and still think so.

In fact, unbeknownst to you, I was shooting down someone else's claim of having "been to where Carr claims he was" and not being able to see the TSBD.

But you didn't like his 1964 statements because the FBI took them and presumably mucked them all up; "he never said the driver was a negro," I think your words were, which were either wrong (the reports say that he did) or omniscient (you know the FBI changed his words and just which ones they changed).

As "proof" of what he "never" said, you offered his statements under oath in the Shaw trial, from which emerged a completely different story than he told to the FBI. You are of the opinion that someone would never lie under oath; I disagree, especially when at the time it was not possible to determine what he did say to the FBI because the Commission Documents set hadn't been generally available, and nobody could have challenged his statement against what he'd said earlier.

The defense clearly didn't have his FBI story, and I'm willing to allow that Garrison didn't either and thus did not suborn the perjury. I'm confident that what Carr said on the stand is probably pretty close to what he originally told Garrison (however it was that their meeting came to pass), with the possible exception of Garrison's coaching him to determine that the "real dark complected" guy(s) he saw were not Negro, but Latin, more closely fitting the anti-Castro Cubans in Nawlins who were conceivably a part of the conspiracy Garrison sought to uncover.

In his sworn testimony, Carr stated that, before the shooting, he had seen a white man dressed in jacket, tie and hat in the third window from the southeast corner of the TSBD. I pointed out that these were the windows occupied by Norman, Jarman and Williams, none of whom had mentioned seeing this guy (the same would not have been the case in the top-most windows of the seventh floor). In the event that he might've mistaken the fifth floor for the sixth, I also pointed out that prior to the shooting and his going to the fifth floor, Bonnie Ray Williams had been behind the (closed) third window from the corner of the sixth floor, and he likewise didn't see Carr's guy or - according to his testimony, about which I also have doubts - anyone else.

I also pointed out that the seventh floor windows were indeed possible to have been seen anywhere on the face of the west side of the courthouse building, but I couldn't say with certainty about the fifth or sixth floors; as it appears, they are indeed visible. I never said that they weren't.

I did express doubt that, since all of the "third windows" on the fifth, sixth and seventh floor windows were closed before and immediately after the shooting, he would have been able to see such details as he made of the man through the glass, and especially over an 850-foot distance.

However, Carr's testimony about seeing anything happen on Houston Street is a clear impossibility, and that is where the Rambler and the "real dark complected" guy (be he Latin, Negro or a George Hamilton wanna-be-in-training) found themselves in his new story. Even if it wasn't a new story, and he'd told the same thing to the Feds the first time around, the fact still remains that he couldn't see that portion of Houston Street at all from where he was (which also changed between the two stories).

So, then, let's be clear:

My "claim" nothing more or less than that he could not see the events he described on Houston Street if he was on the west wall of the courthouse building; it is physically impossible for him to have. He could not have seen anyone exit from the side or the back, he couldn't have seen the Rambler, and he couldn't have seen any "real dark complected" man or men come out of the building or get into said Rambler, much less "slide across the seat" from location on the fifth, sixth or seventh floor on the west wall of the courthouse building, nor would he have been able to see those activities from ground level, which in his testimony he did not claim to have descended to.

You can argue about scaffolding, you can tout the fact that the windows on the front of the building at any point not obstructed by the trees were visible to him from where he claimed to have been, or that he had great eyesight and the windows were just cleaned ... they are all minor points that have nothing whatsoever to do with what he could see on Houston Street. It likewise doesn't matter about whether the men he claimed to see where "real dark" complected Latins or Negroes because he couldn't see them. He clearly, demonstrably and provably did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on the stand. For that, I offer no apologies.

... By the way, if you like Dave's tales so much, please ask him to put this [reel] on his Chauncey Holt page. If he is the "objective researcher" he purports himself to be, he would do that, don't you think?

Duke, I am still figuring out what your colors are. I think you're showing them more and more. But I do like your white smoking and bow tie. It gives you an aura of esteem and authority. Just like the moustache makes you more masculine. Are you also man enough to apologise for your false allegation about Richard Carr in the other thread?

I think you are over-analyzing many of these witness statements. They are just what they are; the best recollections of those indivduals who were at the location. Everything doesn't have to be so sinister. Nevertheless, I wish you success with your line of analysis.

Steve,

Many thanks for that photo. FWIW? A picture says more than Duke's thousand words.

Duke,

You would grow on me if you could withdraw your allegation that Carr could not have seen the windows of the 6th floor. And maybe a posthume apology to the man?

The rest of your allegations may stay up for debate, but I think it's fair to admit that this one has been discounted.

So we learn that the courthouse building is visible from the sixth floor floor by this photograph. You can see the girders of the building, but you can't see actual scaffolding (which the girders can loosely be described as; see the image below for what I'm referring to as "scaffolding"), but the clarity through the dirty window is not sufficient to see more detail ... including which floors were visible. The fifth floor remains a question.

Carr's story - and all it is, is a story - does not support or detract from Roger Craig's sighting of a light green Rambler coming down Elm Street since Carr's was a gray Rambler and left "going north on Houston." One has nothing to do with the other, other than being of similar manufacture. Ramblers, while rare today, were pretty ubiquitous back then as I recall (having been alive back then in the US and for several years since).

When I have the handwritten report by Mr. Carr - probably this week - I'll scan it and post it. I'm confident that some people will claim it to be either a forgery or coerced, tho' I have difficulty imagining how short of putting a gun to someone's head, anyone can be made to write four pages of false statements ... which were never considered or deemed "false," by the way.

In 1964, Carr had said that he'd seen a man dressed in a suit or sportcoat in the top (7th) floor windows, which were all closed. He did not claim that the man had a gun, nor did he claim to have seen anyone who did have one. He later saw a man who appeared to be the same man who'd been on the 7th floor on the street, walking toward Commerce Street, then east on Commerce to Record, which is where he claimed the man got into the Rambler, which was facing north on that street.

In his 1969 version, the man did not get into the Rambler, two other men did, and the Rambler was not on Record, but on Houston. The man walked down to Commerce and then east on Commerce, but Carr did not claim to have seen him after that, nor did he claim that the man got into any Rambler or any other car facing any direction.

We know that the modus operandi of the FBI at the time, in connection with this case, was to take statements from people and then to discredit them. They had not been in the business of telling people what to write or say, even if they didn't always report what people said in full or necessarily accurately. If that were the case, the whole Odio incident would never have been an issue: they would simply have told her to write that the man who came to her door simply didn't look anything like Oswald.

... The JFK cover-up took on a life of its own decades ago, and all of us take our turns obfuscating the evidence.

I find there are very few researchers who don't let their egos obfuscate the evidence; I know I've been guilty of this as much as any, re-hashing Dealey Plaza minutia for the sheer joy of rhetorical combat.

... Basically, I don't think "disinfo agents" exist.

I think it was observed long ago that the conspiracy research community would dig so many rabbit holes on its own that "disinfo agents" weren't necessary.

Exactly the point of a recent article y'all might enjoy. In it, the operative assumption is that the James Files story is correct and accurate. Enjoy!

I have no particular qualms about the fatal shot - or any or all of them - having come from the 6th floor southeast window. If it could be shown with 100% certainty that this is indeed the case, that does nothing toward proving whose finger was on the trigger.

The proof that Oswald was not there is the fact that none of the four men upstairs who were on the fifth and/or sixth floors said that they had seen him there ....

Great post, however, I would change it somewhat to confirm to my unwavering belief that Oswald was simply the fall guy.

My version would be "the same, only a little different". I have also including Connelly's statement which makes it impossible not to believe in some kind of frontal shot.

Tech puts JFK conspiracy theories to rest

Sixth floor of book depository, not the grassy knoll, was origin of lethal shot

Although there is ample evidence to prove shots from the front, we know Kennedy was also shot at and hit from behind, so lets just say that some of the shots from behind came from the 6th floor southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository Building.

With that in mind, even if it could be shown with 100% certainty that shots did come from the southeast window of the Texas School Book Depository Building, that does nothing toward proving whose finger was on the trigger.

The proof that Oswald was not there is the fact that none of the four men upstairs who were on the fifth and/or sixth floors said that they had seen him there ....

In the "Men Who Killed Kennedy", Governor Connelly describes what happened at the time of the shots and talks about Kennedy's brains being on the back of the limousine.

"Governor Connelly says he heard what he thought was a rifle shot, in response to this he turned and looked over his right shoulder, because that was where he describes the sound to have come from, and when he did not see anything because Kennedy had leant forward, he turned back again and then felt a blow to his back which he describes to have felt like a 'fist' hitting his back. The force of such a blow bent him over and he noticed he was covered with blood. The shirt was straight afterwards dry-cleaned to remove all traces of any blood. He then remarks, "Oh my God, they're going to kill us all". He says it with a calm resilient tone in his voice, as if he thinks whoever is shooting is going to take everyone out, including himself, which he may not have expected.

Connelly states that he also heard another shot and says he saw blood and brain tissue all over the back of the limousine. He states that at this point he knows the president had been fatally hit because Mrs. Kennedy said, "My God, I've got his brains in my hand".

All well and good except twice quoting my post in full, the second seemingly as your own words. Tsk, tsk.