Sean Murphy

"Possible" and "probable" can co-exist in a person's mind at the same time, Sean. When I said "that's possible" yesterday regarding Dougherty's alleged elevator excursion, that didn't exclude the idea that I also thought it was "probable". But keep thinking you got your "Gotcha!" in, if you want to.But just to remind you -- neither of the words I used equates to the words "proven" or "definitely". That's why I utilized the words I did. But I'm surprised you didn't jump all over me for another of my "shameless" attempts to have my cake and eat it too regarding the subject of Jack E. Dougherty: I did, indeed, say that "a big ol' grain of salt" should be applied to all of Dougherty's testimony. But then I utilized his testimony about how he failed to hear Roy Truly's two "real loud" yells as totally reliable testimony. Shouldn't I have placed a "big ol' grain of salt" beside that testimony too? IOW--shouldn't I believe that it's just as likely that Dougherty REALLY DID hear Truly yell up the elevator shaft, but he said he didn't? BTW, can you explain how Dougherty missed hearing Truly's TWO loud yells that day (if Jack had been right near the elevators--and, hence, very near Oswald's stairway escape route too)? And remember, Sean, you haven't placed any "big ol' grain of salt" beside anything uttered by Jack E. Dougherty---have you? David, your attitude to Dougherty's testimony has (let's be polite here) evolved with remarkable speed over 24 hours. Yesterday you were at pains to rubbish his reliability as a witness. Here are some of the things you wrote: "But anyone who reads through Jack Dougherty's testimony should know that his testimony is a complete mess. His timing of when he did things and when he supposedly heard the gunshots is a total disaster." "...Dougherty's jigsaw puzzle which represents his testimony. As I said, it's a mess. His testimony reminds me of all the conspiracy theories -- a certifiable disaster area." "I'd put a big ol' grain of salt by my side when evaluating anything in Dougherty's testimony." "this incoherent mess that is Jack D.'s testimony". Strong words, by any standards. Now at first you were happy to extend this view of Dougherty to his claim to have taken the west freight elevator off the fifth floor. When the problem (from a LN point of view) of doubting this event was pointed out to you, you blithely told us it didn't matter who took that elevator down. When that silly line of argument didn't work, and the full implications of someone other than Dougherty having done it, you immediately promoted Dougherty's claim from a "possible" to a "probable". Your new position on the "certifiable disaster area" that is Dougherty's testimony seems to be as follows: I, David von Pein, no longer believe that "[h]is timing of when he did things and when he supposedly heard the gunshots is a total disaster". On the contrary, the basics of his story now work for me just fine. There is of course one little bit you still don't believe, though: the bit about his standing just a few feet west of the west elevator at the time of the shooting. Can't see you calling that "probable" anytime soon. It's quite clear what's going on here, David. You're backtracking with unseemly haste from your initial wholesale dismissal of Dougherty's testimony because you now realise your theory requires you to cherry-pick quite a few appealing bits after all. You're perfectly entitled to proceed in this way. What you're not entitled to do, however, is pretend you haven't done a slick U-turn--or try to pass off your approach to Jack Dougherty's testimony as objective research. We're not fools.

That's not much of a "backtrack", Sean. But if you want to think that my "possible" and then "probable" posts regarding Jack Dougherty and the freight elevator constitute "hilariously shameless backtracking" on my part -- go right ahead and think that. But it's not much of a "Gotcha!", IMO. Your antics on this issue have been most amusing David. Yesterday you said: "I'd put a big ol' grain of salt by my side when evaluating anything in Dougherty's testimony." Well, not "anything", as it turned out. When it came to evaluating Dougherty's testimony about taking the elevator down from the fifth floor, you suddenly realised how important it was that you fling the big ol' grain of salt right out of reach. Cue your shameless sudden upgrading of his story from "possible" to "probable".

Sean,Out of all the "possibilities" available, I'd say it was probably Jack Dougherty who took that elevator down from the fifth floor between the time Baker and Truly were calling up the shaft for an elevator to be turned loose and the time B&T got up to the fifth floor and noticed that the west elevator was not there. I'll also add this: Dougherty said he did NOT hear anyone yelling up the elevator shaft: Mr. BALL - How did you come downstairs? Mr. DOUGHERTY - I used that push button elevator on the west side. Mr. BALL - Did you hear Mr. Truly yell anything up the elevator shaft? Mr. DOUGHERTY - I didn't hear anybody yell. But we know from Roy Truly's Warren Commission testimony that Truly DID yell the words "turn loose the elevator", with Truly testifying that he said those words "real loud...loud enough that anyone could have heard me if they had not been over stacking or making a little noise". And he yelled them "two times" So, having had the full implications of your trashing of Jack Dougherty's testimony spelled out, you have suddenly and arbitrarily moved away from deeming his descent in the elevator merely "possible" and started describing it as "probable". Jack's testimony, it seems, can be pretty much relied upon after all. Predictable--and hilariously shameless--backtracking, David!

David, you have made two things clear: 1. You believe that Jack Dougherty may have taken the west freight elevator off the fifth floor, but his chronic unreliability as a witness makes that no more than a mere "possibility". 2. You cannot offer the name of a single employee in that building other than Dougherty who could possibly have taken that elevator down. So your own position leads us to the conclusion: either Dougherty took that elevator at that time or someone who didn't work in the building did so. Can you offer us a credible scenario whereby someone who didn't work in that building would have been taking an elevator off the fifth floor immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy?

David, you've made it clear that you don't think it's safe to say that Jack Dougherty was the person who took that elevator off the fifth floor at that time. The furthest you've been willing to go on that score is that it's merely a "possibility". Now here's your problem: Either it was Dougherty or else it must have been someone who didn't work at the TSBD. Why? Because all other TSBD workers are accounted for at that time. Unless of course you've suddenly thought of a hitherto unknown TSBD worker who it could have been? If so, then we're all ears. If not, then we need to talk about why someone who didn't work in the building might have been up there at that precise time. There were a lot of TSBD workers not accounted for besides Oswald and Giviens, especially those salesmen, secretaries and managers among the contractors who worked for the book companies who leased offices space on the second, third and fourth floors - among them Bobbs-Merrill, who William Harvey worked for. Then there were truck drivers and those who had access to the rear doors and access to the first and second floor lunch rooms and restrooms, one of whom did a Sixth Floor Oral History, and described how easy it was for delivery people to drop off and pick up books from the rear delivery area. Everyone who was at work in the building that day was accounted for, Bill. And neither book company salesman/secretaries/managers nor truck drivers/deliverers would have had any business up on the fifth floor (or higher).

David, you've made it clear that you don't think it's safe to say that Jack Dougherty was the person who took that elevator off the fifth floor at that time. The furthest you've been willing to go on that score is that it's merely a "possibility". Now here's your problem: Either it was Dougherty or else it must have been someone who didn't work at the TSBD. Why? Because all other TSBD workers are accounted for at that time. Unless of course you've suddenly thought of a hitherto unknown TSBD worker who it could have been? If so, then we're all ears. If not, then we need to talk about why someone who didn't work in the building might have been up there at that precise time.

David, it's evident you can't offer the name of another TSBD worker who might have taken that elevator off the fifth floor at that time. Okay. Where does that leave us? Unless it was Dougherty, or unless there is some mysterious other TSBD worker whose name has somehow disappeared from the record, then it must have been someone who didn't work at the TSBD. You disagree? Kindly explain where I've gone wrong.

David, can you give us the name of a TSBD worker other than Jack Dougherty who could have brought down that elevator at that time? Yes or no?

On the contrary, David, if it wasn't Dougherty who brought that elevator down at that time then your Lone Nut Theory is in deep trouble. You disagree? Fine. Give us the name of another TSBD worker it could have been. You can't, can you?

David von Pein has made clear his opinion that Jack Dougherty's testimony is such a "mess" that the best we can say of his claim to have taken the west freight elevator off the fifth floor just after the shooting is that--it's "possible". Can we state with any assurance or confidence that Dougherty did indeed do this? Not according to David we can't. Let's unpack this a little further, shall we? If, as David believes, we cannot state with any assurance or confidence that it was Dougherty who brought the west freight elevator off the fifth floor, and if, as David believes, we can state with assurance and confidence that the west freight elevator did indeed leave the fifth floor between the time that Baker and Truly took to the stairs and the time they hit the fifth floor landing, then it follows that: we cannot state with any reasonable degree of assurance that the disappearance of the fifth floor elevator has an innocent explanation. Why is this? Because there is not a single TSBD employee other than Dougherty who could possibly have taken that elevator. It certainly can't have been Oswald. It certainly can't have been Norman, Jarman or Williams. And no-one else was in the vicinity. Thus David's own reasoning leads us to a startling conclusion: It is unsafe and unreasonable so to rely on Jack Dougherty's testimony as to rule out the possibility that the west freight elevator was taken off the fifth floor by someone who did not work in the TSBD. Now unless David is prepared to upgrade his "possible" to an "almost certain" in talking of Dougherty's claim to have taken the west freight elevator off the fifth floor just after the assassination, he has just committed himself to the following view: It is possible that the Lone Nut Theory is true; belief in that theory, however, can never be held with anything close to assurance or confidence --for to do so would be to rely on the certifiable disaster area that is Jack Dougherty's testimony. Again, thanks David.

That's possible. But it had to have been after Baker & Truly had started up the stairs, because both freight elevators were stuck on upper floors when B&T first got to the elevators. It's only "possible"? That's very interesting, for it means that--in your opinion--we cannot state with any reasonable degree of assurance that it was Dougherty who brought that west freight elevator down between Baker & Truly's starting up the stairs and their reaching the fifth floor. Thanks, David.

So--is it your belief that Jack Dougherty took the west freight elevator off the fifth floor before Baker and Truly came up on to the fifth floor landing?

You can't prove that. Certainly not by utilizing Dougherty's jigsaw puzzle which represents his testimony. As I said, it's a mess. His testimony reminds me of all the conspiracy theories -- a certifiable disaster area. If Dougherty's testiomony is such a mess, such a certifiable disaster area, then we cannot say with any assurance that it was he who took the west freight elevator off the fifth floor while Baker and Truly were going up the stairs. Correct?

Of course Jean has heard of Jack Dougherty. And Jean's far from being a "rookie". She wrote a fine book on Oswald 30 years ago.But anyone who reads through Jack Dougherty's testimony should know that his testimony is a complete mess. His timing of when he did things and when he supposedly heard the gunshots is a total disaster. Here's what I mean: Examining The Testimony Of Jack Dougherty Back to this quote of Jean Davison's again for a moment: "Unlike every other employee, Oswald just happened [to] be near the shooter's likely escape route shortly after the shooting? Is that bad luck or what?" -- J. Davison; May 2013 Jean's comment repeated above should be looked at from another context and point-of-view too -- that is: Oswald is certainly "unlike every other employee" when we COMBINE both of these things listed below: 1.) Oswald was positively located "near the shooter's likely escape route" within just two minutes of the assassination. And 2.) Oswald was "unlike every other employee" in the TSBD because it was HIS RIFLE (not another employee's) that was found on the sixth floor after the assassination. And his rifle was found very near the same staircase that Oswald was also very near within just two minutes after that very same rifle was used by somebody to fire bullets at President Kennedy. When adding #1 and #2 together, these words written by Jean certainly do apply to Lee Harvey Oswald if he were innocent of shooting the President --- "Is that bad luck or what?" Spin away all you like, David, it doesn't change the fact that Jack Dougherty "just happened [to] be near the shooter's likely escape route shortly after the shooting". Jean goofed up, and royally.

Pat, Groden hasn't yet identified the lady as Geneva Hine but I can't see who else it could possibly be. It wouldn't be surprising that Hine's 63/64 statements put her alone at the time of the shooting. According to Groden, she was pressurised into writing Oswald out of her story. Her earlier statements put her in the office at the time of the shooting. Her WC testimony, by contrast, has her watching the motorcade out the window--which would be a neat way of further distancing her testimony from what really happened. Vida Lee Whatley gave a statement to the F.B.I. saying she left the TSBD at 12.15 and was shopping on Elm Street at the time of the assassination. Sean

Edit: dupe deleted

Bill, Jean appears not to have heard of Jack Dougherty! Rookie error. If the second-floor lunchroom incident really did happen (which personally I doubt--see, for starters, Baker's 11/22 affidavit which David has kindly posted), then I have difficulty with the idea that a non-guilty Oswald just happened to time his trip up to the second floor to within seconds of the shooting. However Robert Groden's Geneva Hine interview would offer a simple scenario whereby a non-guilty Oswald could be seen through the glass window without having just come up from the first floor--namely, he was on his way to the lunchroom having just gotten change for the coke machine from Hine. Here's what Groden told Len Osanic: I actually found a woman some years ago. She was terrified. She did not want to come forward. And she finally agreed to give an interview, and I did interview her. When the shots actually went off, she was talking to Lee Oswald on the second floor. […] We always assumed that Lee had the change, that he had had the change for the machine. He didn’t. He went into the office across from the snack room with a dollar bill and asked for change. He said, “No pennies, please.” And, as the change was being counted out into his hand, the shots went off. And they looked at each other, this woman and Lee, and [asked], “What was that?” Backfires, firecrack[ers], who knew? He got the rest of the change, walked back across the hall, bought the Coke and then just a little over a minute later there was a gun in his ribs held by Officer Baker. Lee had an airtight alibi. He could not possibly have done this. She told this story to the Warren Commission. They told her to keep her mouth shut. And she did. She told very few people. Very few people. I was one of the few that she did. So I got to speak to her because I had a friend who knew a friend of hers. I had to promise her I would never reveal any of this until after she was gone. And now she is. The whole story, including her name, will be in the next book. But why, on this scenario, would Oswald later (allegedly) claim to have been on the first floor at the time of the shooting? Well, put the case: -he's mooching around the first-floor domino room several minutes before the motorcade -he notices Jarman & Norman reentering the building and naturally assumes that the President has already passed the building -he goes upstairs to the second-floor lunchroom and sits down (being spotted there by Carolyn Arnold as she is heading outside to catch the motorcade) -he goes into the second-floor office area for change for the coke machine -on his way back he is challenged by Baker Now for the key bit: -when he hears that JFK has been shot, he assumes it must have been several minutes before the lunchroom incident with the cop -hence he tells Fritz that he was on the first floor when the President passed the building. On this scenario: Oswald never realised the significance of the exchange with Geneva Hine in the office. He never realised he had an alibi.

From a report filed 11/22 by Captain Will Fritz:

Hi Joseph, I'd be interested to hear your take on the TSBD side of things. Where was Oswald at 12.30?, etc.

Bravo, John.

Just bumping this topic. I continue to be troubled by the image of Norman.

Not necessarily a sign of guilt, no, but certainly a sign that he was involved in some way. Sean: Was trying to contact you via London Forum. Please check your messages. Thanks. DSL Hi David, I've tried emailing you twice in the past few days, most recently at dlifton2003[at]yahoo.com. Did neither message reach you?? Sean

Not necessarily a sign of guilt, no, but certainly a sign that he was involved in some way.

Sean, You make an interesting point. One would think that Brennan would have watched the front door closely after the assassination to try to spot, leaving the building, the guy he'd seen in the window. Not having "researched" it, I don't know if he did that or not. All I remember is a Murray photograph showing him standing in the background with some other people, including the "Rip Robertson" and "John Adrian O'Hare" - looking guys, and he's looking up (at an upper-floor TSBD window?) with his hard hat on. http://www.jfkassass...lbum=125&pos=20 (Thanks, Robin Unger, for your great online collection of photos.) --Tommy Exactly, Tommy. Brennan will have been on high alert for the face he had seen up at the window. Also worth noting that Oswald's decision to leave via the building's most high-visibility exit is itself suggestive of innocence of the shooting. Would the real shooter have put himself so casually in full view of any number of people who might have spotted him on the sixth floor just minutes earlier? Seems very unlikely. Oswald, not having been the shooter, has no cause to hide his face now from the crowd gathered outside the building.

Yes. Of course he did. Thank you, David. So you and I agree that Howard Brennan was a witness who lied on the record, albeit for understandable reasons.