Jump to content
The Education Forum

Todd W. Vaughan

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

12,107 profile views

Todd W. Vaughan's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)

  1. That's not Rowland. Rowland was wearing an overcoat that day. I think that is either Fischer or Edwards. There is footage of him being led towards the front of the TSBD from the Houston Street area. Fischer and Edwards worked in the Records Building and one of them, I can't recall which, gave the others name to the DPD as a witness and they went and got him from work, where he had returned.
  2. Richard, That's the full picture. It's Murray 1-26, I have a copy of the contact sheet and it is there. Todd
  3. The man with the camera in Willis 15 is not Sandy Sanderson. It is likely Steve Perringer who, like Sanderson, worked at KRLD and went to Dealey Plaza in a KRLD news station wagon with Joe Scott, also of KRLD. Both Perringer and Scott used the same camera to film scenes in front of the TSBD. Scott also made radio reports to KRLD. Sanderson, who had been on Main Street filming, was wearing a lighter colored plaid sport coat and hat. The Cooper film has footage showing Sanderson and Underwood in front of the TSBD talking to each other. Sanderson also appears in one of the Murray photos.
  4. Bill You wrote... "Oswald's fingerprints weren't on either of the second floor door nobs that he would have had to use to open the doors" ...where does this information originate? Todd
  5. The Dr. Pepper Bottle was dusted for prints, the Tom Alyea film shows Detective Studebaker dusting it. It also was taken to the DPD as evidence. I'm not sure for how long it was retained, but I don't think it wound up at the Archives.
  6. Josh, Email me your mailing address and I will send you a copy of both articles. twvaughan2005@yahoo.com Todd
  7. Bill, I'm well aware of the allegastion. Now, what does what you wrote have to do with the B.S from Backes? Todd
  8. "As for the wallet, Oswald leaves his wallet at 1026 N. Beckley, and another wallet at the Tippit murder scene, and has another one on him when arrested, and I think yet another when they search him again at Dallas Police HQ." Absolute Bullxxxx! You have no clue. Build up an alibi for what? I agree with Mr. Kelly. If Oswald was planning to use this encounter with Jarman as proof of his innocence, why didn't he use it when he was interrogated ????? "How could I have killed the President when I didn't even know the motorcade route----just ask Junior Jarman !!!" There's no evidence that he ever said anything like this during his interrogation or that Oswald tried to use this encounter as proof of his innocence. To believe that this ingenious criminal mind would think of covering his ass BEFORE the event in such a fashion, only to leave behind a rifle connected to him through a paper trail, then kill a policeman and leave his wallet at the scene, is just silly IMO. The Dallas papers posted several versions of the motorcade route before the 22nd. Is it that strange that someone disinterested in the President's arrival would not know the motorcade route ? Gil, Sorry, but this isn't proof of anything. I'm reminded of something George Michael Evica once said, I'm paraphrasing but it's essentially like this, "It's the passive voice, and when you hear the passive voice suspect what is going on." There is no proof this conversation actually occurred or that these were the exact words used. And there's really nowhere to go with it. Even if it did occur and these were the exact words used, so what? Jarman may have had some type of conversation about the motorcade with Oswald. Big deal. We don't know what questions were asked, or what answers were given when Oswald was questioned. We have a very incomplete record of those interrogations. "The rifle," seems to change it's size, shape, and appearance, every time it's described. The paper trail about it has more holes in it than a sponge. As for the wallet, Oswald leaves his wallet at 1026 N. Beckley, and another wallet at the Tippit murder scene, and has another one on him when arrested, and I think yet another when they search him again at Dallas Police HQ. Joe Backes
  9. Greg, "I submit again that Rowland DID see a Black gentleman on the 6th floor aged in his 50s - that this man was Eddie Piper - that Piper ran downstairs and out the loading dock in terror about the time of the assassination and headed to Special Services due to knowing them from being busted gambling. " And you think the man seen by Landis was Piper? Todd Oh, puh-LEEZE, Greg! Eddie Piper was 55. You're 53. Are YOU anywhere close to describing yourself that way?!? Are YOU "elderly?" I didn't think so. Again you twist my words. I said "at his age" What was his age? MId '50s? Yes, it was, so that was the age I was referring to. I made no attempt to describe him as "elderly". Please desist from this nonsense. Could I run full steam down 6 flights of stairs and across a grassy slope, probably slippery from morning rain without getting breathless? I don't think I could these days, and I'd suggest the average guy in his 50s couldn't either. But there is another possibility: he wad ducking to make himself as small a target as possible... worried that the sniper might take a potshot at him. Hard to miss him in those bright colors! Landis noticed this man by the way, because he was obviously reacting quite differently to everyone else.... I just realized I did in fact, describe Rowland's man as "elderly" in post #4 in reply to Pat. I don't recall why I used that particular term, unless trying to describe him through the eyes of a Rowland ( a teenager), or whether I just misspoke in trying to distinguish him from being "young". Bottom line: I agree calling Piper "elderly" is not entirely accurate, and certainly did not call him, or mean to imply that in the post you've replied to. In relation to Landis' observations, this is the description I've referred to before of the flight in fright of the witness... I apologize in advance for any sensitivities involved, but believe it best to quote without change... "Waldo stated that the source said 'when I saw this boy he was the scaredest n I ever saw. All you could see were the whites of his eyes.' Waldo stated that according to his source, the witness stated when he fled the Texas School Book Depository, he surrendered to the Special Service because that branch of the Police Department had picked him up on crap shooting charges in the past. According to Waldo, the source stated that the witness made the statement 'man, you don't know how fast is fast unless you saw me run', referring to his exit from the TSBD." We know no such person ran out the front door. Which leaves the side loading dock - the direction in which Piper said he ran. Now compare to the relevant part of SA Landis' observation: "He thought that the shot had come from somewhere toward the front right-hand side of the road. When he looked in that direction, he saw the only person he can recall seeing clearly who was a Negro male in light green slacks and a beige colored shirt running from Landis left to right, up the slope, across the grass, along the sidewalk, bending over while running. Landis started to point towards him, but didn't notice anything in his hands..." I ask again: does the direction in which this fellow is running get him to the location of "Special Services" (I'm not sure if it was in the same location as DPD HQ). Rowland's description: Mr. ROWLAND - He was very thin, an elderly gentleman, bald or practically bald, very thin hair if he wasn't bald. Had on a plaid shirt. I think it was red and green, very bright color, that is why I remember it. Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us an estimate as to age? Mr. ROWLAND - Fifty; possibly 55 or 60. Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us an estimate as to height? Mr. ROWLAND - 5'8", 5'10", in that neighborhood. He was very slender, very thin. Mr. SPECTER - Can you give us a more definite description as to complexion? Mr. ROWLAND - Very dark or fairly dark, not real dark compared to some Negroes, but fairly dark. Seemed like his face was either--I can't recall detail but it was either very wrinkled or marked in some way. Beige shirt and light green slacks (Landis) VS plaid shirt and bright colors, possibly red and green (Rowland). Piper denied owning or wearing a green and red shirt ON THAT DAY [Nov 22] - which sounds like CYA in case his wardrobe got searched he could claim he got the shirt AFTER that day. FBI description of Piper: Born: Jan 23, 1908. Height: 5' 10" Weight: 140 Hair: gray Eyes: brown Build: slender Facial characteristics: wears moustache; no scars or marks visible FBI photo of Piper http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/gallery/ASSASSIONATION/JFK-WITNESSES-SUSPECTS/Front-view-of-eddie-Piper-pic_9.htm The purpose of the FBI interview and photos - which also applied to West - was to determine if either may have been Rowland's man - yet there is no evidence that the photos were ever shown to Rowland. If they had been, and Rowland could not identify his man from them, that report would have been given prominence. I submit again that Rowland DID see a Black gentleman on the 6th floor aged in his 50s - that this man was Eddie Piper - that Piper ran downstairs and out the loading dock in terror about the time of the assassination and headed to Special Services due to knowing them from being busted gambling. He was held overnight with nothing released officially about him save that initial report published Nov 24 concerning Oswald being escorted up by a "Negro" porter, who then returned to the 1st floor to watch the motorcade: this, nothing more than the outline of the cover story formulated after it was ordered that Oswald would take the fall alone. Whoever formulated this cover story and worded Piper's statement made one mistake: they were unaware that the motorcade was not running on time (for the amended timetable) and that it did not pass the TSBD at 12:25 as it should have, but about 5 minutes later. The gaffe was realized sometime between then and the time of Piper's testimony - with Piper given no questions on why he was now saying 12:27 to 12:30 instead of the 12:25 he originally claimed on two separate occasions.
  10. "and now we know of a witness to a Black man running away across the knoll whose actions were so at odds with all others, it caused SA Landis to remember him and include the sighting in his report. " Do you have any more on this from anyone/where else? Truly told the FBI he never saw anyone when he entered. West stated he never saw anyone. West also explained why he didn't know if anyone went to the elevators.He had his back to them. Piper claimed on Nov 23 that the shots sounded like they came from inside the building. West was unaware of any shots. Piper's testimony on seeing Truly and Tonto was so bad he had be recalled. As for Truly calling up for the elevators... at least one early account has them going straight to the stairs. As for what can be deduced from Wests testimony regarding Piper... it is just one piece of evidence. There is his entirely suspect attempt to timestamp. There is Truly not seeing him, while Shelley does soon after - though too late for Piper's account to be true. There is Piper's statement that he saw the motorcade coming, contradicted by later statements that he couldn't see anything for the crowd - which wasn't true either - it would have been impossible to see anything from that window. There is Rowland's description of a man up on 6 who matches Piper's description. There is the Waldo story which fits with Rowland's testimony and has the witnesses running out of the building in terror - and now we know of a witness to a Black man running away across the knoll whose actions were so at odds with all others, it caused SA Landis to remember him and include the sighting in his report.
  11. And it's online here... http://www.conspiracybomb.com/killapresident.htm
  12. When They Kill a President has been available for years.
  13. Lee, I take great offense (as if you really care) to your claim that I would “say anything to prove a point.” or “defend my beliefs.”, essentially claiming I would LIE if necessary to prove a point. That’s just nothing more than another example of your willingness to launch unprovoked personal attacks at those who you disagree with. As for your “The more total the evidence you provide the more the picking of nits begins and the more the parlor games start.”, that certainly is the pot calling the kettle black, given he nit picking you’ve done over Bledsoe. My comments about Bledose and my grandmothers stroke were in no way meant to be a definitive, one-to-one comparison. And if you think for a minute that I think everyone who has a stroke and survives reacts the same way, or exhibits the same kind of behavior, then you have a screw loose somewhere. It was simply something I thought of while mulling this all over, and I thought it would perhaps help to get some minds thinking of alternate explanations for in Bledsoe’s testimony. And I never said Bledsoe took copius notes – that’s a figment of your own making. So will you stop spreading misinformation about me please? Thanks in advance. Now, as for the mark on the cement apron around the manhole cover, something I’ve researched and paid particular attention to since 1979… You’ve either misunderstood what I said or you’re intentionally twisting my words. The fact of the matter is that I do believe that a mark of some sort was observed on the concrete apron of the manhole cover that day. However I should point out that there is only one witness on record as to having actually observed a physical mark that day, DPD Officer J.W. Foster, so it’s not like there are a bunch of witnesses to it like you falsely imply with your “What about this witness? What about that witness?” and “Sod the witnesses.” And yes, the DPD crime lab was called to that location and took several photographs of the area. But those photographs the DPD took that day, as well as those taken by Murray and Allen and Cabluck, don’t show the mark that exists there today and is identified by everyone as the bullet mark (for example, see Groden and Livingstone in the photo section of High Treason) That mark that exists today is located right in the southwest corner of the cement apron and it is fairly tight to the corner proper. But photos show that on 11/22/63 dirt and sod and leaves were covering the corner of the cement apron to the degree that a mark in that location would not even have been visible that day – that area was covered. For example, see Groden The Killing of a President at page 41. So that could not have been the mark that was seen that day – it wasn’t exposed. And yes, I think the mark that exists today is too big to be bullet mark - it’s too big, too deep, too defined, and as of 1991 the left and right upper edges of the mark each curve a bit and overhang slightly the mark itself, almost as if a small twig/ branch were partially imbedded in the concrete during the pour and then rotted away over time leaving an impression of itself. Has the mark changed over time? To some degree, I’m sure. I bet the overhanging edges have worn back a bit. But I’ve seen clear photos taken of the mark in 1969 by R.B. Cutler and compared them to it in 1991 and it appeared to be essentially the same. Cutler even noted the overhanging edges back in 1969 and published one of the photos (Cutler, The Umbrella Man, 1975, p. 130-131). As for your “experiment”, how silly. It bears no relationship to the issue at hand. So, there you have your “No answers from Todd to these questions.” Todd Vaughan reminds me a little of Duncan MacRae, Jim. He'd say anything to prove a point. The more total the evidence you provide the more the picking of nits begins and the more the parlor games start. I'm not fond of people (including myself) using examples from their personal lives to prove an evidentiary point because if you disagree with it then it could easily look like you are personally attacking them. Duncan once tried to use a personal experience he had as an extra in a police line-up to prove a point against me in a debate over witnesses ID'ing suspects. It was a mugging incident and, according to Duncan, he was incorrectly identified as the assailant. When I asked Duncan how he knew he had been incorrectly identified he claimed that the woman walked over and put her hand on his shoulder. Now, obviously, this is complete baloney. This is not how the police run line-ups in the UK. Can you imagine? "Okay. Mrs. Brown. You have just been attacked by a violent mugger. What we're going to do is take you in this room where we believe we have this person who will be in your nightmares for the foreseeable future. We need you to walk up to your assailant and not just point him out. Oh no. We want you to touch him. We need bodily contact for a valid ID to be established. Now, you're looking a bit nervous Mrs. Brown but you must count yourself lucky. Our rape victims find this procedure much more challenging. And if the violent mugger tries to bite pieces of your face off we'll make sure we get him off straight away and get you right to the hospital." Once Duncan had been all 'round the houses trying to defend what amounted to some of the stinkiest crapola ever introduced on this forum to try and win an argument he then disappeared. Well, guess what? About 8 months later he used the crapola in a different way. To try and prove a point about faulty memories he used this line up to try and convince people that instead of making this experience up out of whole cloth he had simply created a "false memory." Honestly. Some people would say absolutely anything to: i) Prove a point ii) Defend their beliefs Well Todd, IMO, is the same. He'll say anything to prove a point even if what he says can be taken apart in the blink of an eye. "There was no bullet mark on the manhole cover on Elm Street", he once told me with such defiance that one would think he was stood next to it on 11/22/63. What about this witness? What about that witness? What about this photo? What about that photo? Why did the Dallas Police take photos of that manhole cover if there was nothing there? Was it standard practice for photos to be taken by investigators of "nothing"? No answers from Todd to these questions. He simply said the Mark that is on the curb is too big to be a bullet strike. Sod the witnesses. He knows better because he knows guns and ammo. Do you not think the mark has changed over time? With the weather? And people touching and rubbing it? 48 years is a long time and each and every time I've been to Dealey Plaza I've seen dozens of people touching this mark. Placing their finger inside. I'm pretty sure it's changed. I closed by asking Todd to perform an experiment. Get a small slab of concrete. Make a small nick in it with a chisel. Take a photo of it. Then over the next 48 years to rub that mark with his finger a dozen times a day. I'm sure Todd will get back to us with the results in 2058. Along with the copious notes that Mary Bledsoe made after her unfortunate stroke. It really is far too easy, isn't it?
  • Create New...