Todd W. Vaughan
-
Posts
494 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Todd W. Vaughan
-
-
Richard,
That's the full picture. It's Murray 1-26, I have a copy of the contact sheet and it is there.
Todd
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Gus Rose never went to Dealey Plaza that day.
-
David,
Very well said.
Todd
-
Josh,
Email me your mailing address and I will send you a copy of both articles.
Todd
-
Todd, the allegation isn't that Oswald left a wallet at the Tippit murder scene, the allegation is that someone else planted a wallet with Oswald's ID in it at the scene after killing Tippit.
Get it?
Bill Kelly
JFKCountercoup.blogspot.com
Bill,
I'm well aware of the allegastion.
Now, what does what you wrote have to do with the B.S from Backes?
Todd
-
"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.
I guess this does not really proof something. It must be real ignorent if he does not know about the motorcade or the visit at all.
I mean: when you work in a building and the president of the United States will pass that building, I am pretty sure you will notice that in a paper, or in a conversation with co-workers.
In my opinion it is also possible that Oswald tries to build himself an alibi by asking a question like this.
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
-
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
... I could well imagine Piper at his age, being bent over with the physical exertion. It now seems likely he ran straight past the wrapping table and out that side loading dock.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.
-
"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?
So here we have Troy West, mail wrapper extraordinaire who never left his wrapping desk all day long except to get water for coffee at 8:00 and 12:00 and, one presumes, to attend to the normal functions of the life of an habitual coffee drinker, who takes more than 30 minutes to eat his lunch while facing toward the front of the building. He becomes "spellbound" when police come in - "a bunch of them ... just a crowd of them coming in there," among whom, he thought, was the man responsible for West's weekly pay, Roy Truly. West couldn't remember, however, if Truly was "one of the first people in," or if "other people come ahead of him:" "really, I just don't know," he said.He didn't know if anyone went to the elevators. He didn't hear Truly yell upstairs to "let loose the elevator," or if anyone was actually using the elevators, or going up or down the stairs, or "anything else that might be helpful or relevent." Zip, zero, and zilch.
And based on this testimony, we are to deduce that Eddie Piper wasn't where he said he was because Troy West didn't say he saw "anybody," much less single Piper out from among the crowd that he barely recalled his boss being in.
Despite being "spellbound" and presumably watching the activities of the "officers" - a "bunch" of them, "just a crowd" of them - who came in the building, Troy West saw nothing or nobody, heard nothing or nobody, noticed nothing or nobody except a "bunch" or "crowd" of cops who weren't there.
And that testimony is used to indict Eddie Piper's story?!?
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.
-
And it's online here...
-
So what happened to the manuscript Roger Craig wrote?
Was it ever published, or is it available?
When They Kill a President has been available for years.
-
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
Trying to defend Bledsoe at this late date is sort of trying to rehabilitate Warren Harding.
As per Craig, the guy has multiple corroboration going back to SSD.
But watch it Lee, Lifton tells us that Vaughan is a "first rate researcher".
This is the guy who once told me the shoulder drop by JBC in the Z film was an optical illusion. Even though Thompson actually measured it in his book from the top of the door.
Trying to defend Bledsoe at this late date is sort of trying to rehabilitate Warren Harding.
As per Craig, the guy has multiple corroboration going back to SSD.
But watch it Lee, Lifton tells us that Vaughan is a "first rate researcher".
This is the guy who once told me the shoulder drop by JBC in the Z film was an optical illusion. Even though Thompson actually measured it in his book from the top of the door.
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?
-
Lee,
I didn't say you claimed it was Craig.
I don’t know for a fact that Craig ever sat down and identified himself either.
But Penn Jones knew Craig very well and he told me years ago (1976-77) that it was Craig. Also, Penn’s Forgive My Grief 3 (revised) has great photo of Craig from the waist up from December of 1969. It’s a dead ringer for the man identified as Craig in the Murray photos by Penn AND by Shaw and Harris (both of whom also knew Craig) in their book Cover-Ups. I’ve also seen other known photos of Craig and they match as well. Finally, video of Craig in Mark Lane’s Two Men in Dallas matches up.
I've never heard of the man being identified as anjyone but Craig. He most certainly is thin enough (we are talking about the same man right, the man in the background in a suit, on the North side fo Elm, right?) I'd love to hear who they claim it is.
But, regardless, even if that man in Murray is not Craig, it STILL doesn’t matter.
You see, Craig stated that he saw the rambler after Walthers came up to him on the North side of Elm, by the Fort Worth Turnpike sign and told him that a bullet had struck the curb on the south side of Elm. In the Murray photos, traffic is moving well, the “rambler” (behind the bus) is also moving well. But Walthers is still on the south side of Elm investigating the spot when the “rambler” is already headed down Elm. There is simply not enough time for time for Walthers to finish up, wait for traffic (which would include the passing "rambler", cross Elm, talk to Craig, and for Craig to cross to Elm – the car in question would already be well down Elm, likely out of Dealey Plaza.
Todd
I didn't claim that Craig is in the photograph.
I don't believe that that photograph is of Roger Craig in Murray and Allen, Todd. The guy is not thin enough and I IIRC other researchers have identified that man as somebody else. For me, it is the presence of the station wagon that is more significant and, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe Roger Craig ever identified himself as being that person in that particular photograph.
Certainly there are other witnesses.
However, the photos, Murray and Allen, show Craig on the North side of Elm and Walthers on the South side of Elm as the supposed rambler is visible coming down Elm. The problem is that Craig was very specific that Walthers came up to him while he (Craig) was on the North side of Elm and that he (Craig) then crossed over to the south side of Elm. It was while he was on the south side of Elm, looking to see where a bullet had struck, that he heard the whistle and saw the rambler. So the photos show that the timing is wrong for that car to be the rambler Craig saw.
Greg,
You wrote, "The fact is that Craig was a better witness, and there was infinitely more support (in both film and other witnesses) for his story than Mary's."
What "film", either still or motion, supports Craig's story and how?
Todd
Are you in agreement that there are witnesses that support Craig's story, Todd?
I think Greg is tucked up in bed right now but from my perspective the photographs of the station wagon on Elm and the Oswald lookalike walking down toward Elm Street past the concrete ornaments within the timeframes as detailed by Craig gives his story much more weight than Bledsoe's especially when combined with the addition of further corroborating witnesses.
Mary Bledsoe never proved she knew Oswald. I don't believe for a second that she was a "landlady" of anyone, let alone Oswald. I'd like to think that Police today are a little more rigorous in confirming relationships between people during criminal investigations rather than just taking one person's word for it.
If there was one other single witness on record that supported Mary's alleged relationship with Oswald then I would give it slightly more weight rather than shaking my head in utter disbelief. Her son may have been a good start. Or Cecil McWatters who remembered a lot about the events on his bus, but doesn't remember the memorable Mary.
Or then again, maybe he did...
-
Certainly there are other witnesses.
However, the photos, Murray and Allen, show Craig on the North side of Elm and Walthers on the South side of Elm as the supposed rambler is visible coming down Elm. The problem is that Craig was very specific that Walthers came up to him while he (Craig) was on the North side of Elm and that he (Craig) then crossed over to the south side of Elm. It was while he was on the south side of Elm, looking to see where a bullet had struck, that he heard the whistle and saw the rambler. So the photos show that the timing is wrong for that car to be the rambler Craig saw.
Bledsoe had also had a stroke sometime before she had rented to Oswald. My experience whith my elderly grandmother after her stroke was that she was forgettful, made copius notes in real time and when trying to recall things, and was at times somewhat paranoid, to the degree of consulting her lawyer for even for the most trival matter.
Sound like anyone who rented to Oswald?
Greg,
You wrote, "The fact is that Craig was a better witness, and there was infinitely more support (in both film and other witnesses) for his story than Mary's."
What "film", either still or motion, supports Craig's story and how?
Todd
Are you in agreement that there are witnesses that support Craig's story, Todd?
I think Greg is tucked up in bed right now but from my perspective the photographs of the station wagon on Elm and the Oswald lookalike walking down toward Elm Street past the concrete ornaments within the timeframes as detailed by Craig gives his story much more weight than Bledsoe's especially when combined with the addition of further corroborating witnesses.
Mary Bledsoe never proved she knew Oswald. I don't believe for a second that she was a "landlady" of anyone, let alone Oswald. I'd like to think that Police today are a little more rigorous in confirming relationships between people during criminal investigations rather than just taking one person's word for it.
If there was one other single witness on record that supported Mary's alleged relationship with Oswald then I would give it slightly more weight rather than shaking my head in utter disbelief. Her son may have been a good start. Or Cecil McWatters who remembered a lot about the events on his bus, but doesn't remember the memorable Mary.
Or then again, maybe he did...
-
Mr. Parker:Much of the stuff you're promoting is false, most notably, the nonsense that I have anything to do with any "lone nutter" position.
Here is what I said, David:
"Absurd Lone Nut debating tactic."
"There is that circular reasoning again. Straight from the McAdams LN Handbook."
Really sir, just ask this question: can your analysis of whether Mary Bledsoe was on particular bus in 1963 be believed,
Firstly, credit where it is due. The final position was arrived at by Lee and Duke after much debate and scrutiny of all the evidence. It actually took a little while for me to jump on board after following a slightly different tack.
if you cannot be relied upon to accurately represent my own position on the Kennedy assassination?
I haven't misrepresented your position at all. You need to read more carefully. But once again: I have said your debating tactics are the same as those used by LNs. In regard to your position on the assassination, I have articulated it succinctly as the body snatching theory.
And that you continually do so despite the fact that my book, BEST EVIDENCE, was published 30 years ago, was a best seller, and has been published by four separate publishers? (And there will be a fifth).
Speaking of: when is your Oswald book coming out?
The fact that I don't endorse a particular "conspiracy hypothesis" --notably, some of the indefensible stuff you have been endorsing--is an entirely different matter.
Oh? What have I endorsed that you disagree with?
My website home page states some of what I endorse:
http://www.reopenkennedycase.net
Apart from that, I endorse having the remaining files released early as a precursor to a new investigation.
Here's something you should perhaps learn, however, and that concerns the use of notes by a witness in a legal proceeding. Quoting from your post:
"Yet (as far as I'm aware) the use of notes by a witness in a legal proceeding is unprecedented."
". . . unprecedented. . . "??
Well, Mr. Parker, you're misinformed. I don't know how it works in Australia, but here in the U.S., its called "present recollection refreshed."
It even works in traffic court when an officer takes out his notebook, to recall how you behaved, or what you said, after you were stopped for running a red light.
I mean, just imagine the situation, Mr. Parker: you're driving in downtown Melbourne, and a kangaroo jumps in front of your car. You slam on the breaks, to avoid the kangaroo, and you cause a pileup. The kangaroo runs off and is nowhere to be seen.
An officer arrives at the scene and flags you for reckless driving. You tell him your story. He makes notes. Three months later, the case goes to trial. The officer remembers the generalities, but can't recall all the particulars.
"Your honor," he says, "I just don't remember all the details of Mr. Parker's kangaroo story. May I please refresh my recollection with notes I made at the time?"
The court says, "Yes, Officer Smith. You may consult your notes before relating the particulars of Mr. Parker's kangaroo story."
And so he does just that. . . and, if you're lucky, maybe your version will prevail and you won't be convicted of doing anything all that bad.
(And if you're really lucky, and if you told your account three times to officers of the Australian Bureau of Investigation, in the eight days following this automobile pile-up, there would be a pre-existing written record of your own account, and that clearly would work in your favor.)
You see? That's how it works.
Strewth! It was a flippin' wallaby and it was in Brisbane, not Melbourne!
And yes, the same general concepts apply to an elderly lady, who was interviewed three times by the FBI, in the eight days following the assassination, but who was nervous about her memory, and so she made notes before she appeared before the representatives of a presidential commission.
I know elderly people who make notes about all sorts of things. . .none of this is irregular, or improper, and, imho, it takes an excessively suspicious mind to (a) ignore the three original FBI reports and (b ) make the jump from the use of notes (four and a half months later) to the idea that the subsequent testimony (on 4/2/64) was all a fabrication.
And here, we're not even dealing with a kangaroo--just an elderly lady who was a passenger on a bus, who knew Oswald because he had boarded with her for a week, and who saw him board the bus.
But here, to begin your education about "recollection refreshed," is a link to the Cornell Law school website:
http://www.law.corne...e/ACRule612.htm
http://topics.law.co...ction_refreshed
Here's a brief excerpt. . . :
Present Recollection Refreshed
Overview
Resources
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a witness must testify from the basis of his current recollection, he cannot read from a document.However, if a witness forgets something he at one time knew and had personal knowledge of, he may be shown a writing to refresh his memory. The writing or document used by the witness to refresh his memory cannot be admitted as evidence or read to the jury, it can only be used to refresh the witness's memory of something he once knew.
Do you own an orchard perchance? I ask because you are very good at producing an apple every time you're presented with an orange.
Apart from the wollapper needing his notes to recall it was a wallaby in Brisbane and not a kangaroo in Melbourne; another common example would be a witness on the stand having difficulty recalling meeting the victim, and being presented with a contemporaneous letter he or she wrote which includes details of meeting the person in question. That is your apple.
But the orange is a witness having extensive notes written with the help of a government agent specifically to help get her through her testimony.
You do understand the difference, don't you, between the wollapper's notes and the witnesses letter written to a friend, and extensive notes written with help from an agent of the body conducting the investigation for the express purpose of providing testimony that IS NOT from current memory?
What does it say of you, that you believe the manner and circumstances of MB's testimony was perfectly legitimate and supported by law – when in fact neither of those contentions is true?
* * * *
Most of the criticism I have seen of Mary Bledsoe, because she used notes, and spoke haltingly, and obviously was under stress, is without merit.
The woman made out an affidavit on 11/23/63, and --in addition--was interviewed three times by the FBI. And you think she made it all up, eh?
I never cared for the fact that, in the original affidavit, she said Oswald "looked like a maniac," but, ya know, she's entitled. . . just like you're entitled to fruitlessly argue that she wasn't on the bus.
Yes, she was entitled to describe Oswald in similar language used by McWatters to describe Milton Jones.
Just like you're entitled to misrepresent Present Recollection Refreshed as being an apt description of the Bledsoe testimony.
The three FBI interviews --by five separate agents, who wrote three reports, over a period of eight days following 11/22/63 (starting with the first report on 11/23/63)--constitute credible evidence that Bledsoe did not fabricate her account (unless, of course, you think she was some kind of method actress. [is that your idea?] ).
The reason certain people have a clear animus towards this witness, and her account, is that placing Oswald on McWatters' bus prevents them from believing Roger Craig's account.
C'mon. . . admit it. . Isn't that what this is really all about?
Not at all. Only interested in where the evidence leads.
The fact is that Craig was a better witness, and there was infinitely more support (in both film and other witnesses) for his story than Mary's.
So out come the knives and all kinds of bizarre, illogical, and flawed hypotheses in order to accomplish the following:
(a) to argue that Mary Bledsoe was NOT on the bus (when Oswald [allegedly] boarded around Murphy and Elm);
The arguments for that are flawless; unlike those you posit via circular logic.
(b ) to argue that Oswald did not board that bus--at all;
Now you're catching on.
and finally, in an attempt to impeach Mary Bledsoe completely, comes item "c", the "cherry on the sundae". . . the "piece de resistance". . .
(c ) The futile attempt to argue that Mary Bledsoe was not Oswald's landlady, for the week starting October 7, 1963 (i.e., that all of that is a fiction, too), thus attempting to impeach her as a witness who certainly could have--and in fact did--immediately recognize Oswald as the person who boarded the bus.
MB testified that she used the calendar method of record-keeping (popularized by Ruth Paine, apparently) with Oswald because she had just resumed letting rooms.
Mr. BALL - That is the calendar for December 1963, and I notice it has dates and names and dates. Is that the way you keep books on your rooms?Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes; but I don't now. I did then, because I just had started. The first one I got was in September.Mr. BALL - September of 1963?Mrs. BLEDSOE - Uh-huh.Mr. BALL - He put his name on the calendar?Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, got it in September. He got it, my son sold it for $5, and I didn't even know that he tore that out.Mr. BALL - Now, let me see here in this calendar. It runs from January 1963, to December of 1963, but October of 1963, has been torn out?As seen here, the indication is that she continued with this method up until at least December. Yet despite this testimony that the calendar contained names and dates for lodgers, the Warren Commission staffers were unable to come up with any names whatsoever when given that seemingly simple task!
If a TV producer is trolling the Internet for material to demonstrate the flawed and illogical reasoning of certain JFK assassination researchers, this would be "Exhibit A." Because, as I have noted, once you go down this path--as Farley has so proudly done (a path now endorsed by DiEugenio, who refers to it as a "daring and original" analysis)--the next stop is to subscribe to the following ancillary propositions:
(1) That Oswald was not in Whaley's cab ("Yes, he lied, too!")
(2) That someone else ran into the rooming house, at 1026 N. Beckley. ("Yes, Ms. Earlene Roberts was mistaken! It was an imposter who ran into her rooming house!").
So (the narrator will intone, after exposing all the numerous fallacies and implausibilities associated with this so-called "analysis"): "Here's what we end up with: we have one rooming house lady, with whom Lee Oswald boarded, and whose name he used as a reference on October 10, and who (supposedly) then made up a story that Oswald was on a bus (when he was not)--and who lied about that to 5 FBI agents in 3 different interviews over a period of 8 days. But that's not all: then we also have Oswald not in Whaley's cab, and then, to top it all off, we have another rooming house lady who didn't recognize her own boarder, when an imposter (not Oswald) ran into that residence, and then ran out, zipping up a jacket!"
Perhaps the narrator will raise an eyebrow and then ask: "Is this Dallas, Texas, or the Bermuda Triangle?"
Sadly for you, it's the Bermuda Triangle of your legitimacy as a private investigator.
Just how much of this malarkey is a reasonable person supposed to accept?
And no, in making that statement, I'm not a lone nutter.
Someone who believes that President Kennedy's body was altered to falsify the autopsy (i.e., to change the diagram of the shooting, so as to inculpate an innocent Lee Oswald) is not a lone nutter.
. . . unless, that is, those words are spoken by some third party who is deliberately not promoting the truth, but intent on painting an author with a well known public position (i.e., me) in a false light.
Certainly, it looks that way to me. So here's another term, Mr. Parker, that perhaps you ought to look up in a legal dictionary: "painting in a false light."
And yet again you fail to understand the law you quote.
While it is related to defamation, the public disclosure of facts falls under false light law, or tort of false light. This occurs when private facts, which are evidently not a matter of public concern, are publicly disclosed and the communication of which would be offensive or damaging to the person involved.asserts that false light law is intended to protect a non-public person's mental or emotional well-being and right to privacy rather than a protection of one's reputation, which, on the other hand, what tort of defamation upholds to protect.Firstly, no one has revealed anything about you which isn't well known already – to wit; that you use LN debate tactics and that your book's sub-text is a paean to the Warren Commission. Secondly, you're a "public person" by any definition. Thirdly, you wish to protect your reputation, not your "mental or emotional well-being" or your "right to privacy".This applies to the little guy like moi!
And no Mr. Parker, I'm not going to sue you. You have nothing to worry about. But I'm providing the definition so you'll have an accurate description of what you're doing (or attempting to do, for anyone gullible enough to believe such nonsense).
Oh, please DO sue. And when you can't get anyone to take your case because you have none, feel free to represent yourself.
You say you don't know how things work in Australia? Well, let me tell you - we're not a nation of lily-livered litigators so it is I who assures you that I won't sue – despite having an actual case through your continual misrepresentation of my position on Eddie Piper.
I have other plans.
Keep that in mind the next time you're sitting at your computer keyboard, and spreading misinformation about me.
Enjoy the sunshine, David. We've got a few more weeks of winter before spring arrives.
DSL
8/4/11; 7:15 PM PDT
Los Angeles, CA
Greg,
You wrote, "The fact is that Craig was a better witness, and there was infinitely more support (in both film and other witnesses) for his story than Mary's."
What "film", either still or motion, supports Craig's story and how?
Todd
-
Hi Bill,
The photo is from "Castro's Black Book" that was given to Senator George McGovern in 1975. McGovern in turn handed it over to DCI William Colby. By that time there were about 30 attempts made on Castro's life, but official CIA records could only account for 5 or 6.
The "Black Book" was later used by the HSCA in this report: No Title
There are photos of Tony Cuesta and Rolando Cubela in there as well among many others. Sague is on page 8.
It is also discussed here: A List of Assassins
As to when the photo of Sague was taken, I can only guess [maybe July, 1960; when he was nabbed in Havana by authorities unloading weapons which had been secretly smuggled into Cuba?] but in my opinion, it does not look like Sague is the Mexico City Mystery Man based on these images.
-- Zach
Zach, could you post the picture(s) of Tony Cuesta?
Todd
-
Glad you amended your statement.
Now it makes sense.
Jim,
Tell me, had he not ammended it, couldn't you have just claimed that he did and then run away from him every time he called you out on it.
Todd
-
Ray, your latest is a classic.
You essentially admit you know nothing about Saint John Hunt, his relationship with EHH, how he got involved with the JFK case, the whole Rolling Stone-Costner imbroglio, and his phony story about his father coming home and dumping electronics surveillance stuff with him.
As if somehow none of this is important.
Ray, all of it is important.
Then I list all the bizarre things you say you buy into, including Hunt as a tramp, and predict what could be next and you call me silly.
Ray, I do not believe those things--you do!
Hey Jim, what am I thinking right now?
-
I agree, Pat Speer. Mary Moorman could have blasted the lying Jean Hill much, much more than she did in her May 24th interview, but instead she kept her lip buttoned (for the most part). I commend Mary Ann for being as restrained as she was during her iAntique.com interview with regard to Jean Lollis Hill.
Jean Hill saw a gunman behind the fence fire the shot that killed JFK, then ran across the street chasing him, but then didn't have the guts to say anything about it an hour later on WFAA TV?
Yeah, right. What a xxxx.
-
"As an aside, I read an African American orderly at Bethesda saw someone take a hammer to Kennedy's skull -- don't recall where I read this and if there is any credibility to this. Anyone out there know anything of this?"
That's in Horne.
To David Lifton,
Yes, I know you still believe in the impossible -- i.e., the "impossible" notion that (in a very brief period of time) President Kennedy's wounds were altered and/or rearranged in order to eliminate all evidence of supposed frontal gunshots (all without a single witness ever coming forward--in 47 years--to say that he or she witnessed any such covert surgery on the President of the United States).
And, yes, I know you still believe in the Impossible #2 -- i.e., the incredibly silly notion that ALL of the shots in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 came from the FRONT of the President's vehicle.
I just happen to vigorously disagree with your interpretation of the evidence, Mr. Lifton. And I strongly disagree with your theories, DESPITE the opinions and observations of the several Parkland and Bethesda witnesses you interviewed on film in 1980.
You will say I'm ignoring those Parkland and Bethesda witnesses, such as Dennis David, Jerrol Custer, Paul O'Connor, Aubrey Rike, et al.
But, the truth is, I'd rather disagree with people like Paul "No Brains In The Head" O'Connor if the alternative option is to place a single ounce of faith in the outlandish theory that you, Mr. Lifton, have been peddling since 1966.
Can I ask you a straightforward question, Mr. Lifton?
Do you REALLY and TRULY believe that such "body alteration" on the President's head COULD have been accomplished in such a short period of time on the evening of 11/22/63? Could such perfect head-altering surgery have been performed so that ALL THREE of JFK's autopsy surgeons at the Bethesda autopsy were totally fooled by the covert surgery?
Do you really and truly, deep down, today, believe such amazing behind-the-scenes patchwork surgery on JFK's head/body could have resulted in the autopsy report we now find on Pages 538-546 of the Warren Commission Report?
I'm virtually certain what your answer will be to my last question, but I thought I'd ask it anyway (for the record).
http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com'>http://Best-Evidence.blogspot.com
-------------------------
DR. HUMES' COMPLETE 1967 CBS-TV INTERVIEW WITH DAN RATHER:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2011/05/dr-james-humes.html
David Von Pein, I don't know you, but I went to your web site http://Best-Evidence.blogspot. and read what you had to say on Best Evidence. Having read the BE 4 or 5 times myself, I find it hard to know where to start in your mischaracterization of Lifton's argument. You state the autopsy doctors were fooled by covert surgery to Kennedy's head. False-- why would Humes complain of surgery to the top of the skull? You state Paul O'Connor alone is witness to the back of the head blown out. Read the FBI interviews by Law in his book ITEOH, and that of others, as well as Brad Parker's, First on the Scene, about the Dallas testimony. OConnor is not alone as a witness to the shipping casket. First mention of it comes from Dennis David, who is still alive, who saw it unloaded from a Black Hearse in view of Boswell and Humes. James Curtis Jenkins also is a witness to the shipping casket. Floyd Riebe is also a witness to the shipping casket, and body bag. In your web site you infer that the alteration was perfect. No such conclusion is found in Best Evidence. In fact, the entire basis for the creation of Lens 3 is the imperfection of the forgery. Custer and Reed, along with Jenkins, thought Kennedy had been shot from the front. Jenkins was emphatic about this. So the body at Bethesda still gave the impression to these men that Kennedy was shot from the front. That's not a very good forgery. All evidence for a frontal entry was not removed.
As for the integrity of the extant autopsy report, if you have read BE, you know the FBI's Friday night persepctive differs significantly from the eventual autopsy conclusions; in fact reading Horne we see several versions of the autopsy, all supporting different conclusions about the shots. For example, as for the bullet entrance wound near the external occipital protuberance, Dr. Ebersole didn't see it; O'Connor didn't see it; Admiral Osborne didn't see it; Jenkins, Custer and Reed didn't see it. No extant photograph shows it.
Again, you say no one has come forward claiming to have seen chicanery with the body. This is to be expected of clandestine operations.If the entrance wound, or any other wounding of the head, is the result covert surgery, do you suppose the perps would come forward and brag about it? Again, the only direct "witness" to covert surgery is Humes himself as recorded by the FBI. We now have Horne reporing that Robinson was witness to Humes taking a saw to Kennedy's head -- don't know what to make of this because Horne infers that this is prior to the start of the official autopsy. More study needs to be done. As an aside, I read an African American orderly at Bethesda saw someone take a hammer to Kennedy's skull -- don't recall where I read this and if there is any credibility to this. Anyone out there know anything of this?
The only argument you present that has any weight is that Kennedy's body was always attended by Powers et al., so it could not have been stolen. Well, if Kennedy's body shows up in a shipping casket 20 minutes before the Dallas casket reaches the Bethesda Morgue, then neither you, nor I, nor Powers, knows how and when the body was obtained, but that obtained surreptiously it most certainly was. We may never know how and when. Or maybe we will. Godfrey McHugh is a good example of a man who claimed always to have been with the Dallas casket. But when interviewed, he hadn't the slightest idea how the handlles on the Dallas casket were damaged. Yet damaged they were. It is very dangerous to lean too heavily on testimony that continual vigilence was exercised with regard to the Dallas casket. One because it is possible there is significant CYA going on; and second, there is always the possibility that the casket was being attended at some point by the perps whose job it was to steal the body.
I think Best Evidence deserves a much more careful reading than your web site suggests you have done. While you are at it, I would recommend Horne's 5 volumes as well. Best, Daniel
-
Batter up, Jimbo!
Jim,
On what basis did you make the claim to me that "You don't even know how many manuscripts Weisberg wrote."
What facts did you have that support that claim?
Of did you just make that up?
Because if you just made that up out of thin air (as we both know damn well you did) then you're no better than anyone else that you accuse of making things up.
So step to the plate, Jim DiEugenio, explain yourselve.
Todd
You know the above--the union of DVP and LIfton, (with Lifton's acolyte Gallup)-- is is the proof of what Lee Farley and Roger Feinman have maintained for decades.
For the purpose of creating a premise for a book, Lifton joined forces with the WC backers.
So here, when DVP utters one of his usual banal and hoary inanities about the autopsy report, LIfton jumps in and says, "You are right Davey and you will always defeat people like DIEugenio with that argument."
I really don't know whether to laugh or cry at such an exchange. And I don't know what is worse. DVP quoting from one of the most discredited documents in this case, or Lifton upholding it. DVP using the testimony of a man who is a proven xxxx (Humes) or Lifton (and, of course, Gallup) upholding him.
Davey, did you not hear about Dr. Canada telling Michael Kurtz about the autopsy report being rewritten to deny the avulsive blow out in the back of the head which dozens of people, including Canada, were witness to? Maybe Lifton (and, of course, Gallup) does not like this because its not in his book? But the fact is, one does not need Best Evidence to completely discredit the autopsy in this case.
And DVP knows this since he went spastic when Part Four of my Bugliosi series appeared. Where I did just that without using BE.
BTW, Davey, in addition to the blow out at the rear of the skull, you may want to refer to the shameful directions by Baden to Ida Dox to insert the raised ridges in the phony rendition of the back of the head drawing--which we have in his own writing. You know, that rendition that your hero VB used without telling anyone about Baden's skullduggery?
But Lifton will say, "Good job VInce, that defeats DiEugenio every time. And that is cool since its not in my book either."
Wow. What a sorry spectacle.
-
Jim,
I see, you now can’t bring yourself to address your post to me. Can’t say I blame you.
Once again you floated a bogus claim about the case that there was a "lack of a real attempt a full photographic reconstruction of the motorcade"”
I simply pointed out that there in fact has been a “real attempt a full photographic reconstruction of the motorcade”. I even provided you the link to that full photographic reconstruction of the motorcade.
But I see that gets your panties in a bind.
You don’t have to like it, or agree with it, or even understand it (btw, when’s you refutation of it coming out over on CTKA?), but don’t sit top your high-horse and mislead your readers by claiming one has never been done. That’s just plain DisEugenious.
Then you have the audacity, in a reply to my post, to ask “Dale” five questions when you can’t even answer one of mine?
Rather cowardly, don’t you think?
Jim, how many times do I have to ask you, on what basis did you make the claim that I didn’t know anything about Weisberg’s manuscripts? What was your basis for saying that?
Or, like I think, did you make it up?
Prove me wrong.
Todd
From Dale Myers:
The importance of the HSCA’s acoustic evidence cannot be over emphasized. It is the only hard, physical evidence ever offered in support of a conspiracy over the course of the nearly four-and-a-half decade assassination debate. Without it, there is no credible reason to believe that anyone other than Lee Harvey Oswald fired shots at the Kennedy motorcade.
Oh really Dale?
1. How about the switching of whatever projectile was found at Parkland for that shiny MC Western Cartridge bullet that we now call CE 399? This in itself, in the Warren COmmissions' own terms, proves Oswald did not fire what became CE 399.
2. How about the funny 6.5 mm fragment that is obvious as a candle in a pumpkin (to use Mili Cranor's figure), yet no one saw the night of the autopsy but which Russ Fisher used to elevate the rear skull wound?
3. Which leads us to the fact that this bullet split in three leaving the middle in the rear skull while the front and back hurtled forward through the head and ended up coming out the right front and into the car. What, did the rear of the bullet elevate itself miraculously to pass up the middle? I call this Magic Bullet Number 2.
4. What about CE 543 which was not fired that day?
5. How about the fact that John Stringer did not take the photos of whatever brain is in the National Archives today?
Recall, this is the guy who got on National TV for his good pal Gus Russo and Peter Jennings and said that the Single Bullet Theory was not a theory but a fact.
Without saying that CE 399 was not even found at Parkland!
Heavy Set, Middle-Aged Man Put in Police Car …
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Todd W. Vaughan
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.