W. Tracy Parnell

Or perhaps you see an example of the documented phenomenon of eyewitness fallibility. Especially considering he was speaking 15 years after the fact. If the evil conspiracy sent Witt to testify and cover for the real TUM wouldn't they make sure he was coached well enough to make his testimony match the Zapruder film? Otherwise, why bother?

Not to my knowledge.

The woman said "those people" and the DCM said "them folks." Witt probably couldn't imagine that it was the President who had been shot-nor could millions of other Americans who were stunned by the news. Speaking of being stunned, I am amazed that this is still a subject of interest here. If you look at Jerry Organ's graphic, it is obvious that Witt was indeed TUM. Sitting here and micro analyzing his statements isn't going to change that fact.

IF LHO was impersonated it was likely by the CIA to gather information about him. See Morley's book on Win Scott for a description of a similar operation. If the CIA did the impersonation, it would clear up the whole Mexico City thing IMO. After all, if LHO were an agent or asset the CIA wouldn't need more information about him-they would know already what he was up to. And if the CIA was involved in this sort of impersonation, they would not want this information to become public lest it be misinterpreted as it pretty much has been for 50 plus years.

Actually, we agree to this extent-that physical evidence is the "best evidence" and preferable to witness statements as your source indicates. My only quibble is that no where in your source (or anywhere else in the universe that I know of) does it say all physical evidence must be found with the body or even at the scene. It must be accepted as evidence and that is what a judge does-decides what evidence is allowed in court. The "court" we are talking about, the WC, was a fact-finding body and not a legal proceeding. They evaluated the evidence and gave different weight to different pieces of evidence, which is analogous to what a judge does. As I said, you and other CTs are probably holding the JFK case to a higher standard and many do this out of a genuine admiration for JFK the man. That is understandable.

Not sure what you're talking about here? Is another Hollywood blockbuster in the mold of JFK the movie on the way?

Trouble in conspiracy land! I think the above illustrates why the CT folks can't get anywhere-because there is no consensus on a theory to present to anyone like Morley.

No, I just find your claim that all physical evidence has to be found with a body to be silly as well as inaccurate. Or perhaps you are holding the evidence in the JFK case to a different standard than is considered normal or usual. But maybe I am all wet, perhaps Lance or one of the other attorneys will chime in.

I sure wish you would cite the law or statute that says all physical evidence must be found "with the body". If I shoot someone and escape and later police find my gun at my house and use ballistics to connect it to the crime can it be used against me or not?

So, when will you be taking your irrefutable proof to someone like Morley who can make it available to the masses? Or are you just going to stay here forever and keep repeating yourself? This is the one thing that really bothers me is that people like yourself and Jim D. who believe in this "obvious" conspiracy don't do something.

Physical evidence doesn't have to be "found with the body."

I would refer you to Bugliosi's comments on the chain of custody and admissibility of evidence. I believe it was a good argument made by someone who would know. I agree. I would just add that in most instances the witness confirms other evidence and is not the sole source. You don't need Howard Brennan to convict LHO, you have other evidence. But it is nice to have a witness because people tend to believe them (unless they are CTs :))

I certainly agree. My problem is with theorists who seem to insist that every witness statement needs to be accounted for or explained. As you point out, they need to be evaluated within the context of the totality of the evidence. I also agree that it would have been preferable for the WC to have interviewed as many witnesses as possible.

This is one of the realities of life that CTs refuse to accept. Of course, the main reason they do is because the well known and documented physical evidence in this case supports the lone gunman theory. All they are left with is witness statements. And they believe that every witness statement is factual and must be accounted for. But professional investigators know better as you point out. Witnesses to the same event will vary wildly. And the fact is people simply lie for any number of reasons. As Jeremy Gunn said about eyewitness testimony: "You just cannot believe it. And I'll tell you something else that is even worse than eyewitness testimony and that is 35 year old eyewitness testimony." I mention his quote about 35-year-old testimony because it relates particularly to the mother of all "CIA-did-it" theories the H&L theory since that is the exact time-frame during which Armstrong was interviewing his "amazing" witnesses and believing everything they said.

For those who are unaware of what Lance is referring to: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

No, I haven't given it any thought and I don't know what it could have been for sure. But it could have been a transistor radio. If I thought there was any more available information on UM and DCM I might consider doing an article. But I think the information is pretty limited.

Well, I certainly don't expect the world to be perfect. I think they did the best they could do and assumed that many facts (such as CIA plots) would eventually become known. I am ok with that and understand the reasons behind it. But I think the WC essentially got it right.

To clarify, if he had anything, it may have been a transistor radio.

I think the CIA people (and RFK) felt that it was in the national interest to withhold the information. In a perfect world, everything would have been disclosed so I will agree to that extent. Just a clarification, the Witt article is by Ron Ecker not me.

Ray, what is the significance of this in your opinion?

Looks like his hair got a little greyer, but no-he didn't change that much. But those thousands of people who could resemble him were not working in Dallas and living in Dallas as he was. No.

Pardon me for misunderstanding. Perhaps you can clarify the issue. What exactly is stopping you or anyone here from taking your "proof" of conspiracy to Jefferson Morley who has written two books which indicate he is open to being convinced about a conspiracy to kill JFK?

No, I read that. So, he is essentially being controlled by the plotters. Thanks for the answer.

I just went back and reread his testimony recently. I am trying to figure out how there is anything suspicious in what he said. He told them where he worked and the route he took to get there. He showed the umbrella, which may or may not be the right umbrella (a fact that he admitted). But the clincher for me is the photos-the shape of his face, the hair is exactly right. I don't see anything to the UM thing and I also don't know why an assassination team (had there been one) would need him or anyone to signal them. In short-it is a dead issue IMO in 2018. The DCM was never identified. He was probably carrying a transistor radio. If he or the UM had been a part of any assassination team, they would have gotten out of there fast instead of sitting down. But they did sit down because they were stunned by what they had seen. I see nothing unusual in any of this. It is unfortunate that they were not investigated by the WC, but they were operating within time and budgetary constraints.

Yes, Jim I know that. He is out writing for any number of left-wing sites. The fact that he is free-lance now only makes a stronger argument for him being able to speak out in any way that he chooses. So, my question stands-how do you explain Morley who is apparently sympathetic to the CT cause and would be happy to write about a conspiracy that is easily provable according to the folks here? You have your man in the media-or could it be that he doesn't agree with some theories? Or is it that there is no consensus CT theory to present to him?