W. Tracy Parnell

15 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

If you compare Witt's HSCA testimony to the Umbrella Man's actions

in the Zapruder film, you will see Witt is a fake. It's as simple as that.

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?

11 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Hi Tracy,

Are there any pictures of anyone else protesting one of JFK's public appearances in a way similar or identical to Louie Steven Witt, aka Umbrella Man's alleged protest (holding up an umbrella in JFK's presence on a non-rainy day)?

Not to my knowledge.

9 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

It is bizarre how Witt describes the statements he allegedly heard spoken by a woman and DC Man, yet Witt also claims that he didn't know JFK was even shot until after he got back to his workplace.

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.

13 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

He was clearly impersonated on the phone.

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.

2 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

bump for Parnell

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.

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Parnell is so funny on this and he doesn't even know it.

The presentation was not to Morley, it was to Paramount and they accepted it.  Even without Morley.

And guess what, you are not going to like it Tracy.

 It might even give Davey a stroke, so I should warn him in advance: get on some meds.

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

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It's people like Jim DiEugenio and Tink Thomson who've kept this case so muddled for decades that the genuine conspiracy facts can't get more traction.

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.  

4 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

You're begging the question.

If the police find a murder weapon in your home does it mean you're the killer?

If physical evidence found with the body proves there was a second shooter, then it's a conspiracy.

You're claiming that possibly planted evidence is dispositive while ignoring the actual physical evidence found with the body.

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.

1 minute ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Sure it does.  You don't know if CE399 struck Kennedy; you don't know if the MC was used to kill Kennedy.

Both could have been planted.

The only extant physical evidence found with the body is the clothing, with bullet holes too low to associate with the throat wound.

It's your chronic intellectual dishonesty on this subject I find egregious.

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? 

33 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I cite facts that destroy your pet theory, and you resent it.

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.

21 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

The only extant physical evidence found with the body is JFK's clothing.

To claim otherwise is a Big Lie.

Parnell, how do you expect a civil discussion when you make stuff up?

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

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

Can LN's understand and admit that there's a problem with the chain of evidence for some key pieces?

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.

1 hour ago, Denny Zartman said:

LN's also rely a lot on witness statements as well.

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 :))

1 hour ago, Cory Santos said:

Testimony in a court is very important.  We do not throw it away.

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.

7 hours ago, François Carlier said:

What they told me about witnesses really had an impact on me.
They explained to me that whenever they go to a crime scene, people don't remember the same things. And the discrepancies can sometimes be huge !

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.

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

helped Tracy expose the "missing LHO birth certificate" silliness …

For those who are unaware of what Lance is referring to:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

4 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Do you have any other ideas what it could have been?

I ask because you said "if anything".  Certainly it was something correct? So other than a radio, what else do you think it could have been?

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.

3 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

So, you agree in a perfect world it would have been disclosed.

Why do you feel that?  

 If it is imperfect and not provided, doesn't that automatically make it imperfect and inherently wrong regardless of the intention? 

A perfect world is right and where we want to be correct?  Especially when talking about whether someone or group of people were murders?

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.

5 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

He probably did have a radio. 

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

18 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

Can you admit, going back to my response, that it is inherently wrong to prejudice an investigation when a persons reputation is at stake and a nation is waiting to accept the findings as proof, regardless if the reason was innocent or embarrassing?  Can you admit it is inherently wrong regardless of the intentions of those who corrupt the investigation?

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.

1 hour ago, Ray Mitcham said:

And strange they were standing just where the yellow lines had been newly painted on the Elm St freeway curbs. Another amazing coincidence?

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

48 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

As I've pointed out - they compared photos from 1978 to photos taken in 1963. Are you suggesting that Witt didn't change a bit in those 15 years? Not even his hair?

Looks like his hair got a little greyer, but no-he didn't change that much.

49 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

But I bet there are thousands of people in America who resemble him if all you have to compare them to is a grainy photo.

But those thousands of people who could resemble him were not working in Dallas and living in Dallas as he was.

50 minutes ago, Mathias Baumann said:

And, come to think of it, he wasn't even sure if it was the right umbrella? You don't find that suspicious?

No.

44 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I did not say any such thing.

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?

10 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Newsweek is a left wing journal?

When did that happen?

Also , I guess you did not read his book before last.

He called Oswald the assassin.

That is how he gets printed.  Same as with the late Alexander Cockburn. We will let you write about almost anything, as long as you say Kennedy was killed as the WC says it happened.

 

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

1 minute ago, Mathias Baumann said:

So basically you simply trust his word?

By the way: Did the HSCA ever try to identify the Dark Complected Man? He could've corrobarated Witt's statement. And he was a suspicious character in his own right, in my opinion.

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.

6 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 Tracy, Morley is not employed by the W Post anymore or did you not know that?

And the CIA, and Brett Kavanaugh used that against him to screw Lesar out of his fees.

Do you really think the Post would let him run his web site if he was still on their payroll?

I mean I know Spielberg and Hanks think they were a bunch of courageous truth tellers, but that was a fairy tale.  Do you also read the Grimm brothers?

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?