Denny Zartman

I think many JFK researchers that were around when the Roscoe White story first broke feel burned by it and tend to think of it as yesterday's cold trail. I also think there's a chance that there was an organized and aggressive disinformation campaign to discredit the White story at the time it was breaking. It's unfortunate that what could have been a key witness in supporting part of the story did discredit himself by recovering some of his memories via hypnosis. At this point, I don't think an absolutely solid case can be made for White's involvement. It's too bad, because I personally believe that circumstantial evidence indicates Roscoe White was probably involved.

Plumlee, much like Oswald himself, was so eager to join the United States military, he applied before he was of legal age. He also continued to receive plum assignments in the 1980's. To me, he sounds less like a wannabe and more like a person who appears to be in a position to know. Hi Rick, this was a good find. Thanks for sharing it. I'd say that the idea that Plumlee was part of the operation but told that he was actually part of a counter-plot is plausible. The interview was an interesting read. I think I had read it a while ago, but the significance of some of the names didn't make the impact that they should have. And I probably dismissed it earlier because I don't believe there was a real "counter-plot" meant to stop the assassination, but recruiting certain members for compartmentalized functions and telling them that they're part of a counter-plot makes sense to me. From what I could tell Plumlee sounds believable, though that by itself proves nothing. That he seems to have been a career military man that was entrusted to high level jobs on into the '80's does speak toward his credibility, in my opinion. There are enough names and details in his story that it seems debunking it would be fairly easy. The way Plumlee described some elements of military intelligence and the Mafia to be so intertwined as to be almost interchangeable was noteworthy. Plumlee's explanation as to why and how the CIA would use the Mafia also makes sense. The CIA can provide co-ordination, plenty of assistance, and generous payments, and keep their hands clean by having the Mafia do the dirty work. The interview also helped put into perspective what could get lost to readers of today: back then, being part of a CIA "black ops" program wasn't some dastardly deed, but a coveted position that reflected positively to one's patriotism.

I listened to the episode last night. Good show overall. I had been feeling guilty lately for not spending time examining the James Files story. a little further I bought that confession tape way back in the '90's, and didn't find him believable. I have dismissed him for various reasons but nothing concrete, so I had been wondering if I should go back and reconsider Files. Savastano and Patrick seem to dismiss him as well, but didn't really go into detail about his claims. I was very interested in the story about John Henry Hill, a figure I was unfamiliar with. I found it especially interesting because I've been re-reading witness statements lately and seem to recall one or two people saying they saw Oswald in the company of a large man prior to the assassination, possibly at one of the rifle ranges where Oswald was allegedly practicing? I was planning on researching this further before bringing it to this forum.

Do you have any photographs or films that show anyone else protesting any of JFK's public appearances by holding up an open umbrella on a day where there is no rain?

I believe the reason that issues keep popping up is not because they are invalid, but because they were not satisfactorily answered back in the day or that there is other evidence that directly or indirectly contradicts those issues. Even if one believes that Oswald acted alone and there was a benign cover-up, the fact that there was a cover-up at all proves that we're dealing with an incomplete record. Some witnesses were bullied, some evidence was disposed of, some witnesses changed their stories from ones that seem to support a second shooter to one that was consistent with Oswald acting alone because those witnesses thought the Kennedy family just wanted to end the controversy. All of this adds up to an inherently incomplete record that we must now attempt to sort out. As I tried to point out in the Teenage Freak thread, just because a LN'er believes that they've come up with an "explanation" for a problematic issue, doesn't mean that the issue has been satisfactorily resolved or that their explanation is persuasive. Just because an LN comes up with an explanation of any sort doesn't mean they have actually whacked the mole, even though the LN might honestly think they have. As Cory pointed out upthread, some LN's refuse to concede any detail whatsoever. I'm sure some CT's are out there who are compelled to counter every point, but I believe most CT's acknowledge the unexplained and unresolved aspects of problematic issues being discussed, while LN's seem to tend to approach every issue A CT deems problematic as a mole that can be easily and repeatedly whacked away, because in the LN's minds there is no mystery about the JFK assassination (i.e. no moles at all.) I agree that many CT's focus in on obscure details while missing the larger picture, but the same charge can be applied to LN's. Vincent Bugliosi (arguably the most prominent author of LN literature)'s circular reasoning can be summed up as: "We can explain away any and all unexplained issues about the JFK assassination in a manner that lines up with the theory that Oswald acted alone, because we know Oswald acted alone." When you're guided by your conclusion like that and think that any significant issues that disagree with your conclusion can be hand-waved away or ignored entirely, that doesn't help anyone in the search for truth. LN's also like to focus in on a piece of evidence as if it existed in a vacuum and ignore the other circumstantial evidence out there that might cast doubt. To them, each issue is a game that they must win. Any serious and legitimate unanswered question is just a mole to be whacked before moving on to the next one.

We're only debating it because we choose to debate it. I'm not trying to argue with you at all. I always want to believe that there's a chance I might be wrong, so I'm willing to give some of my time to LN arguments. That's also in part to keep myself sharp on the details of the case. Debating the facts of this matter with those who passionately believe the opposite is intellectually stimulating at times. It's fascinating to know that CT's and LN's can look at so many of the same pieces of evidence, have entirely different opinions, and come to entirely different conclusions. I appreciate a vigorous counter-argument when sorting through the facts in a debate over a complex subject. I also appreciate the opportunity to discuss JFK books with their authors here on this forum. Thanks, forum people! I don't devote much effort to debating LN's, but I like to hear their perspective. When I'm looking for real answers that can help further my understanding of the conspiracy, no. I tend to find the most useful information for my personal research from CT's rather than LN's. Part of what I tried to say to the author of the book under discussion earlier in this thread is that, unfortunately for LN authors, Vincent Bugliosi's hefty tome has pretty much drained me hope that a Lone Nut advocate can offer much more useful new information and fresh analysis.

Hmm. I would guess that some of them can handle the talk about conspiracies. Why else would they return to debate the same set of facts again and again if it didn't hold some sort of appeal? Perhaps the appeal is in the game-like aspect of this debate that has been compared by some to "Whac-A-Mole." To me, the comparison is only apt if we realize that the person whacking the moles is also denying that there is a mole problem. When problems constantly come up for your case, perhaps that indicates your case has some problems. I think part of people's general opinions on the JFK conspiracy theorists are is that they've been exposed to some of the more dubious theories, and assume that most if not all CT's are guided by a pre-conceived conclusion. Admittedly, some are, but not all. There are people out there who are genuinely trying to sort out this puzzle. You'd think that with all these people thinking about all this evidence for all these years, we'd be able to get close to some objective truth, but in reality we can't even agree if Oswald could drive or not. While some CT's may be guided by a pre-conceived conclusion, there's no question that all LN's are also following their own pre-conceived conclusion: That Oswald did it all alone. CT's are often criticized for not having the same theory and not having all the answers, but the LN's can't even offer a credible and consistent motive for the accused assassin.

This thread is interesting reading, even though it has veered far off the original topic. I could easily respond to a dozen posts here and ask a dozen more questions on top of that, but I don't want to clutter things up. I appreciate those who think LHO acted alone. Even though I believe otherwise, IMHO this case deserves the most thorough examination possible. Only by determined advocacy of the opposing side can the facts be examined in the clearest light.

I have several problems with Hugh Aynesworth's reply. It assumes that Jerry Coley and Jim Hood, two adult men, one a professional photographer, could not tell the difference between soda pop and blood, especially with a broken glass bottle lying nearby. According to Coley, the spot was beginning to coagulate. Also, Hood tasted it and declared it to be blood. According to Coley, Aynesworth joined them the next day, not the day of the assassination. Coley says at that next-day visit with Aynesworth, the spot was completely gone. Even assuming that Coley and Hood couldn't visually tell the difference between soda and blood, or that it wasn't coagulating, or that Hood's taste buds went on a sudden fritz that made cherry or strawberry soda taste metallic and unflavored at that moment, why in the world would the feds come into the office, take away the photo of the puddle, and then bully the staff into silence? All that over a bottle of broken soda pop? Why would anyone repeatedly threaten the lives of Coley's family over a puddle of spilled soda?

When asked if he recognized it as such, Couch replies three times in the affirmative. He describes it as having a spiral twist to it and it being approximately 3.5 inches long. - Pgs. 19 - 20

Okay, I finally got the 2007 oral history. I would prefer to quote it directly, but the Museum seems pretty strict on what I can and can't do with it, and direct quotes seem to be on the no-no list. I'll try to summarize what I hope are all the relevant portions the best I can. - Couch believes only one person did the shooting in the JFK assassination, but doesn't seem to dismiss the possibility of other conspirators. - Pg. 11 Couch twice seems to indicate hearing at least four shots, but doesn't seem to realize the implications of that observation as it regards a single shooter. - Pgs. 6, 16 Couch indicates that the people questioning him about the assassination made him feel intimidated. - Pg. 23 Couch believes he might have seen the road pavement hit with one shot, but won't commit to that observation. It's unclear whether he observed a bullet in the process of hitting the pavement or he saw a mark on the road afterward. - Pg. 18 Couch recollects that he was in the fourth or fifth car behind the presidential limousine. The car was just beginning the process of taking the turn when the assassination occurred. At the second shot, whoever was sitting behind or beside Couch (possibly Bob Jackson) exclaimed something about seeing a rifleman in the TSBD window, and then Couch himself saw a glimpse of a barrel receding. Couch was able to jump off the car he was in as it was nearing the expressway. Couch then ran back toward the TSBD. Couch, standing in the center of the road, reports seeing a well-dressed man that he repeatedly describes as resembling someone that could possibly be member of a government agency rather than a regular office worker or a city sheriff, step off the sidewalk and pick up an approximately 3.5 inch section of brain material from the pavement. Couch then continued on to hitch a ride to the hospital to do further reporting.- Pg. 6, 23 Couch concedes the possibility that, prior to going to the hospital, he might have briefly followed the well-dressed man toward the area where he earlier reported seeing blood. - Pg. 22 Couch cannot explain why he didn't mention the brain material to the Warren Commission during his testimony. - Pg. 19 Couch is visibly surprised when reminded of his WC testimony about a pool of blood. He doesn't remember it at all. After a brief discussion, Couch says that his memory in the testimony given 6 months after the assassination is probably more accurate than his current memory 44 years later. - Pgs. 21 - 23 The interviewer characterizes the blood spot observed by Couch as to be nearer to the knoll and the parking area than the assassination site. (I can only assume that means the TSBD.) - Pg. 25

Thank you very much for the link, Steve. It seems Oswald didn't do a lot of work at his jobs. I seem to recall during his brief time at one (Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall?) he spent most of his time at the shop next door reading magazines.

Hi everyone, From what I understand, Dobbs House (a small restaurant on North Beckley Street in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas) waitresses Dolores Harrison and Mary Ada Dowling reported seeing Oswald as a regular customer and that he was once there at the same time as J.D. Tippit. All I can seem to find is a brief mention of Harrison and Dowling in WE HE Vol. 26 CE 3009. I can't locate the FBI statement from Dowling which apparently has more detail. Does anyone know where I might find it? Anyone have any insight or more information about the Dobbs House connection? Thanks!

I still haven't heard back from the Museum on my request. I'll keep everyone posted.

Hi Ken, I just spoke with the manager of the reading room at the Museum, and she said she would e-mail me with further information on how to order the oral history. Hopefully I'll be able to get it soon.

This is only a guess, but maybe he did not want his or someone else's injury to be seen by reporters? If Coley is to be believed, the FBI certainly didn't want any evidence of that blood pool's existence to be made public.

Here are two interesting bits of information. WC Hearing Volume 21, Pg 214, Parkland hospital nurse Bertha Lozano: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=238&tab=page WC Hearing Volume 21, Pg 259, Parkland hospital administrator Charles Price: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=283&tab=page

Deleted pictures.

Hi Ken, Is there a way to obtain a pdf of Couch's oral history online? From what I see, according to the Sixth Floor website, many of the oral histories aren't for sale and are only available to be examined in person at the museum.

Okay, for the purposes of discussion here, I'm going to refer to these liquids reportedly observed by Couch and Coley as "pools of blood", while acknowledging the possibility they were something else entirely. I still don't have a mental picture of exactly where the Couch pool of blood was seen. The area 50 or 60 feet north of the curb of Elm as Elm goes under the overpass seems to be in the railroad yards and parking area and is still at least 40 feet from the southwesternmost corner of the TSBD by my informal reckoning. The Coley pool of blood does seem to be about 50 feet north of the Elm curbline and would be described as being "somewhere along that park area there", but that area isn't under the overpass. I don't think there actually is a park area directly under the overpass anyway, so maybe I'm just overthinking this. I still want to try and be sure that we're not talking about two different pools of blood. Can anyone help clarify for me where they believe the Malcolm Couch pool of blood was?

Here's my transcript of the first part of the Jerry Coley interview linked above:

Thanks for the information. I didn't see Couch's oral history on the Sixth Floor Museum's YouTube channel. I will definitely look into getting a pdf of his interview soon as well. I am very curious, because from the WC testimony, he seems clear that it was fresh blood. From what I understand, brain fluid is closer to appearing like water than blood. And it's hard to imagine freshly spilled brains without an obvious body around. I'm not 100% clear on the location of what Couch saw as well. It's a fascinating topic, this pool, or pools, or trail, of blood or brains

Are we talking about the same pool of blood Jerry Coley reports seeing?

Interesting. Did that seem credible to you? Did Couch seem credible himself?

This is one of the many mysteries of the JFK assassination that fascinate me. It's my understanding that Jean Hill did not see the actual "sno-cone" but said she later heard that the red liquid she said she saw on the ground had been identified as sno-cone syrup. I believe Hugh Aynesworth is the reporter that "confirmed" this particular fact, if memory serves. I wonder if this pool of blood had anything to do with the rumors that a Secret Service agent had been killed, and/or A.J. Millican's statement of seeing someone hit in the leg?