Denny Zartman

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?

Hi Vince! Congratulations on such great early reviews. I plan on getting your soon and look forward to it. "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda" is one of my most dog-eared and marked up JFK books I own, and that's saying something. There's probably no one that knows more about the Secret Service, and how it relates to the assassination than you, so I expect your usual attention to detail.

Fascinating, thank you for the tip on this book. I'll plan on ordering it soon. I'm interested in the tales of foreknowledge, so I've always wanted to learn as much as possible about the Odio story.

Here's my review, take it as you will. - I suppose that I’ve read worse JFK books, and I can definitely say it’s shorter than “Reclaiming History.” But “I Was A Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak” is ultimately a shallow, superficial examination of the JFK assassination that I doubt I’ll be returning to as a reference work, even if just to examine the viewpoints of those people that believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. It seems that there is no index to the current edition. Until an index is hopefully included in a future edition, I would recommend to anyone interested to purchase the electronic version over the printed version in order to be able to search the text. I didn’t get a good first impression with the sample downloaded from Amazon. The opening chapter is a bit of a conservative political polemic with very little in regards to facts about the JFK assassination itself. There are a few jabs at “leftists” throughout the book, but not as many as I expected from something that begins with such a strong political slant. The book can essentially be split into three main sections: The first is a recounting of the Jim Garrison investigation and Garrison’s homophobia. The second section mainly concerns the homophobic content of Oliver Stone’s 1991 film “JFK”. The third criticizes the Canadian Broadcasting Company for… I’m not sure. Producing multiple specials on the JFK assassination on a semi-regular basis? The author believes Oswald acted alone, so naturally he disagrees with the conclusions of much of the CBC’s work. Yet the information presented here isn’t new at all and in my opinion has been showcased better and in greater detail in other books that support the lone gunman thesis. The author appears to put a lot of credence in the work of the HSCA as he often seems to cite their evidence and research as authoritative, while simultaneously dismissing their ultimate verdict of probable conspiracy – the conclusion that stands as of this writing in 2018 as the official opinion of the United States government regarding the death of John F. Kennedy. Two clearly false statements in the text (claiming that Oswald was the only Texas School Book Depository warehouseman missing, and that Jack Ruby didn’t ask Earl Warren to be taken back to Washington, D.C. to testify further) make me suspicious about the author’s dedication to accuracy. It seems the author says that there are no problems with the chain of evidence for CE 399, a.k.a. the so-called “Magic Bullet.” The question of Lee Harvey Oswald’s motive is neatly skipped over near the beginning, in a footnote, and, from what I could tell, was never addressed again. Location 324 and 335: That's it. Those are the hard facts that Mr. Litwin accepts as realistic regarding Oswald's motivation. He seems to believe that the entire case for Oswald's act of presidential assassination likely lies in a newspaper he "most probably" read, and anti-Castro plots he "might have been aware of." "Strictly by chance" he struck a blow for the revolution... a blow which he cleverly denied with every breath. What kind of revolutionary strikes a blow so great and significant as the death of a US president, and then decides to try and keep it a secret? Someone who cleverly made it known to acquaintances and investigators before and after the assassination that he held no special animosity for the president, that's who. httNothing irritated me about the Presidentp://www.maebrussell.com/Mae Brussell Articles/Last Words of Lee Oswald.html Moving on... In the book, there were no references that I could see about Umbrella Man or Dark Complexioned Man. There’s but one mention of George de Mohrenschildt’s name, and that is only in reference to a Warren Commission document. There’s absolutely no discussion at all about de Mohrenschildt and his significance in Oswald’s life. Of the many omissions in this book, I believe this is one of the most significant. There seem to be no mention of apparent incidences of foreknowledge by such figures as Sylvia Odio, Joseph Milteer, Rose Cheramie, Richard Case Nagell, Lillian Spingler, or Eugene Dinkin. It appears that witnesses such as Julia Ann Mercer and Acquilla Clemons are mentioned once each, and only in passing. None of their observations are summarized, much less challenged. From what I can see, there is no mention of other important assassination figures like Seth Kantor, Charles Givens, Jean Hill, Dave Powers, Kenneth O’Donnell, Helen Markham, Domingo Benavides, Dr. Charles Carrico, Dr. Charles Crenshaw, Dr. Kemp Clark, Dr. James Humes, Dr. Thornton Boswell, Lt. Col. Pierre Finck, or Admiral George Burkley. I believe the reader can determine for themselves what the absence of these witnesses says about the depth of research and information presented in this book. I think I learned one new tidbit of ultimately meaningless information regarding a censored telegram, but otherwise I can’t think of anything that was truly new. The worst part is that the author never articulates what made him believe in a conspiracy when he was younger, and then he never describes how his thinking evolved into believing that Oswald acted alone. That was a part I was interested in reading about, and most disappointed to find wasn’t really there. So, if you’re the type of person that feels the need to grind your axes against Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and the CBC, this is the book for you. If you’re really looking for something substantial and fair-minded about the JFK assassination, you might want to consider some other options first.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Featured_The_Bay_of_Pigs_Thing.html

Why do I have to repeat this? The point is not what Ruby wanted to tell them. The point is that you said the claim that Ruby asked to be taken to Washington did not have a "scintilla" of truth to it.. Please let me repeat that. In your book you said that the claim that Ruby wanted to go to Washington to testify didn't have a "scintilla of truth" to it. That is just plain wrong. The reality is that Ruby did repeatedly ask to be taken to Washington, and everyone knows it. Why are you arguing otherwise, seriously?

It sure is funny how his name seems to come up for discussion so often then, huh? Just bad luck on his part, I suppose!

The sad thing is that I tried to give you multiple opportunities to discover the error on your own. Instead of opening your own copy of your own book and searching for the name, you just insisted that you were right, when in reality you were wrong. So I'll pose the question to you once again, because I'm genuinely curious: If you are unfamiliar with the contents of your own JFK assassination book, why should anyone care what you have to say about the JFK assassination?