Denny Zartman

I'm curious. Is there any evidence of anyone else protesting JFK with an umbrella in this manner at any of JFK's other public appearances when it wasn't raining?

On 10/12/2018 at 5:49 PM, David Von Pein said:

Of course not. Why are you suggesting such a silly thing?

When did I ever even hint at such a ridiculous belief? Please show me.

Sure.

On 10/12/2018 at 5:18 AM, Ray Mitcham said:

If Tague was hit by the third bullet as suggested by the Warren report, it must have been a fourth shot which blew the hole in the President's head.

Or are they suggesting that the third shot hit his head then may have  then ricoched to hit Tague?

On 10/12/2018 at 5:22 AM, David Von Pein said:

Yes, of course that's what the WC was suggesting. I've suggested it in the past as well --- although I still favor the first [missed] shot striking the Main Street curb and Tague.

The Commission, however, wasn't suggesting that the WHOLE head-shot bullet went on to possibly strike Tague. Merely a fragment of that bullet. (And remember that more than half of that bullet was never recovered.)

?

It seems like you're saying that the shot that hit also produced a fragment that made a mark on the curb near Tague and then bounced and hit Tague on the face, but that shot was the shot that the WC called a missed shot, wasn't it?

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

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.

CT's can understand that. Can LN's understand that evidence can be faked and planted? Can LN's understand and admit that there's a problem with the chain of evidence for some key pieces? If LN's are going to rely solely on evidence, why do they wave away any problems with the chain of evidence as immaterial?

Of course some witnesses recall things differently, but that doesn't discount the usefulness of witness testimony. With as many people claiming to be lawyers on this forum, that truth should be evident. If someone stole my purple hat, and I call a detective, and the detective finds multiple witnesses all saying they saw someone with a purple hat in their hands running up Main street and going into the orange building, the detective doesn't get to go back to the police station and shrug her shoulders and say "Sorry, I have no leads whatsoever. That hat is as good as gone." IT would be foolish to admit otherwise.

LN's also rely a lot on witness statements as well. Helen Markham was the most prominent witness relied upon for the Tippit killing, and one of the WC's own investigators admitted that she was a "goofball." But that doesn't stop LN's from believing her and other witnesses. They just accept the ones that support their version of events and discount the ones that don't. Acquilla Clemons, who was NOT called a "goofball" by the WC's own staff, and who says she WAS pressured to keep quiet about what she had seen, is conveniently ignored, and Markham unquestioningly accepted.

LN's also seem to completely ignore any witnesses that say they were pressured to change their stories because the investigators had already decided on their conclusion - the same conclusion arrived at just a few hours after the assassination.

7 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, of course that's what the WC was suggesting. I've suggested it in the past as well --- although I still favor the first [missed] shot striking the Main Street curb and Tague.

The Commission, however, wasn't suggesting that the WHOLE head-shot bullet went on to possibly strike Tague. Merely a fragment of that bullet. (And remember that more than half of that bullet was never recovered.)

Are you seriously suggesting that one of the shots at JFK both hit AND missed?

You can't have a shot that hit the target and had a fragment come off, and then call that shot a miss as well.

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.

8 hours ago, Rick McTague said:

Just read both interviews on JFK Countercoup2 with Tosh Plumlee.  He offers insights into Roselli, Nicoletti and others and their involvement in the Dealey Plaza operation.

He sounds reasonable and credible in these interviews; maybe they are old news here but it was sure new to me.  Connections with military intelligence abound.  Roscoe White being in Hawaii when LHO was there.  LHO present at the "Illusionary Warfare Training at Nagshead, North Carolina in 1959 prior to him going to language school and going to Russia."  Both White and LHO undergoing jungle warfare training.  His view of the assassination from the south knoll, after he and his partner Sergio searched the site for sniper teams.  My only wish is that there was a plat of Dealey Plaza where he could point out where he was, and where the three shooting teams were.  Each team consisting of a spotter, shooter and breakdown man.  He smelled gunpowder at the south knoll.

Much good information here that helps round out what happened that day.

Thanks

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.

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Cory,

But what possible purpose do you think Dark Complected Man served in the overall conspiracy plot? You certainly don't think he was an actual shooter, right? So why was his presence on Elm Street even needed at all?

I've never quite understood where CTers think they can go with their speculation about DCM or Umbrella Man. They're not doing anything but standing there on the street watching the motorcade. So, WHY do they need to even be in Dealey Plaza if they're not the shooters? Signal men? What for? Why would that be necessary at all?

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?

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

You misunderstood my Whac-A-Mole analogy.  I was simply saying that the conspiracy mindset operates in such a way that the issues, real or imaginary, are never-ending.  As soon as one conspiracy truism is shown to be false, 15 new ones pop up.  Typically, 15 new ones pop up before the first one has been shown to be false because conspiracy theorists start moving the goalposts as soon as the discussion goes awry for them.  "Oh, yeah, well about what THIS?" is their mantra.  Conspiracy theorists observe every event with an electron microscope, typically losing sight of the event itself and how the event fits into the assassination as a whole.

As a lawyer, I know the game.  There's an old joke that a lawyer has to be able to talk for hours about a door knob while completely ignoring the fact that it's attached to a door that is itself attached to a house.  This is essentially what conspiracy theorists do.  Never mind the damn house!  Never mind the damn door!  HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS DOOR KNOB UNLESS THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY TO PUT IT THERE?

What I said was that if someone chooses to engage with the conspiracy community in the manner that DVP for example has done, he must accept that he will forever be playing Whac-A-Mole.  This is true regardless of whether the "moles" are legitimate or fanciful, whether they are genuine problems for the whacker's beliefs or utterly fanciful.  It's simply true that the Conspiracy Theory Game is analogous to Whac-A-Mole.  I don't have the energy for this and frankly don't see the purpose unless someone just enjoys playing Whac-A-Mole, but some people do and DVP is certainly very good at it.

 

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.

52 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

For 50+ years?

There has to be this perpetual back and forth over issues that intellectually were settled in 1966?

It's an asymmetrical discussion when one side makes stuff up.

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.

On 10/9/2018 at 12:01 AM, Cory Santos said:

I think that when we hear people vilify conspiracy talk or conspiracists even though there is logic, science, or facts to some extent supporting their belief, psychologically, its really simple.  Conspiracy talk makes them uncomfortable.  They cant handle it.  That people are out there conspiring to do something.

Psychologically, they want to go back to when they were children and feel safe. 

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.

On 10/8/2018 at 5:49 PM, Denis Morissette said:

This is what Hugh also told me.

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?

On 9/23/2018 at 6:03 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

It must have been quite a large chunk of brain matter for Couch to have recognized it. I mean, how does one recognize brain matter without the folds?

 

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

3 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Denny,

 

You can find an FBI interview of Mary Dowling here:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57742&search=Dobbs_House#relPageId=34&tab=page

She said that Oswald was in the restaurant at around 10:00 AM on November 20th (which would be hard to do if he was working), and that J.D. Tippit was there.

 

Steve Thomas

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.

20 hours ago, Ken Rheberg said:

 

Denny,

Could you give us an update on how your efforts are going in obtaining a PDF document of Couch's 2007 oral history from the Sixth Floor Museum?  If you've changed your mind for any reason about doing this, then let us know and I'll be glad to step in and request a copy.  On the other hand, if you're in the process of proceeding as you indicated above, please indicate what Couch had to say about the "brain matter" (mistakenly called a "pool of blood" by Belin) that he saw that day. Hopefully, this will answer some questions and clarify how his story fits in with the stories of Jerry Coley and Jean Hill.  It could also open up a whole new, but fascinating, can of worms.

Ken

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.

4 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Why would a secret service man want to know if there was another way out fo the building? Strange.

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

Quote

A technician came to the desk and asked me to expect a private patient who was bleeding.

...

Blood technicians came to ask me who "Mr. X" was who did not have an ER number. Hematology also came with the same problem and was told the same thing.

WC Hearing Volume 21, Pg 259, Parkland hospital administrator Charles Price:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=283&tab=page

Quote

While talking with Mrs. Nelson, one of the Secret Service men who had been bruised or had a minor injury came to me and asked if there was another way out of the building.

Deleted pictures.

16 hours ago, Ken Rheberg said:

 

Malcolm Couch has two oral histories archived at the Sixth Floor Museum.  One was taken in 1989, the other in 2007.  The latter addresses, in detail, the pool of blood issue .  A 40 page PDF document of this history can be obtained for a relatively small charge.  I don't have my copy yet, but I plan to obtain one soon.  I hope it clears up many questions that you and others have about this subject.  It's extremely important, in my opinion.  I don't believe David Belin did a very good job of making clear for all of us down through the years what Couch was trying to say.

 

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.

8 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Testimony of Malcolm Couch

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/couch.htm

Mr. BELIN - This pool of blood - about how far would it have been north of the curbline of Elm Street as Elm Street goes under the expressway?
Mr. COUCH - I'd say - uh - well, from Elm Street, you mean, itself?
Mr. BELIN - Yes. This is from that part of Elm Street that goes into the expressway? 

Mr. COUCH - I'd say - uh - 50 to 60 feet, and about 10 to 15 feet from the corner of the Texas Depository Building.
Mr. BELIN - It would be somewhere along that park area there?
Mr. COUCH - Right.

Mr. BELIN - Was there anything else you noticed by this pool of blood?
Mr. COUCH - No. There were no objects on the ground. We looked for something. We thought there would be something else, but -
Mr. BELIN - There was nothing?
Mr. COUCH - Huh -uh.

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:

Quote

I was in the advertising department. I usually got there about 8 o clock. We had a little cafeteria, and on Friday I would go down and my cohort that handles food and drug advertising with me, Don Campbell, he and I usually would meet for coffee. And on Fridays, usually Jack Ruby would come in to place his weekend advertising, and he would join us for coffee, and that Friday morning he did, on November 22, about 8 o clock or so. 

When I got there he was in the cafeteria with Don Campbell, they were having coffee. I sat down with them, and Jack was his usual self. He liked to talk about his strippers and how tough he was, and he flashed his brass knuckles that he had in his suit coat, and bragged about toughness. But he usually came in and he placed his weekend advertising on Friday with our department for his strip joint there, along with another nightclub he owned, and he always paid in cash, and he kept the money rolled up in his pocket, and, uh, he always bragged about the money he had and about the gun he carried under the front seat of his car, but, it was a normal morning. And I left the coffee shop I guess and came on in to my office and left my office about 9 o’clock to go out and make my advertising calls.

I came back into the office probably sometime after 11 o’clock, and Jack Ruby was still sitting at John Newman’s desk, who sat directly behind me, John handled the downtown advertising where his club was.

About 11:30 or so I got Charlie Mulkey, one of my advertising friends, and we went down to the personnel office to redraw some parking spaces they were doing that day, and then walked three and a half blocks over to try and get a good spot on the corner of Main and Houston to watch the parade as it come by and turn there.

We couldn’t get that spot on the corner of Main and Elm, it was already too crowded, so we moved down about half way down Houston street, from the corner of Main, between Main and Elm. Front of the county jail there, and they were just unloading a No Parking sign set in a big concrete bowl there, so I got up on that concrete so I could see over the crowd, and had a good view.

And just about a few minutes, about 12:15, 12:20 by then, across the street on Houston, on the sidewalk, in front of this reflecting pool that’s there, a man had an epileptic fit. And I remember him writhing around on the ground, and just almost out of nowhere, here come this ambulance, turn the corner off, loaded the man in there, and then took off down Houston street, over the Houston street viaduct toward Methodist hospital, we supposed. And the thing I remember so much about it now, then was that of all the documentaries that we’ve seen on JFK that I have, and the shows, there’s only been one that depicted that thing that happened and I was really impressed by that particular show.

But in any case, right after that happened, within seemed like two or three minutes, the parade came, and passed by in front, and I remember Jackie waving and seeing the president.

And as they turned the corner on Elm street, in front of us was just a half a block down, and started down that Elm street in front of the book depository, we heard all these noises, and I couldn’t tell you to this day, I couldn’t then were there was one shot, ten, or five or whatever. It was just an echoing noise. To me it was no definite gunshots and I did not recall any three shots, it was echoing so.

In any case, I crossed Houston street between some parade cars, over to that reflecting pool, and I could see people running down towards the grassy knoll and the railroad tracks, so I started down the esplanade which part of it runs parallel to the book depository down towards that fence. And down when I got nearly to the fence, a policeman in brown, we called them county Mounties in Dallas, at that time stopped me. And he had a shotgun. And Charlie was behind me, and he said “Where do you guys think you’re going?” and we said “We’re going back to where all these people are running,” which was back towards the fence and the parking lot, or that area on top of the grassy knoll. He told us to get the hell out of there, so Charlie I guess left me at that point. I don’t know where he went, but I went ahead and started down that esplanade, made a left, started down towards the side, the picket fence corner there, and at the top of those steps that go down the grassy knoll. And it was there that I saw people laying all over and the median grass between there, couple motorcycles up on the, laying on the side of the hill, people and police running up towards the picket fence, to the right of me. I looked down at the top of those steps before you take the top step, there was a huge puddle that I thought was blood.

So, I walked on down, around it, down the steps, and I saw people in the median between Main and Elm, laying on the grass, people crying, I looked back and I could still see people headed all around the grassy knoll, in that area. And no one was going towards that book depository, that, no one. There was no one headed in that direction. So I rushed on back to the News to see if I could find out something. And as I come in the door, by then it must have been quarter to one, maybe. Maybe a little bit later than that.

Jack Ruby was still at Newman’s desk. And I said to someone that Connelly might have been shot, and maybe even the president. I remember Jack Ruby jumped up then and ran back to our corner office. Dick Jefferies at that time was at that time our promotion director. He ran in to his secretary’s desk there. He could look out the window directly down at that assassination site. And I remember him on the phone crying and talking.

Well, about that time I saw Jim Hood, who was our ad department photographer, and I went up to him and I said “Jim, I think I’ve seen some blood or something down there where all this stuff took place.” And he said “Well let me get my camera, we’ll go back down there.” So he got his camera and we went, rushed back down there. It was probably 1 or a little after by then. And everyone was gathered up around the book depository then.

We came up to this blood area, which now was all crinkly, like it had coagulated a little. And he put his little pinky on his right hand into that, and he stuck his tongue to it, and he said, “Why, that’s blood.” And he made a photo with his reflex camera.

We came on back to the News. And of course, we heard then that the president had been shot. And all this, so.

It was Sunday, I guess, when I was home then watching television as they were getting ready to transfer Oswald from the city jail to the county jail. And when Jack Ruby stepped forward, with that hat on he had, and that dark suit, I recognized him instantly as he was shot him [sic].

Well, I come into the office Monday morning, and Hugh Aynesworth who was a news reporter was there talking to Don. And Don turned around and said “Coley there was at breakfast with me, and me and Jack, and we all sat there and talked that morning.” And I said “Let’s go back over Jim, this morning and then look at that blood.” We went back over and then there was no stain that we found anywhere. And it was like someone had cleaned it off very thoroughly. And then I got busy and on my day of work that I had, nothing else happened until Tuesday.

The next morning when I came in and someone told me that Hugh Aynesworth in our Bulldog edition, which is printed up back, of back then about 9’o’clock, and they were printed for newsstands sale and downtown honor box sales. There was a story written by Hugh that said “Coley at the News had visited with Jack Ruby that morning.” Someone then showed me that edition. I looked at it and I said “Wow.”

It wasn’t thirty minutes later while I was preparing to go out, my wife called. And she was hysterical on the phone. And she said “I just received two threatening phone calls. They both have said if you don’t shut your mouth, they’re gonna kill me and our two kids,” a boy and a girl I had at the time. And I said, “What are you talking about?” She said “That’s what they said.” I said, “Ah, it’s some whack. I don’t know anything, I haven’t said anything.”

So I made my morning run and I got back probably about 10:30 that morning. At that time as I sat down to begin working on my ads, two men came up in dark suits. They kind of flashed a green ID card and said “We’re the FBI. Are you ‘Coley at the News’ that was mentioned in a story this morning?” And I said, “Well, I’m Jerry Coley.” They said, “Did you have Jack Ruby Friday morning?” And I said, “Yes, sir.” And they said “We want to talk in private.” So I said “Wait just a minute.”

So I went to the back of the room to our vice presidents office, and I said, “Sy, I’m scared. Would you verify who these people are?” So Sy Wagner came up, he said, “You sit down in my office, and I’ll go up talk to them.” He went up and talked with these two men, and he came back in, oh, a few minutes. And said “Jerry, they’re okay. Go ahead and talk to them.”

 So I, they said, “Where can we meet in private?” and I said “Oh, we got a conference room just up here in front of the room.” So they said, “Let’s go in there and talk.” So I went in and one of them, the taller guy, was doing all the questions. The other one was making, looked like shorthand, but I couldn’t tell what he was doing there for sure. And he asked me to talk about that morning with Jack Ruby. And I did, and about when I was down at the parade area, and then I said “I want to ask you a question.” And the guy taking notes said “Wait a minute, we’re not here to answer questions, we’re here to ask,” in a rough kind of way. And I said, “Well, it’s about some blood I saw there.” Right away the man interviewing said “Tell me about this blood.”

So I told them what I’d seen and that one of my advertising photographers had made a picture of it. And he said “Is he here now?” and I said “Yes, he’s he sits just outside the door here.” He said “Go get him, get his camera, his negatives, and any positives that he’s got and you come back in here.”

So I went up to Jim’s desk, and I said “Jim, can you please come in here with me and bring your camera and your negatives? Did you print that piece out?” And he said “I just printed out that photo this morning.” He said “You know I don’t have right way in that photographic lab. The newsroom has first priority. With all that’s been going on, I haven’t been able to print that picture,” he said “but I just did this morning.”

And I said, “Well, get it and come in here.” So he brought the camera, the negative, and the positive was in a brown envelope. The FBI man, we went in, and he introduced himself and they had us sit down. The FBI who was doing the question man took the negative and then he took the envelope and opened it up and looked at the print, and that was the first time I had seen the print, it was just a print of the blood stain there on the, or the blood there, on top of the steps. And he wanted to know if there were any more prints made. Jim said “No, I’ve just been able to make that one this morning.”

So then they turned and had some sort of muffled conversation between themselves, and it seemed like after an eternity as they stood there, probably 2 or 3 minutes, but the big guy stood up and then the other one did too. And he put everything in the bag, put it under his arm, then said “Boys, this conversation never took place, if you know what we mean.” And they walked out the door and left.

Jim and I sat in that conference room, and he said “What the hell is going on here? What have you gotten me into? and I said “Jim, I don’t know what’s going on. I just know that my wife’s been threatened. He said “What?!” I said “Yeah.” He said “Well, what are you saying?” I said “I’m not talking to anybody, Jim.”  He said “Then you should shut your mouth and I’m gonna shut mine. And let’s don’t talk about this blood mess anymore!” And I said “I won’t.”

Well, we didn’t.

Wasn’t long after that, a few days after that, I received a subpoena to Jack Ruby’s trial. And on the subpoena, which I still have, it’s addressed to “Coley at the News,” which I guess was taken from that news story that ran on that two star edition only.

Some, I don’t know when it was, in the 70s sometime after that, “Unsolved Mysteries”, an NBC production called and said “We would like to meet with you afterward and listen to your story about Jack Ruby that morning and your association with him.” And I said “Fine.”

And so they came that afternoon about 6. About 9 o’clock they took a short break and I called my wife to tell her we’re still going on and I said “You know what? Everybody that could corroborate my story about the blood now is dead. Jim Hood, Sy Wagner, Don Campbell.” I said “You know, we’ve never talked about it, and I just gotta tell somebody and to get it off, let it be open.” She panicked. She said “Don’t do that.” And I said “Well, you know if I talk about this, they’ll think, well at the worst I’m some kind of nut. Nobody’s going to believe me, but at least I told it.”

Well I did, and they nearly flipped out.

They said “We want to come back the next morning, we want to go over to where this happened, we want to.” And they did. I met them and we went over there.

This went on all morning long.

And finally they said “Okay, it’s a wrap. We’ll call you when we get back to California and give you the run show date for when we’re going to run this.”

Well, they called, seemed like two or three days later, and says “We can’t use that blood story. We couldn’t substantiate it.” And I said “I told you that when I told you the story. That’s why I told it to you.” So they said “Well we can only use the other part about Jack Ruby.”

Then after that I’ve been interviewed by the Japanese, out of Tokyo, Japan. They came over, talked. Of course, they had all kinds of wild theories.

I don’t advance a theory of what I’ve seen other than I know that what I saw, it scared me to death, I know my wife was threatened three times on the phone. For me to shut up, which I have, I haven’t said anything other than that story that Hugh had written about me talking with Jack Ruby that morning.

And I know that when this happened, I was there, I saw the people run towards that picket fence. No one ran towards the book depository. And that’s all I know first hand, sir.