Denny Zartman

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?

You addressed it briefly. I don't believe we've discussed it. You didn't try to argue that Oswald was the only missing warehouseman, you said he was the only one reported by Truly and the only one that mattered. You're right that he was the only one reported by Truly, but whether or not he was the only one that mattered is only your opinion. The fact is that Oswald was not the only missing warehouseman that day, and your claim that he was the only missing warehouseman is demonstrably and unequivocally false. This, for me, casts doubt upon your accuracy as an author.

What? He went through two trials, and lost the last one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt#Libel_suit:_Liberty_Lobby_and_The_Spotlight And there's this little matter, as well. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/the-last-confession-of-e-howard-hunt-76611/

I'll try and give your book a mini review soon. I have two pages of notes on it, and I'll be glad to share my thoughts.

I believe that there are least two false statements in your book. In Location 533 of your book you write, regarding Lee Harvey Oswald and the TSBD: Which is categorically false. You may want to accurately phrase it as "Oswald was the only missing warehouseman whose absence Roy Truly noted and the the only missing warehouseman whose address Roy Truly retrieved and immediately gave to investigators." But to say that Lee Harvey Oswald "was the only warehouseman missing" is just plain not true any way that you slice it, because Charles Givens was also not present in the TSBD at that time. The second false claim in your book is at Location 1168: There are the claims that, according to you, are without a "scintilla of truth" to them, quoted from your book, Locations 1135 and 1151: (I'd say that E Howard Hunt connects the CIA, the Bay of Pigs, Watergate and the Kennedy Assassination, but whatever.) The fourth claim of Schoenman "Jack Ruby, the man who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, pleaded with the Warren Commission to take him to Washington, D.C., because he couldn't tell the truth in Dallas" is entirely true and can't be argued as false. When you say that there isn't a "scintilla of truth" to it, that is an entirely false claim on your part.

You don't have any mention at all of David Chandler in your book, at least not in the kindle edition that I own, downloaded from Amazon about three days ago. A search for Chandler brings up zero results. It seems that you're thinking of reporter David Snyder. Am I correct? Your entire cite for this is a memo found in FBI files from David Snyder dated February 24, 1967. Is that right?

Do you believe a suicide note is a contract? You believe that when a person writes a suicide note and then fails to complete the act, even if they do indeed wind up dead after writing it, this somehow invalidates the suicide note itself? I believe that a person can write a suicide note and survive their suicide attempt, or die of natural causes in the interim, and that suicide note is still a suicide note. The note stating intention to commit suicide is no less a suicide note than it would be if the suicide was successful. Apparently you do think a suicide note is a contract. Well, I hate to inform you that even McAdams agrees that David Ferrie's second note sounds like a suicide note. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/death10.htm Arguing that that's not a suicide note, or could not reasonably be interpreted as one, is the kind of intellectual dishonesty that makes me question the rest of your assertions or conclusions. If you had mentioned Ferrie's suicide notes in your book, if only to debunk them, that would be one thing. But leaving them out entirely, and then using circular logic to justify leaving it out, again makes me wonder about the value of your book as a serious contribution to JFK literature. Fred, you're here on the forum seriously arguing that it's not possible for a human being to write a suicide note unless the note specifically says suicide and the person completes the act. Seriously? Because you believe Ferrie did not die any other way but natural causes does not make those notes any less real or relevant to the history of the JFK assassination, in my view.

This is circular logic. I did read your book, and, in my opinion, by not mentioning the suicide notes, you're gently shading the direction of your narrative by omission.

You show that by your statements on this forum. I quoted it. You said "Just check out what Ferrie told David Chandler" When questioned on it by Sandy Larsen, you said the information could be found "In my book, of course." Which is another false statement. Again, please tell me why anyone should take anything you have to say about the JFK assassination seriously when you don't even know the contents of your own book? I'm genuinely curious about this.

I have not examined the letters in question, but it is my understanding that those who did examine them judged them to be suicide notes. Unless you are arguing that these notes did not exist, or that they could be reasonably judged as not being suicide notes, or not being written by David Ferrie, omitting them from your narrative concerning David Ferrie's death isn't giving your readers the full story. It tells me, as a reader, that you're omitting facts that don't suit your narrative. That's a red flag for me. I'm just being honest.