Denny Zartman
-
Posts
1,264 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Denny Zartman
-
-
9 hours ago, Ken Rheberg said:
I had no reason to question Malcolm Couch's credibility or doubt his sincerity. His passion was his Christian faith. He was a pastor for many years, an author of numerous books on Bible prophecy, and founded Tyndale Theological Seminary. At the time I spoke to him, he was not doing well physically and was using a walker.
I've heard over the years, many times, that he had seen a pool of blood in Dealey Plaza. So when he told me that this wasn't accurate, I was quite surprised to say the least. But he was adamant that it was not a pool of blood. It was brain matter. He then suggested that I check out his oral history at the Sixth Floor Museum. "It's all in there," he said.
When you review his testimony before the Warren Commission, you'll see that he never calls it a pool of blood. Just one reference to blood. It's Warren Commission attorney David Belin who, in his questioning of Couch, characterizes it himself as a pool of blood and uses the term twice.
Ken
Are we talking about the same pool of blood Jerry Coley reports seeing?
-
1 hour ago, Ken Rheberg said:
I spoke with Malcolm Couch a few years before he died. He told me it wasn't a pool of blood he saw that day. It was brain matter.
Ken
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:
QuoteWe will never know exactly why Oswald killed Kennedy. Jean Davidson, author of Oswald's Game, offers a persuasive explanation. Oswald most probably read the New Orleans Times-Picayune story of September 9, 1963 in which it was reported that Fidel Castro said that if US leaders "are aiding terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe." Oswald had made attempts to infiltrate pro-Castro groups in New Orleans and he might have been aware of plots against Castro. In late November 1963, it was announced that Kennedy's motorcade route would pass right in front of the building in which he worked. Strictly by chance, Oswald was able to strike a blow for the revolution.
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.
Quote...Nothing irritated me about the President...
...John Kennedy had a nice family...
...I had nothing personal against John Kennedy...
...Since the President was killed, someone else would take his place, perhaps Vice-President Johnson. His views about Cuba would probably be largely the same as those of President Kennedy...
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
QuoteOn June 23, 1972, six days after the arrests of the "burglars" who broke into the Watergate hotel, President Nixon's taping system captured a conversation on what would come to be known as the "smoking gun tape."
[CIA officer E. Howard] "Hunt knows too damn much", Nixon told his chief of staff H.R. "Bob" Haldeman. He instructed Haldeman to approach Richard Helms of the CIA and have the Agency intervene with the FBI's investigation of the Watergate break-in. Nixon told Haldeman to tell Helms that "it's likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs thing which we think would be very unfortunate for CIA and the country at this time, and for American foreign policy."
Helms refused to use CIA to obstruct justice, but Haldeman in his memoirs wrote that Helms was unnerved and had shouted back at him "The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs."
What was going on? The Bay of Pigs nominally refers to the failed 1961 invasion of Cuba by CIA-backed Cuban exiles, something that was hardly a secret. The phrase was clearly a coded one; Haldeman later wrote that he believed the two men were "actually referring to the Kennedy assassination."
-
34 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:
We all know why Ruby wanted to go to Washington, and it wasn't to spill the beans on any conspiracy. It was to tell Lyndon Johnson about an upcoming holocaust against the Jews.
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?
-
11 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:
But, since it's fairly obvious that there isn't a scrap of evidence to
link David Ferrie to any JFK conspiracy plot,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!
-
23 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:
Yup, I made a mistake and it was David Snyder.
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?
-
13 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:
We've already discussed the issue of the missing warehouseman earlier.
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.
-
9 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:
E. Howard Hunt has not connection to the JFK assassination.
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/
-
1 hour ago, Fred Litwin said:
Gee, that sort of sounds good. I gently shaded my narrative.
if you have read my whole book,what are your thoughts? Or is that it, no mention of suicide notes and it's all downhill?
fred
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.
-
1 hour ago, Fred Litwin said:
No false statement anywhere.
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:
QuoteAfter the assassination, he was the only warehouseman missing.
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:
QuoteOf course, at the time of the showing of Good Night America, I didn't know that there wasn't a scintilla of truth to anything Gregory, Groden, or Schoenman had said.
There are the claims that, according to you, are without a "scintilla of truth" to them, quoted from your book, Locations 1135 and 1151:
QuoteRivera's next guest was writer and historian Ralph Schoenman who was introduced as someone who had investigated the assassination for over a decade.
Schoenman made several claims:
- That Watergate, the Bay of Pigs, and the Kennedy Assassination were all connected through the involvement of CIA/Counterintelligence.
- Lee Harvey Oswald was both an FBI and a CIA agent, according to Secret Service document 767.
- There were CIA documents in the National Archives that were being withheld from investigators.
- 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
- Jack Ruby's psychiatrist reported that Ruby had told him that he was part of a plot to kill Kennedy
- Jack Ruby's death from lung cancer in 1967 was suspicious
(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.
-
1 minute ago, Fred Litwin said:
No false statement anywhere.
The information and the quotes are in my book.
And, why on earth do you say I don't know the contents of my own book?
fred
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?
-
43 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:
But you are wrong. They cannot be suicide notes, because Ferrie did not commit suicide.
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.
46 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:And, the notes themselves don't mention suicide.
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
QuoteThe next "suicide note," however, does sound like a suicide note:
Dear Al:
When you read this I will be quite dead and no answer will be possible. I wonder how you are going to justify things.
Tell me you treated me as you did because I was the one who always got you in trouble. The police arrest. The strip car charge. The deal at Kohn School. Flying Barragona in the Beech.
Well, I guess that helps ease your conscience, even if it is not the truth. All I can say is that I offered you love, and the best I could. All I got in return in the end was a kick in the teeth. Thus I die alone and unloved.
You would not even straighten out Carol about me, though this started when you were going steady.
I wonder what your last days and hours are going to be like. As you sowed, so shall you reap.
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.
-
30 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:
They cannot be suicide notes, because Ferrie did not commit suicide.
This is circular logic.
30 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:You need to read my book, and then determine if I am giving readers the full story.
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.
-
22 minutes ago, Fred Litwin said:
Who says I don't know the contents of my own book?
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.
-
On 9/16/2018 at 5:20 PM, Fred Litwin said:
The autopsy was quite clear that Ferrie was suffered from a berry aneurism which is a congenital defect. He did not commit suicide. The so-called
suicide notes just aren't suicide notes. In fact, they can't be, since he didn't commit suicide. There is a reason we do autopsies.
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.
-
22 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Okay. Where can I read what Ferrie told David Chandler?
22 hours ago, Fred Litwin said:In my book, of course.
Fred, I am really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but how do you expect anyone to take you seriously on the topic of the JFK assassination when you don't even know the contents of your own book?
-
13 hours ago, David Von Pein said:
Allow me to put in my $0.02 worth regarding this topic (as well as some comments concerning the "Roll Call")....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1028.html#BRD-Page-59
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1142.html
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley1.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
I haven't seen in any of Roy Truly's or William Shelley's testimony to the Warren Commission any mention of a roll call being taken. A source cited in one of your links implies that it was the police taking the roll call. Is there WC testimony of a police officer that says they took a roll call of employees that day?
-
Hi Fred,
In Location 533 of your book you write regarding Lee Harvey Oswald and the Texas School Book Depository:
QuoteAfter the assassination, he was the only warehouseman missing.
From what I can see, this assertion seems to be false. Charles Givens was also not present, and possibly another person as well.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly2.htm
QuoteMr. BALL. Now, what did you tell Chief Lumpkin when you came down from the roof of the building?
Mr. TRULY. When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin that "We have a man here that's missing." I said, "It my not mean anything, but he isn't here." I first called down to the other warehouse and had Mr. Akin pull the application of the boy so I could get--quickly get his address in Irving and his general description, so I could be more accurate than I would be.
Mr. BALL. Was he the only man missing?
Mr. TRULY. The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in front walking up the street just before the firing of the gun.
Mr. BALL. But walking which way?
Mr. TRULY. The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston Street, east on Elm.
Mr. BALL. Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there.
Mr. BALL. What do you mean "a short time before"?
Mr. TRULY. I would say 10 or 12 minutes.
Mr. BALL. You mean that's when you saw him in the lunchroom?
Mr. TRULY. In the lunchroom.
Mr. BALL. And you noticed he wasn't over there?
Mr. TRULY. Well, I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him around and he said "No."
Mr. BALL. Now, you told Chief Lumpkin that there was a man missing?
Mr. TRULY. Yes; and he said, "Let's go tell Captain Fritz." Well, I didn't know where Captain Fritz was.QuoteMr. BALL. Now, you say that you knew that Givens was not there afterwards?
Mr. TRULY. I knew he wasn't there at the time of the shooting because I had seen him walk across the street--up the street.QuoteMr. BALL. Now, did Givens come back to the building later?
Mr. TRULY. I didn't see him--later on he did.
Mr. BALL. When--how much later?
Mr. TRULY. Much later--I suppose I don't know his actions during that
Mr. BALL. Did he come hack to the building?
Mr. TRULY. No.
Mr. BALL. After the shooting?
Mr. TRULY. I can't say--I think he came back to the front of the I can't answer for sure whether he came in the building--I know he was at the police station later on.
Mr. BALL. I think that's all right now.http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/givens1.htm
QuoteMr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. GIVENS. Three.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you heard them?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, we broke and ran down that way, and by the time we got to the corner down there of Houston and Elm, everybody was running, going toward the underpass over there by the railroad tracks. And we asked--I asked someone some white fellow there, 'What happened ?" And he said, "Somebody shot the President." Like that. So I stood there for a while, and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in the officer at the door wouldn't let me in.
Mr. BELIN. Did you tell him you worked there?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes; but he still wouldn't let me in. He told me he wouldn't let no one in.
Mr. BELIN. This was the front of Elm Street?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. So I goes back over to the parking lot and I wait until I seen Junior.
Mr. BELIN. Is that Jarman?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. They were on their way home, and they told me that they let them all go home for the evening, and I said, "I'd better go back and get my hat and coat."
So I started over there to pick up my hat and coat, and Officer Dawson saw me and he called me and asked me was my name Charles Givens, and I said," yes."
And he said, "We want you to go downtown and make a statement."
And he puts me in the car and takes me down to the city hall and I made a statement to Will Fritz down there.http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sawyer_j.htm
QuoteMr. BELIN. I then notice on this radio log---I don't see anything more under 9, at least until after the, well, it is down until we have gone as far as 1:30 p.m., I don't see anything else, do you, sir?
Mr. SAWYER. No. There is another broadcast in there somewhere, though. I put out another description on the colored boy that worked in that department.
Mr. BELIN. What do you mean the colored boy that worked in that depository?
Mr. SAWYER. He is one that had a previous record in the narcotics, and he was supposed to have been a witness to the man being on that floor. He was supposed to have been a witness to Oswald being there.
Mr. BELIN. Would Charles Givens have been that boy?
Mr. SAWYER. Yes, I think that is the name, and I put out a description on him.
Mr. BELIN. How do you know he was supposed to be a witness on that?
Mr. SAWYER. Somebody told me that. Somebody came to me with the information. And again, that particular party, whoever it was, I don't know. I remember that a deputy sheriff came up to me who had been over taking these affidavits, that I sent them over there, and he came over from the sheriff's office with a picture and a description of this colored boy and he said that he was supposed to have worked at the Texas Book Depository, and he was the one employee who was missing, or he was missing from the building.
He wasn't accounted for, and that he was suppose to have some information about the man that did the shooting.Now...
...at this point I imagine that one might begin to argue "The reason Roy Truly didn't retrieve Charles Givens' address and report him as missing the way he did for Oswald was because Truly saw Givens walking away from the building just before the assassination, and Truly knew that the gunfire directed toward Kennedy's limousine came from the sixth floor of the school book depository."
Truly was across the street just north of the Vice Presidential limo and south of the TSBD, and this is how he testified about what he believed were the source of the shots:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/truly1.htm
QuoteMr. BELIN. All right.
Then what did you see happen?
Mr. TRULY. I heard an explosion, which I thought was a toy cannon or a loud firecracker from west of the building. Nothing happened at this first explosion. Everything was frozen. And immediately after two more explosions, which I realized that I thought was a gun, a rifle of some kind.QuoteRepresentative FORD. When you noticed the police assembling the employees after the assassination, what prompted you to think that Oswald was not among them?
Mr. TRULY. I have asked myself that many times. I cannot give an answer. Unless it was the fact that I knew he was on the second floor, I had seen him 10 or 15 minutes, or whatever it was, before that. That might have brought that boy's name to my mind--because I was looking over there and he was the only one I missed at that time that I could think of. Subconsciously it might have been because I saw him on the second floor and I knew he was in the building.
Representative FORD. Had there been any traits that you had noticed from the time of his employment that might have made you think then that there was a connection between the shooting and Oswald?
Mr. TRULY. Not at all. In fact, I was fooled so completely by the sound of--the direction of the shot, that I did not believe still did not believe maybe I could not force myself to believe, that the shots came from that building until I learned that they found the gun and the shells there. So I had no feeling whatever that they did come from there. I am sure that did not bring Oswald in my mind. But it was just the fact that they were trying to get people's names.There are some things that seem odd to me.
Truly doesn't know the exact number of his warehouse employees.
We're not even paying attention to the dozens of other employees that were working inside the TSBD on November 22, 1963. How many of them were absent? How many of them were outside to watch the motorcade and then not allowed inside the TSBD afterward by police, as per Charles Givens' statement quoted above?
Truly says "one or two" other warehouse employees could be missing along with Oswald, Givens "possibly" among them. Yet the only employee that Truly saw fit to get the address of and report to authorities was Oswald, a man that Truly KNEW was inside the TSBD minutes after the shooting that Truly believed came from WEST of the TSBD.
Something doesn't add up.
Do you have any evidence you can cite for your statement that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only warehouseman missing from the TSBD after the assassination?
-
Hi Fred,
I echo Andrej's comments. Welcome to the forum and congratulations on writing your book. I can see you put in quite a bit of effort into it. I found it interesting that you cited Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" as the book that convinced you there was no conspiracy, while it was that same book that first convinced me that there was.
I read it last night, and I'm looking forward to discussing it with you if I may. I'll try to bring up my questions and comments in separate posts instead of bunching them all together in one big post and risk things getting lost. I hope we can have a good conversation.
Location 872 and 891 - In your book you write this regarding David Ferrie:
QuoteFerrie was found dead in his apartment on February 22nd. The coroner determined he died of natural causes from a berry aneurysm which is a congenital defect. Garrison claimed that it was suicide-and that Ferrie had overdosed on Proloid, his thyroid medication. He convinced a lot of conspiracy nuts, but the coroner knew better, because there was also some scar tissue that indicated that Ferrie had suffered from an earlier bleed. The toxicology results also came back negative.
In Joan Mellen's 2005 "A Farewell To Justice" Pgs 106-107:
QuoteAt 11:45 A.M. on that Wednesday, Jimmy Johnson arrived to pick up Ferrie's papers. The door was locked, so Johnson let himself in through a window. Ferrie lay dead, naked in his bed. His false eyebrows were still glued on, which was unlike him. On a coffee table sat two sealed envelopes. One was addressed to his brother Parmely, the other to Gerald Aurillo. Jimmy Johnson saw these two letters. Twenty-five minutes later he noticed that they had disappeared.
There were two typewritten suicide notes in the room. In "Suicide Note A," which was sitting in the typewriter, Ferrie talked of life as "loathsome," and leaving it a "sweet prospect." A "somewhat Messianic district atorney" was "unfit for office," Ferrie writes, as were two judges, J. Bernard Cocke and Federal Judge Herbert Christianberry, who denied "defendants due process of law."
"Suicide Note B," unsigned, was addressed to Alvin Beaubouef. "I offered you love," Dave pleaded to his heir. He was dying, "alone and unloved," for which he blamed Al's girlfriend and future wife, Carol.
...
Coroner Nicholas Chetta knelt down and sniffed the corpse. "Poison! Poison!" he said. But Chetta ruled finally that Ferrie had died of natural causes, a ruptured blood vessel at the base of the brain, a "beury aneurysm." Chetta's verdict did not match Ferrie's recent symptoms, his difficulty in walking, his lethargy. The autopsy was "slipshod," Ferrie's doctor Martin Palmer contends. It was only partial and they did not even open the brain case, casting the beury aneurysm verdict into doubt. Chetta at once reported to the highly interested FBI that "Suicide Note A" was "not a suicide note."
Questions
1. Why didn't you mention the two suicide notes found at David Ferrie's death scene in your book?
2. What do you think of the claims in the last paragraph quoted above, that Ferrie's doctor Martin Palmer says that Ferrie's brain case wasn't opened at his autopsy?
-
3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
So you seriously consider Oswald alone took all five of the shots the HSCA specialists concluded were fired? The throat shot? The right front Back And To the Left Shot?
Not at all. I just said I'm willing to read this author's book.
I just finished reading it about ten minutes ago, and am going to jot down a few notes and think about it a little bit before I post more.
The vanishing pool of blood
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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