Michael Clark

6 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

This fake debate is shameless.

The cover-up game plan: get people to argue over issues requiring an advanced college degree to verify.

I brought in the Supreme Court from the Bull Pen, and Baker wandered around the clubhouse for an hour before going home. And that was only 5PM in the UK so he can't claim that it was bed-time.

Oh my my my! This thread has has me inspired to write an addendum to Dante's Inferno, describing a circle of hell where the damned are forced, for eternity, to sit between Colby and Gaal for an eternal debate.

This is how the situation smells to me.

I have recently read about LBJ's knack and M.O. of getting as many hands as possible dirtied-up in underhanded matters. The formation of the WC reflects this as does the host of high level characters visiting Dallas in the days sorrounding the assassination. Perhaps Walker, and maybe his Minutemen, were, at the time, working hard to stay clear of any developing plot. This staged event (the attempt on Walker) could be seen as both dipping him with both a motive to be part of the conspiracy (revenge) and a threat against his aim to stay clear of it. His apparent arrangement of the humiliation of Adlai Stevenson, prior to Kennedy's visit, can be seen as his compliance with the threat. Oswalds purported involvement in the attempt on Walker could have later been twisted into either an attempt to thwart a plot on Kennedy, or,  as it happened, evidence of his (LHO's) willingness to take out some big-shot. All that was needed was Chef George De Mohrenschildt to add the mustard or the mayonnaise to the sandwich that was otherwise ready-to-go.

Cheers,

Michael

NAA info from 2010

http://forensic-science-fall-2010.wikispaces.com/Neutron+Activation+Analysis

"In the past, NAA evidence was not admissible into courts on the grounds that testimony it "proved" was not concrete enough to be allowed as evidence. In fact, a not-so-ancient trial involving NAA evidence, using trace element blood comparison samples was admitted into a lower court, despite the objection of the Defense. After being convicted, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, who declared the evidence inadmissible, as the technique was not yet proven. This was a large step backwards for NAA in courts, as it hurt the reliability of future, more concrete evidence done by neutron analysis."

23 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

.........I found was that following the war, a number of reserve and guard units were created in Texas, essentially as devices to keep members on a roster and provide some minimal income.  To some extent it was more of a social thing than anything else; I interviewed one fellow who described it that way but said they were really upset when a lot of them got called back to duty in Korea because of it.  The units were generally of a staff nature and involved officers not enlisted, certainly they were not combat units.  ....

Sounds like a nascent, semi-sanctioned secret society. I am surprised that Paul Trejo has not found this subject interesting enough to get involved in.

1 hour ago, Paul Baker said:

We seem to be at cross purposes. Perhaps I'm not being clear.

If Jim says that NAA as a technique is unreliable with respect to the compositional analysis of bullet fragments, he is wrong. It is not, as he says, 'junk science'. As far as I am aware, these procedures were carried out a few times on the bullet fragments and the near-whole bullet recovered.

-------------------------------

In my world that doesn't work, though I'll readily admit that its crudeness and simplicity does sometimes hold some appeal, especially when having to deal with people like Jim.

Paul.

Did you design, build, turn-up, test and commission one of these in your basement? Are you using information from real scientists and researchers? Why do you not cite any studies or data?

I would think that if it were valid science you would be able to cite its continued use, development, success in solving cases and its admissibility in court over the last 54 years. Why do you not?

On 2/17/2017 at 9:23 AM, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, let me objectify specifically what I mean about the lack of cross examination in the WC proceedings.  Especially in regards to Marina. And when we are talking about cross examination, it does not necessarily apply to court proceedings.  In any fact finding arrangement there should be this kind of colloquy, and there usually is.

With Marina, just for starters, she should have been asked about her background in the USSR.  What I mean by this is that even the White Russians who were interviewed by the WC were puzzled at how she was allowed to leave with a military defector at the same time he left the country.  This was usually not the case.  She also should have been asked about her activities in Leningrad which were quite interesting and which Warren had heard about.  And she also should have been asked about her ability to speak English and when she developed it.  For, even at the time, there were rumors she spoke English much better than what was popularly accepted.  When and where did she acquire this, and if it was in the USSR, why would a pharmacist need to speak English there?

And I should add, the Southern Wing was actually pretty curious about this whole area of inquiry.  And so was  Warren.  But it was kept from the public.

The other three areas I would have asked her about were 1.) the rifle,  2.) Mexico City and 3.) Ruth Paine.

Concerning the first: Why did she change her story from never seeing a scoped rifle before, which is what she said in November, to "That is the fateful rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald" before the Commission?

Concerning the second:  Why did she first say in November that Oswald had never been to Mexico City, and then later on changed her story to , "Oh yes, he had been."

And with the third: Why was she all chummy with the Good Samaritan (Aka Ruth Paine), for several months, and then, after the assassination, the relationship was more or less terminated. And I would have used that to ask about how and when and why did she get associated with PJM.

Anyway, to my knowledge, none of these last three areas were addressed by the WC.  And they seem to me of paramount importance.  And only the first was covered by the Southern Wing, but only in a rudimentary way. And BTW, do not think that the lawyers on the WC did not understand all the problems Marina was creating for the WR.  They did.  And some of them did not want to use her to the degree she was used.  But they were overruled by the management level on orders from the Troika i.e. McCloy, Ford and Dulles. The Troika understood how much they needed her to make their paper thin case against the dead Oswald, especially in the Walker instance.  And again, its not like the problems with her were not at all aired;  in addition to the junior lawyers, like Ball, who called her unreliable, Scobey, Russell's legal assistant, went further and called her a xxxx.  Even Redlich, who authored a large part of the WR, and who overruled Ball, even he called her a xxxx.  But used her anyway. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 111)  

And this is my point.  If there is no informed and vigorous cross examination, then what is the forensic worth of the proceedings? 

 

 

 

Jim, My apologies if it seems like I am just splitting hairs here, but...

Cross examination can only exist in an adversarial situation. Marina was not being charged with a crime. There was no prosecution nor a defense. There was no threat of being charged with a crime or even perjury.  Without those elements, there can be no "cross-examination".

I stated that there was no threat of being prosecuted for lying as well, even though the witnesses were testifying under oath, but I really don't know if that was the case. I decided to make the point anyway because it raised the question, for me, as to whether anyone was charged with perjury for their Warren Comisission testimony. That's something I'll have to look into.

What gets closer to your point, I think, is that there were numerous (countless?) times where there was conflicting testimony. From my reading, I have seen very little attempt to seriously juxtapose conflicting testimony and drill down to get to the truth. That may be what you are calling "cross-examination", or as it were, a lack thereof.

Cheers,

Mike

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Steve - have you read the Spartacus entry on Jack Crichton?

That is too interesting to not link

http://spartacus-educational.com/MDcrichton.htm

Two characters that I expected to see in there, but did not, are I. B. Hale and Fred Korth.

Here is the Forum thread.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/6568-jack-alston-crichton/&page=1

4 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

He will have to get over it as I do ok considering the little sleep I get these days. 

I apreciate your labors and cast no stones.

33 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

Must be a joke that I am missing. Are you saying that Truly and Patrolman Baker did not immediately run up the steps and into the TSBD before anyone else?

 

I think he is picking on you for the awkward sentence, highlighted in red.

Any update on Sean?

This thread seems to have lived a short life prior the the pinned posts, so I figured I would bump it.

1 minute ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

the privilege would have belonged to her husband and his defense team could have prohibited her from testifying. 

Thank, you. I started to look it up myself, then realized That I would not know if what I found would be the case in Dallas, in 1963.

Ralph Paul's testimony was taken prior to Wanda Hemlick's testimony.

55 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

I guess it's time to download Ralph Paul's testimony for comparison.

Not a good start. I searched my 71 page PDF of the testimony of Ralph Paul for the word "crazy" and I retrieved "no results".

It looks like I have some reading to do....

10 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

PS  I think I see your point.  It started with just one person reading it, and then a bunch of other people noticed that, and it "went viral."  Probably because "Robert Anderson" is such a fascinating subject to JFK assassination students and researchers.

 

Yes, perhaps others do as I do. That's all I was offering. I had no idea who Robert Anderson was, so I "Just followed the boys at chow time" (a quote from A few Good Men, a movie that, next to MP's The Holy grail, is the only movie I tend to quote). Like I said, if it looks like it might be a Simkin bio, it is going to be worthwhile.

Cheers,

Michael

4 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Dear Michael,

That's how I knew that approximately ten people were reading that odd-ball thread at that time.

But my noticing that couldn't explain to me (or anyone else) why they were all reading that odd-ball thread at that time, could it.

--  Tommy

I guess I was offering a possible answer as to how that came about, as opposed to why.

Cheers,

Michael

I guess it's time to download Ralph Paul's testimony for comparison.

edit***** and the testimony of "Rose",

54 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Dear Michael,

I guess that answers my question.  Not.

--  Tommy

I was suggesting that perhaps other members also look to see what other members are reading. That could explain how ten people were reading an odd-ball thread. 

You were unlikely to get any answer in my estimation. I thought I would say something so as to not leave you hangin'.

Cheers,

Michael

On 2/16/2017 at 7:33 PM, Michael Clark said:

Testimony of Wanda Yvonne Helmick

 

Mrs. HELMICK. I always worked those hours.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, you have talked to the FBI and have indicated that you overheard a telephone conversation that you believed took place between Jack Ruby and Ralph Paul?
Mrs. HELMICK. Yes.
Mr. GRIFFIN. When was it that you heard that telephone conversation? Mrs. HELMICK. It was the night before Oswald was shot.

--------------------

 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Was Ralph Paul sitting there at the booth with you?
Mrs. HELMICK. No, he was behind the counter, and Rose got up and went back there to do something, and she started talking to him, and the telephone rang, and she said, "It is for you. It is Jack."
So he took the phone and he had been talking quite a while, and he said something. He either said, "Are you crazy? A gun?" or something like that, or he said something about a gun.
Then he said, "Are you crazy?" But he did say something about a gun, and he asked him if he was crazy.
Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did he talk on this telephone call?
Mrs. HELMICK. He Just talked for about 5 minutes, I guess. It wasn't very long.

Conspicuously, The WC surfaces findings, from the Carousel crew at least, that Ruby always had a gun; even if it was in his trunk.

Testimony of Wanda Yvonne Helmick

Mr. GRIFFIN. Was Ralph Paul sitting there at the booth with you?
Mrs. HELMICK. No, he was behind the counter, and Rose got up and went back there to do something, and she started talking to him, and the telephone rang, and she said, "It is for you. It is Jack."
So he took the phone and he had been talking quite a while, and he said something. He either said, "Are you crazy? A gun?" or something like that, or he said something about a gun.
Then he said, "Are you crazy?" But he did say something about a gun, and he asked him if he was crazy.
Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did he talk on this telephone call?
Mrs. HELMICK. He Just talked for about 5 minutes, I guess. It wasn't very long.

2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

About ten Forum guests are reading this thread right now.  Why is that?  Why is this "Robert Anderson" so darn "hot" all of a sudden?

Was he somehow connected with Rex Tillerson?

LOL

--  Tommy

I am always clicking on the "who's online" button to see what people are reading. If I see what looks to be  a Simkin profile, I'll very often click on it. Simkin's profiles are always an interesting read.

I am looking for that "Healthy Scepticism" among anti-Trumpers.

On 7/30/2016 at 8:47 PM, Glenn Nall said:

fascinating thread, being 12 years old... seriously.

Agreed. There really should be a sub-forum, about this forum, where threads, testaments, and rememberences can go; separate from the continued research. It seems to me that times have changed. Means and modes of expression and debate have changed. I am sure there is no dividing line, yet.....

On 8/9/2012 at 0:00 PM, David Josephs said:

Let's try this in small, spoonsize bites for Mr Big Brain here....

David,

1) Do you believe C20-T750 was ordered and purchased by anyone other than HIDELL between 4/62 and 2/63? Simple yes or not will do

Maybe even?