Greg Doudna

32 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

"I would like a straight answer from you to this last question above, with explanation as to why in your answer."

If I were on the jury, I would vote Oswald guilty based on the eyewitness positive identifications along with the ballistic evidence linking the shells found at the scene to the revolver taken from Oswald when he was arrested.

Understood but that’s not an answer to the question asked.

That is what I meant by asking for a straight answer—answering the question. 

I will engage the shell casings with you momentarily, but I want to stick to and wrap up this on the witnesses first. You have been citing the crime scene witness identifications of Oswald as establishing Oswald’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Would you answer the question (actually two related questions).

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Help me understand how this "paper bag revolver" has now been upgraded to the class of "murder weapon".  Thanks

If you are questioning that a .38 Smith & Wesson in a paper bag tossed into a street at night is a suspected murder weapon disposal from a gangland or contract murder, I can hardly believe you are serious.

Its a murder weapon disposal hours after the Tippit murder, of the type of weapon which fired the bullets which killed Tippit hours earlier. The most plausible candidate for who tossed that paper-bag revolver, from timing and route logistics, by coincidence is none other than the leading non-Oswald suspect for the Tippit murder. The tossing into a city street near the Carousel Club is consistent with that suspect having no car of his own and being a passenger sitting in the back seat of Ruby's car driving from the Carousel Club at ca 5 am Nov 23 toward the Stemmons Freeway. A few hours later that morning that suspect, Curtis Craford, hightailed it out of Dallas for Michigan.

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Thirteen witnesses saw the man either shoot Tippit or run from the scene with a gun in his hands.  Nine of these witnesses said the man was Lee Oswald.  Four of the witnesses weren't sure one way or the other.  Zero out of the thirteen said the man was not Oswald.

Of course none of them were shown Craford live or in photos beside Oswald for comparison but instead persons who did not look like Oswald. Also, case by case the security of those witness identifications is equivocal, none gold-standard quality. And I don't think your claim is accurate, if the truth were known, that no witnesses said it was not Oswald. 

And as for the number of equivocal-quality witness identifications, consider this: on a certain day in early November 1963 Jack Ruby and Curtis Craford went into the Contract Electronics store in Dallas. We know, even if they did not, with certainty that it was Craford and not Oswald in the store with Ruby that day. Three out of three of the employees in that store--that is 100 percent of the witnesses there--believed it had been Oswald. Not a single witness in the store on that occasion said the man was not Oswald. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142#relPageId=307.

If you were on a jury judging someone charged with a capital crime, would you vote the electric chair for Oswald based alone on the Tenth and Patton witnesses in the case of the murder of Tippit? Would you vote the electric chair for Oswald if the man with Ruby in the Contract Electronics store had committed a capital crime in that store, based alone on those witness identifications of Oswald?  

I would like a straight answer from you to this last question above, with explanation as to why in your answer. 

In other words Bill it is too high of a bar to require either that someone irrefutably witnessed the hands of either the killer or some person other than the killer (as you assert) literally touching the car for either of those to be possible. 

As for the killer, we know of only four known claimed witnesses to the gunman at the car at the time of the killing: Benavides, Markham, Tatum, and Burt (and that is about how I rank them in terms of credibility relative to each other). 

Benavides said nothing either way regarding hands touching and it is not clear he would have been in a position to see with his ducking down etc. Markham gives strong indication that the killer was right up against the glass of that right front passenger door leaning in, difficult to do without arms or hand contact. 

Tatum drove by and first telling fifteen years later (weakening though not removing entirely credibility) says he saw the killers hands in his jacket pocket and that would be not leaning against the car. That would correspond to when Markham said she saw the killer step back from the car window, pull out a gun and shoot Tippit. Tatum would have gotten his glance as he drove by as the killer had stepped back and was reaching for his revolver before pulling it out. 

And finally Burt the witness farthest away and arguably most dicey in credibility of the four, says he directly saw the killer’s bare hands touching the patrol car.

The case for either the killer or as you insist, somebody else, having left those prints is not founded in either case on an unimpeachable witness testimony of literal hand contact, for no known witnesses were in a position to either confirm or deny that specifically, deliver that level of precision of information, in either case.

But all of these witnesses’ testimony, equivocal on various grounds as each one’s is, are consistent with the actual and uncontested foundation for the argument, that the killer was there, at BOTH locations where the prints were lifted, and by definition becomes the obvious candidate for the one single individual who left them. 

The apparent support from two of those four witnesses to body or hands in actual contact with the car (from Markham, strong credibility on that point; and Burt, lesser) is only gravy or supplemental support. The argument exists if neither Markham or Burt gave those testimonies. 

Compare that with your zero positive evidence or witness of any kind for your assumption of some phantom other single unknown and unidentified individual having left those prints by coincidence where the killer was in both locations, which is to be distinguished from saying that is not possible.

The point is it is not proper method to rule out a person, in this case the killer, from leaving fingerprints in two locations where he was and his hands known within inches with opportunity, simply because no unimpeachable witness literally saw hands or body actually touching, apart from the one or two witnesses who actually did say that. Under the conditions of the Tippit killing and its witnesses that is an unreasonable condition you are placing. 

26 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

"I don’t know. On present information, not unequivocally, even though what he says he saw sounds plausible."

I only ask because you strongly rely on Burt when trying to show that the killer indeed had his hands on the car.  So which is it?

To be clear--the argument that the killer left those prints is that they came from one single individual who was at two specific distinct locations where the killer was witnessed standing at the patrol car--the one location he leaned into or against the car; the other he had his hands active and moving in a high-action sequence--not whether there exists videotape showing his fingers touching. Burt said he saw the killer's hands touching but Burt is not the argument.

Here is what is strong: the first-day interview of witness Helen Markham by FBI agent Barrett, in which Helen Markham says she saw the killer of Tippit with his face right up to the glass of the Tippit patrol car right where the unidentified fingerprints were lifted twenty minutes after Helen Markham saw this, and told this the same afternoon

"She saw a young man walk from the sidewalk to the squad car and put his face up to the right front window on the right-hand side of the car which was next to the curb and engage the officer in a brief conversation about ten seconds." (FBI, Helen Markham, Nov 22, 1963, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95614#relPageId=89 

Elsewhere Helen Markham repeatedly said she saw the killer's arms raised and crossed as he leaned in to talk to Tippit with what she says here was "his face up to the right front window". The killer's arms raised and crossed as he leaned in is testimony that the killer's hands were seen by this witness exactly at the position of, and likely understood by Markham to be forearms resting on, with exposed hands and fingers, the top of the right front door.

Twenty minutes later, after officer Tippit was shot dead by that man, a Dallas Police officer lifted fingerprints from the top of that right front door.

Neither the Dallas Police nor the Warren Report disclosed that Lee Harvey Oswald was excluded as the one who left those fingerprints which give every appearance of having been left by the killer in the absence of evidence showing otherwise.

Oswald's exoneration from being the one who left those fingerprints was disclosed in 1998.

Reasonable doubt that Oswald was the killer of Tippit, if a jury or the public had been allowed to know that in 1963 or 1964.

Especially if that jury or that public were also allowed to know of the paper-bag revolver, the disposal of a murder weapon of the kind used to kill Tippit, found the morning of Nov 23, 1963 tossed in a paper bag on to a street in downtown Dallas and not matched to any other murder, also not disclosed by the Dallas Police or the Warren Commission. And that there exists an alternative, named viable suspect who was repeatedly mistakenly identified by witnesses who thought they had seen Oswald when they had actually seen him.

Reasonable doubt. That Oswald did that one.

5 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

So do you find Jimmy Burt's description of what happened at the patrol car to be credible or no?

I don’t know. On present information, not unequivocally, even though what he says he saw sounds plausible. 

You’re not going to discuss Acquilla further? It is now dawning on me why you consistently attacked my known Callaway/gunman interaction exchange episode as what Acquilla was describing having witnessed, while resolutely refusing to say your own alternative interpretation of what she saw. It’s because you don’t think she saw the gunman at all? That she made it up? Is that correct? 

On 1/4/2024 at 1:23 AM, Leslie Sharp said:

(8) This last item was brought to your attention by Andrej Stancak on this forum on 7/29/23 (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29044-pierre-lafitte-datebook-1963/page/8/). At pages xii and 407, for Nov 20 a transcription is reported as "rifle into building". The photograph of the Nov 20 entry at p. 585 however shows "rifle into buiding" (sic; misspelling).

the lines read (and with respect, Mr. Stancak is not an authority on this datebook):

rifle into building —

yes/ok/DPD —

DUUM

Well you're wrong Leslie. Andrej Stancak quite correctly showed the word in the photo was (misspelled) "buiding" for intended "building". The photograph does not show correctly-spelled "building" as you again now wrongly assert. Anyone can go to page 585 of Coup in Dallas, look at the photo for the Nov 20 page, and see for themselves. And if and when you publish that correction in transcription, you must credit Andrej Stancak and respectfully, for having brought that to your attention. 

I can sympathize with the publishing pressures, the covid, etc. that you describe. I have been through publishing deadlines too and have some sympathy for what you describe. I would be more sympathetic if you took proper steps to remedy what you acknowledge was a less than ideal publication of the photos and transcription. You refuse to post good quality photos on a website or donate good copies to the Mary Ferrell Foundation which would be even better since that is the go-to site for all researchers, and they do a truly outstanding job of archiving with a user-friendly website with good search capabilities, under the excellent stewardship of Rex Bradford. You refuse to allow competent readers with good eyes to prepare and make publicly available good-quality transcriptions from the good photos which you possess but will not make freely accessible to researchers, by which I mean free of your NDAs.

First you denied there were transcription inaccuracies that I said your transcriptions had, and you aggressively demanded I show or retract. I judged that particular demand a legitimate one and spent an evening of labor preparing the report I gave responsive to that demand. You responded with the equivalent of snarling and changing of subjects, as if I had committed some affront in complying responsively to your demand. Instead you should have thanked me. You note that the majority of the transcription sloppiness does not affect meaning, as if that was the point not the accuracy in the transcription, and you then attempt to shift the subject still again by criticizing me for not taking greater interest in the content of the text being transcribed.

Well, I was talking about transcription, the subject of your demand of me, is why. And as for why I do not have greater interest in the content, its because I think its forged is why, so why should I. 

And if you don't think accurate transcription of handwriting including spelling and punctuation of original texts matters, even when meaning is not affected, in an editio princeps (Coup in Dallas; the publication that everyone in the future will quote and cite as the authoritative first publication), that is tabloid-level, not how it is done in the scholarly world where accuracy matters. 

Again, you could be forgiven for not being up to speed on scholarly standards, and with the pressures of publication deadlines and covid et al which I do not doubt were real ... if (the real point) you were not preventing real scholars (and a whole lot of intelligent lay readers) from making accurate transcriptions of what you represent as a critically important primary text find from 1963 in the study of the JFK assassination.

Finally, your bringing up Jeffrey Sundberg is shameful. It has no relevance to anything under discussion here. He had nothing to do with my research on the transcription errors. You did a very bad thing earlier to him, you tried to damage his standing with his university employer by filing a complaint about him which was frivolous but could have had real damage or loss of job (universities' first priority is settling conflicts, over justice, when push comes to shove, I have seen). That was low and unconscionable. Fortunately his university investigated your vindictive complaint and cleared him. That had nothing to do with the topic of anything under discussion here and it is objectionable that you would introduce an attack on Jeffrey Sundberg, who is not a member of this forum to defend himself, as deflection from what is under discussion here.

Are you willing to say that you are committed to discovery of the truth of whether the Lafitte datebook writing is authentic [from 1963] or forged, whichever the truth is, irrespective of any financial interest you may have in the outcome of that question? Are you willing to commit to disclosure of the existence of financial interest in the outcome of that question, if such exists? 

A point someone made earlier I agree with: in the current Gaza situation, Israel is not so much intent on extermination but is intent on a Palestinian-free (emptied) Gaza Strip, with conditions so intolerable in the Gaza Strip that all that remains is for some countries to take in 1.8 million refugees once somewhere to go opens up citing humanitarian reasons, with no right of return. Then settlement and ultimately the biblical land title actualized. I believe the objective of emptying the Gaza Strip of most of its Palestinian inhabitants is even more fundamental than the stated reason of destroying Hamas, in what is going on there now. 

I have been a Biden supporter and voter but I’m with Bernie on this one: this is unacceptable to ship arms to a state in the active process of large-scale ethnic cleansing and collective punishment.

I want to see Hamas out of power and its leaders who ordered atrocities brought to justice too. 

It seems a majority of Israelis believe ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is necessary for Israel’s security, the Benny Morris logic in his famous interview. 

Even if every last Hamas militant is killed in the current operation, how many new militants tomorrow are created by the hundreds of thousands of children traumatized and seeing their family members killed in the bombings today. Thus the calculus that ethnic cleansing, removal, emptying the land of all Palestinians if possible, is believed necessary, the only solution, for Israel’s physical security. 

And war with Iran awaits. And all parties acting according to their rational calculus as the slide into the abyss takes momentum. 

May the voices of “Living Together” in Israel receive worldwide acknowledgement and support toward a vision, seemingly impossible today, of a viable two-state solution of good neighbors in a cooperative long term healing of horribly deep scars. 

God bless the Palestinian children and the Israeli children and may the day come when, as MLK put it in the “I Have A Dream” speech, little children of different colors will play together and not grow up with hate or occasion to hate. 

And the juggernaut rolls on… 

1 hour ago, Michael Kalin said:

They said they didn't know each other after that day. Callaway was not on board, which is why he does not fit the description given by Scoggins. It also explains why the person who commandeered the cab was unknown to Russell. This was all described in previous comments.

Test question for the fun of it -- if you were the manager of a used car lot (outside job) and a cabbie parked on the street alongside the lot and stepped into a club across the street on a daily basis, how long before you would acquire a sense of recognition?

Fair enough Michael, he’s out and about on his lot, sees the same cabbie at the place across the street, it’s plausible Callaway would recognize Scoggins by sight (though not necessarily vice versa). 

But you cited Callaway to the FBI on 2/26/64 as of that date, “He said that he never learned the identity of the cab driver”.

Callaway says he didn’t know his name, didn’t know who he was either before or after Nov 22 (as of Feb 26). He could have seen and recognized him but had no idea what his name was, who he was other than some cabbie. Why would you expect Callaway to know his name?

Quick question for you: do you know the name of your mail carrier? Some do, maybe you’re one, but a lot of people see someone every day with no idea of their name and identity. Isn’t that what Callaway was telling the FBI on Feb 26?

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I never said Miles cherry picked for an agenda. Nor that he did so intentionally. Go back and read what I wrote.

Sandy could you say what you mean by “cherry picking”? Your definition?

18 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

"cherry picks the part that supports his belief and ignores the rest"

Before I respond to this unfair comment, would you mind telling me what my belief is, since you seem to be aware of it?

Just for the record Sandy nothing in Miles comment that I saw took a position on where the wound was. He made a claim that it was the rest of the hand, not the thumb, that was indicating where the wounds was. He did not claim where that wound was. The claim of cherry picking to serve an agenda is invalid since you have no idea what agenda was there since he did not say. As for cherry picking, if you mean the decision to comment on one particular point under discussion instead of every topic at the same time, that is what every commenter does. The sole issue with his post should be whether you agree or disagree with Miles’  specific interpretation that the hand minus the thumb was doing the pointing or gesture-illustrating, not the thumb. You have not even said you think he was in error or correct on that. Why not express your opinion on that specific point (which was his only stated point) and discuss it with him? 

39 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

Did you try playing dominoes?

Was Callaway a domino player across the street from his workplace? He was owner or manager of it, right? And a family man with wife and kid(s). I know the type—hardworking family man owner of a small business. They work long hours and unless they have a particular liking for dominos are unlikely to spend their time during business hours hanging out playing dominos. That’s for retirees, men on the dole … or cabbies taking a break. 🙂 

15 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Nope. That SE stairway only connects the first and second floors. It doesn't go higher than Floor 2. So those stairs were never an option for Adams & Styles.

Sorry—you’re right! 

That could cut time from my estimate of the Vicki timing if they did not for whatever reason delay to try the freight elevators, lessening the timing difference which is probably within margin of error of agreement. 

42 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

But the fact Adams never mentions it calls Adams recollection of events into disrepute.

Not necessarily Gerry. Was she specifically asked at the time or WC time and denied it? I doubt it. The strongest argument they tried the SE front elevator first is it is simply common sense logical they would, whether or not they were in heels which makes navigating stairs even more difficult. Why on earth would women on the fourth floor wanting to descend not attempt to take the elevator? Plus, Sandra says they did (try). To me that just about settles it, they tried that front elevator, and only because they could not take that elevator did they descend by the less preferable means of going down four flights of stairs. 

57 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes, I agree. Plus, there's the fact that that front elevator is much closer to the place where Adams and Styles were watching the motorcade from (as we can see when looking at the floor plan for the fourth floor). So it makes perfect sense that they would have first tried to go down in the more-convenient front elevator rather than clomp down the rickety stairs while wearing high heels.

Interesting David, you’re right, the SE elevator would be the closest to them. I don’t know why I was thinking they would be starting from the NW end to get to the SE elevator (in Sandra’s telling). Duh! This only heightens the logical common-sense that they would try that SE elevator first.

But moving them to near that elevator to begin with removes the timing argument against the Vicki/Pat version, doesn’t it? Allow 20-30 seconds to think and go to that elevator, find it inoperable; another 30 seconds at fast walk to cross to the NW end (for the purpose of taking one of the NW freight elevators down; otherwise they would have descended by the front SE stairway?); add ca 20 seconds to determine neither of the NW elevators is an option, then start heading down, 70-90(?) seconds descent four floors, 140-170 seconds rough estimate to ground floor for the early descent of Vicki.

That’s a little more than estimates for Baker and Truly starting up which, under that scenario, would mean margin of error in one or both of the timing estimates, or (as I believe you once elsewhere suggested) the passing Truly and Baker at the second floor without either pair seeing the other due to being in the lunchroom at that moment. 

So it seems Sandra’s SE elevator is not after all a decisive counter- argument on timing grounds against Vicki (and Pat)?

36 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Sandra was recalling stuff from decades before. She admitted on numerous occasions that her recollections were fuzzy and that Vickie was more reliable. It seems clear, for that matter, that she did not court controversy and would prefer the whole issue just dry up. We should trust Vickie, IMO. 

But not just because her statements came earlier. No, we should trust Adams because of the corroborating evidence.

1. Adams claimed she saw Shelley and Lovelady on the first floor upon her (and Styles') descent. Lovelady said he and Shelley did indeed go in the side entrance and that yessiree he and Shelley encountered a young woman in the back of the building. The women of the TSBD worked upstairs and took the front elevator up to their offices. No other woman was in the area at the time. The girl recalled by Lovelady was almost certainly Adams.

2. Shelley recalled talking to Adams but wasn't sure whether this was on the first or fourth floor. A study of their movements, however, proves they could not have talked on the fourth floor, for ten minutes or more after the shooting. As Lovelady said he witnessed Shelley talking to this girl, and Lovelady did not accompany Shelley to the fourth floor, moreover, it seems clear he saw them talking on the first floor.

3. Garner said she saw Baker and Truly run up the stairs after watching Adams and Styles run down. Barring that Baker and Truly took their sweet time before running up, this corroborates Adams' claim of a rapid descent.

4. Baker said there were two white men at the back of the building when he came in with Truly. No white men were on the first floor at the time. If these weren't Lovelady and Shelley, well, then, yikes, we have ourselves a couple of suspects, now don't we? 

5. Shelley said Truly told him to guard the elevator. While people assumed this meant the back elevator, he said he shortly thereafter took some policemen up to the fourth floor. Well, Sawyer said an employee took him up to the fourth floor, which he believed to be the top floor, and that he returned after a few minutes. This was roughly four minutes after the shooting. IF Shelley and Lovelady were not on the first floor when Baker and Truly came in, Shelley could not have talked to Truly, and would not have been guarding the front elevator, when Sawyer came in the building. Truly, to be clear, was up on the roof with Baker when Sawyer came in, and would remain there till 8-10 minutes after the shooting. 

6. Although Ball/Belin pointedly avoided asking Shelley and Lovely if they were the two white men observed by Baker, and if they were in the building when Truly ran up the backstairs, Lovelady mentioned Baker and Truly's running up the back stairs, when asked by an HSCA interviewer to recount what he saw after retiring to the building.

7. Adams said she saw a policeman on Houston when she ran out of the building. A policeman, Welcome Barnett, acknowledged running to where she said she saw a policeman, but said he did so for a brief period but a minute or two after the shooting. This further corroborates Adams' claims of an early descent. 

8. Adams said she talked to Avery Davis and Joe Molina on the front steps after leaving the building. Both said they returned to the building shortly after the shooting. If Ball/Belin were actually investigating Adams' story, as opposed to looking for reasons to dismiss it, they would have talked to these witnesses, and asked them to approximate when they returned to the building. But alas they did not. Because they suspected her story was true.

Now, I know it seems unfair to accuse such esteemed lawyers of a deliberate cover-up. But a pattern emerges from studying the statements and testimony of those who worked in the building. And that pattern is that Ball and Belin were anxious to paint Oswald as the assassin, and not particularly interested in establishing the truth. This fact is demonstrated once again in Adams' appearance on the Sahl show, where she claimed Belin refused to re-enact her run down the stairs, and Shelley and Lovelady's run around the building, etc, because it was unnecessary. Herstory was considered quite problematic, to such an extent they brought Piper back to say he didn't see her, and buried the Stroud note in the files. Shame shame shame. 

Thanks for your solid reply Pat. You make a case, and you’re right Vicki’s has the advantage of being early testimony rather than Sandra’s decades later. One detail: could you give the quotation, in its context if possible (and link or reference if possible) of Lovelady telling HSCA he SAW Truly and Baker run up the stairs AFTER he got back inside the building? Is that true Lovelady said that? That’s rather stunning if true. I don’t recall that detail. 

On 1/1/2024 at 9:12 AM, Michael Kalin said:

It is inexplicable that the cab driver & car salesman did not recognize each other since the former habituated the dominoes club across the street from the latter's POB. 

Why “inexplicable that the cab driver & car salesman did not recognize each other since the former habituated the dominoes club across the street from the patter’s POB”?

I worked at a place once with a bar across the street. I was in there maybe once or twice in three years. I doubt I personally knew 95% of their lunch regular crowd, and I did not know any cabbies unless I personally took a cab and talked to one. 

So I do not understand the dogmatism of the “it is inexplicable”. They said they didn’t know each other before that day. There is no evidence otherwise. Why leap to concluding they were lying? What motive?

16 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

Cutting to the apocryphal chase involving vigilante security men running down and disarming vigilante citizens after a near shootout, the Ballad of Scoggs & Cal now takes on mythic proportions (…) Problem is the story fails the test of authenticity for lack of multiple independent sources of attestation (see John Newman's Uncovering Popov's Mole, chapter 15), unless cops & security officers are interchangeable, but this is absurd.

Apart from Holmes Jr telling of his father’s story, both Callaway and Scoggins told of being stopped by what they thought was a law enforcement car which is not otherwise identified. And Helen Markham told Croy, within moments, of seeing Callaway or Scoggins taking Tippits gun with them and leaving the scene of the crime, and then WFAA-TV filmed Tippits revolver in the hands of police at the crime scene in agreement in timing with Callaway’s account of when they returned. I agree the “at gunpoint” of Holmes Sr as told by Jr could be an embellishment in the retelling or maybe it wasn’t who knows, but the persons and encounter itself are all plausible and hang together from the multiple firsthand accounts. All these average random people were not lying and intentionally fabricating wholesale in concert with one another, as part of some orchestrated alternative fictitious narrative. A model of witnesses who almost entirely (n.b. almost; occasional exceptions but uncommon) intended to be truthful but were fallible and made mistakes in perception and memory and influence etc, without a master plan from an invisible top manager marionette-stringing the testimony of cooperating operative wittingly perjuring witnesses, is closer to the accurate picture.

That a cop and security officer could be mistaken one for the other is not “absurd”. Scoggins testified he thought Callaway was a plain clothes cop, etc, easy mistake to make in the heat of the moment if someone is seen issuing orders especially if armed. 

Pat S., I said I would not speak further on this until restudying your chapters but I would like to ask you about the item of Sandra Styles from the Sean Murphy interview told by David von Pein just now. Sandra says she and Vicki tried first to take the front—that’s the southeast!—elevator down but finding it inoperable could not.

That alone knocks out the quick descent time which Sandra also told Sean was wrong. But back to that SE elevator attempt, Sandra sounds very credible, plus a first attempt to take an elevator including trying that SE elevator for women in heels makes a lot of sense in terms of plausibility rather than a stairway for four floors descent. 

Everyone has thought they might have tried the freight elevators at the NW but no, Sandra says it was the SE elevator they tried. That’s a round trip walking of the two women across the full length of the second floor before descent on the NW stairs. I respect your research and from my memory I thought your analysis of Dougherty’s movements was very interesting and convincing, differing from what is conventionally thought. But I wonder if in the end Sandra Styles’ version here is more accurate than Vicki’s. It does seem to come down to picking one or the other of those women with the other being mistaken, the only issue being which one was mistaken. I wonder if you would comment. It is the detail of the SE elevator that is so striking from Sandra to me which I don’t recall having registered on me before David’s quoting it above. Thanks—

9 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

If you're going to continue to allege the transcription is not aligned with the original entries, I insist you provide examples, or retract. (I'm aware of one instance of copy edit error.)

Responsive to request (two of the below have been shown you before). 

Apart from incomplete photos of pages--many datebook transcriptions given in Coup in Dallas and cited as the basis for discussion and argument have no photos at all for those pages of the datebook--and the poor quality of the photos unreadable for many of the datebook's pages which are given; and the lack of a single transcription in a single location but bits and pieces scattered through hundreds of pages never collated ... and in the one place where some consecutive dated entries are listed, pp. 575-76 the transcriptions have mostly ellipses ... and quite a number of readable words in the poor photographs appear never to be transcribed at all anywhere in the book ... never mind all that, as requested here are transcriptions I have found that do not match the photographs (except for the last which was called to attention by Andrej Stancak).

(1) Page 576, for Oct 6 a transcription is reported: "Oswald issue!...". The photograph of the Oct 6 page, p. 582 is "Oswald issue (!)"

That one does not affect meaning, but in a transcription of an author's original handwriting, punctuation matters.

(2) Page 576, for Nov 20 a transcription is reported: "Lamy--Filiol ... call Storey ... DeM ... Frank B. ..." 

The photograph of the Nov 20 page, p. 585, has the first four names and a final three lines of writing where the fifth name, Frank B., would be expected but the letters and words do not read "Frank B." There is no "Frank B." on that page. Either the transcriber hallucinated it, or the Nov 20 entry in the datebook was written after the transcription and the writer of the entry into the datebook forgot to update the transcription. In the latter case the transcription began as a rough draft for composition of the entries in the datebook, in the planning of the writing, before the entries were written into the pages of the datebook. 

I called that mismatch to your attention on 7/28/23 on this forum (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29044-pierre-lafitte-datebook-1963/page/5/).

(3) Pages 1 and 576, for Nov 9 a transcription is reported: "on the wings of murder..." The photograph of the Nov 9 page on p. 586 has "O the wings of murder".

(4) Also, page 1, for Nov 9 the transcription given is "Clip, clip his wings" but the photo is "Clip /clip his wings".  

(5) Page 575, for June 7 a transcription is reported: "John "W-H"". The photograph of the June 7 page on p. 579 has "John 'Wilson-H'". 

(6) Page 575, for Aug 16 a transcription is reported: "Antoinnes" with two n's and no apostrophe; on page 116 as "Antoine's" with one n and apostrophe. The photograph of the Aug 16 page on p. 580 has "Antoines", one n and no apostrophe. 

(7) Also page 575, for Aug 16 a transcription is reported: "Joannides" spelled with two n's. On page 116 a transcription of the same word is reported differently, "Joanides", spelled with only one n. Neither is correct. The photograph of the Aug 16 page on p. 580 has "Joan" (or is that "John"?). There are no final letters "-ides".

(8) This last item was brought to your attention by Andrej Stancak on this forum on 7/29/23 (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29044-pierre-lafitte-datebook-1963/page/8/). At pages xii and 407, for Nov 20 a transcription is reported as "rifle into building". The photograph of the Nov 20 entry at p. 585 however shows "rifle into buiding" (sic; misspelling).

I am not claiming infallibility in the above nor is this list exhaustive; this is the best I can do off-the-cuff from abysmally bad photographs. I am sure any number of persons with good eyes could not only find more, but could prepare for you a far more accurate, critical edition transcription of the datebook, if you would permit them not only to see, but be permitted by you to speak of what they see, on the basis of the better photos which you resolutely refuse to permit access to any who will not submit to your totalitarian control over their speaking, writing, and free expression of what their eyes see of the writing of the datebook, which you allege provides the solution to the JFK assassination. 

It would be an utter, total travesty, just about the worst possible way to publish a document in the scholarly world, if the document were authentic from 1963. If it is a forgery then there is no great loss except to those taken in by it.  

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

You believe that Haverstick told the truth about Jerrie saying she'd flown a plane into Redbird.

Well, if you have the right to be believe that, then I have the right to believe that Haverstick told the truth when she said she'd heard that June Cobb had impersonated her.

How do you like them apples Greg? LOL

I don’t think you understood my point Sandy. I believe H that Jerrie said both of those things, because I don’t think either was willfully fabricating. But the one thing had nothing to do with the other, distinct issues. And, I am skeptical that June Cobb impersonated Jerrie though I do not doubt that Jerrie told H that and believed it. Neither of these things that Jerrie told H were wilfully fabricated by Jerrie although the second may or may not have been a misunderstanding, and neither logically establish that Jerrie had intelligence connections. That’s all I meant.

2 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Greg,

If you are right about Jerrie Cobb flying in those Life photographers, here is what I'd find interesting:

That would confirm that Haverstick really did have that conversation with Jerrie Cobb. And that would mean that Jerrie Cobb probably did say that she'd heard that June Cobb had impersonated her. Which, if you ask me, is pretty remarkable in itself. For one, why would June Cobb impersonate Jerrie Cobb? Second, who would have known about that? And actually told Jerrie about it?

It makes it sound like Jerri Cobb did in fact have some intelligence ties.

Forget about the Babushka Lady stuff.

(I added the bolding to yours above.) No, Jerrie Cobb having that conversation telling Haverstick that she had been a charter pilot for Life magazine photographers that day does not "mean that Jerrie Cobb probably did say that she'd heard that June Cobb had impersonated her". Logical non sequitur.

Although as a separate point, according to H Jerrie did claim that she had information that June Cobb had at some point impersonated her, Jerrie. But that does not "make it sound like Jerrie Cobb did in fact have intelligence ties". Also, I don't think any verification has been published, whether in or outside of H's book, that June Cobb ever impersonated Jerrie.

I believe your point is if that happened Jerrie would have had inside intelligence information to have been told or known that. But she could have been told inaccurately as hearsay, could be mistaken, who knows. There is no evidence June Cobb impersonated Jerrie and it is not obvious why June Cobb would want to or why CIA would want her to do so. 

It is cited in H's book that David Atlee Phillips told Gaeton Fonzi of HSCA that June Cobb had a twin sister, Jerrie. That was not accurate, but could reflect some confusion over the two identities, as it is clear otherwise was the case for agencies. If that got back to Jerrie it could be mistakenly understood as intentional impersonation possibly. 

Jerrie may or may not have had intelligence debriefings or whatever of her own (who's to know for sure) but I do not think either of the points above establishes or indicates that.

As I recall as H tells it, H was asking Jerrie about some things related to oddities of the JFK assassination and mentioned the Redbird airport aircraft that had attracted attention on Nov 22 because it remained on the runway for a period of time after the assassination running up its engines but not taking off, as if waiting for a passenger. As H tells it, when H mentioned that Jerrie reacted and said that pilot was her, and told H about the Life photographers' charter flight. As Jerrie told H, the issue with the aircraft taking off from the runway was related to airspace being restricted, not waiting for a passenger. But H did not believe Jerrie's "innocent" explanation of charter flying photographers for Life, and it was off to the races for the rest of the book. 

26 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

When you retract your accusation,  I'll continue this discussion.

I have no intention of retracting the plain fact that the published transcription does not always agree with the published photographs, but even if I did I don't think you would be willing to "continue this discussion" in the sense of being responsive to relevant questions. I think the non-responsiveness to relevant questions speaks for itself. I intend to move on to other things and hope this thread remains on topic with Jerrie Cobb and the Haverstick book. 

51 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Greg Doudna Upon receipt of my advance copies of Coup and realization that the printer failed to get approval of our editor before hitting "print",  I immediately set in motion that a PDF version of the entries found in the back of the book would be provided to all who purchased a copy. I've posted that offer on numerous social media sites as well as JFK forums including this one. (paraphrasing) Those who have purchased a copy of Coup in Dallas are entitled to a PDF version of the screenshots presented in the print edition as well as Kindle version.  If you would like to receive the PDF, under either of those conditions, private email me at lesliemsharp17@gmail.com. 

Please explain why you think you're more qualified to transcribe the Lafitte entries? Have you spent hundreds (and hundreds) of hours over the past five years perusing the original instrument?  If you think that your interpretation of certain entries might alter the overall conclusions drawn, let me know.  I would particularly like to hear your assessment of the number of references to Otto and Ilse Skorzeny in the datebook. Or, your explanation of why "du Berrier" would appear on Lafitte's radar?  You do know who Hal du Berrier is, right?

Is anyone who receives these better photos from you able freely to discuss, quote from (within legal fair use), and publish comment upon, those photographs? 

You have previously stated on this forum that signing a NDA was required to obtain that, and I believe you indicated all who had received it had signed such. Are you prepared to say here that what you are offering is open access for research and discussion and publication thereof, without NDA or an other strings or controls from you attached preventing legal fair use?

If not, why should anyone serious bother to get the better quality photo from you if you have control over the expression of their thoughts or findings from study of it? What legitimate researcher in their right mind would want that kind of muzzle control from you over them? 

Are you prepared to say here that any existing NDAs signed by any who have received those better photos which you offer in repair of the shoddy published ones, are hereby lifted?

Don’t try to make the issue my expertise at transcription. The issue is you prevent anyone with expertise from freely examining and publishing research findings from better photographs.

And with your moments-ago demand that I retract my statement that your shoddy published photographs do not in all cases agree with published published transcriptions of such in Coup in Dallas—I have cited one or two rather examples in the past on this forum and won’t repeat that here—you telegraph a pretty clear signal how you regard scholarly scrutiny or proposed corrections or improvements of your published transcriptions. And as litigous as your language and legal threats often are, this has a chilling effect on research and discussion.

Why are you limiting access to the better quality photos only to those who purchased the book? What about people who see the book in a library? (Most scholars with expertise work out of libraries.) 

The significance of finding the Life magazine photographers that Jerrie Cobb said she as pilot charter flew into Redbird airport on Nov 22, according to what Jerrie Cobb told Mary Haverstick, is Haverstick came to believe that meant Jerrie Cobb was involved in the JFK assassination and had flown in to go to Dealey Plaza to be the Babushka Lady, assassinate JFK personally, then make her way back to Redbird and fly away again. 

As part of this (wholly unfounded and implausible) conclusion, H questioned that any Life magazine photographers were Jerrie’s passengers, and suggested that Life magazine, with its maybe CIA associations, would falsely back up Jerrie’s story which H suggested was a cover story for Jerrie flying in to personally shoot JFK dead. 

And as presented in A Woman I Knew, H identifies that admission or “confession” of Jerrie, that she was a charter pilot who flew some magazine people to Dallas that day, as central to what motivated H’s line of investigation for the rest of the book. 

When as is seen from the Gary Murr chapter on the Holland McCombs Life magazine story, there was such a charter flight of Life magazine photographers sounding very close to what Jerrie Cobb told H.

H shows no awareness of this Life magazine McCombs material telling of the charter flight to Dallas, which is not surprising because if it had not been for the accident of Gary Murr posting the link to his excellent unpublished chapter of research on the McCombs/Life story a day or two ago, nobody else would know of it either. Gary Murr got that from archived papers of Holland McCombs. 

9 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Greg Doudna  Unless I'm misreading this, you've been advised of source text in 'better photos.' Have you seen 'better photos' to opine on whether the transcriptions are accurate?    Would you care to elaborate here, or pursue this privately?   

No I have not seen any better photos or been advised of contents of such, other than the poor photos in Coup in Dallas. I found errors in transcription from comparison with the legible portions of the poor published photos. If your interest was history and not tollgate monetization of content I would think reasonable observers might wonder why you don’t have high quality photographs donated for open access to the Mary Ferrell foundation on their website. You could still hold on to the physical artifact and make a gazillion off it if major authorities did perchance vet it and accept it as authentic, if that is a factor in your thinking.