Bill Brown

And by the way, mentioning only that error, I was being nice. He said a lot of foolish things in that interview.

23 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Who in the hell are you to tell Professor McBride what to say on this forum?

I think we all understood his point in the interview about the dubious line up, irrespective of semantic nit-picking about the difference between a suit jacket and a sport coat.

His erudition speaks for itself.

Your disrespectful attitude is highly offensive, at least to me.

 

No. Some unsuspecting listener who's new to the case could hear him say that and believe it. It's irresponsible and foolish.

9 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

See Warren Commission Exhibit 1054 in Vol. XXII ("Photographs

of individuals present in lineups with Oswald") for two

photos of the participants in the lineups,

Dallas Police vice squad detectives William Perry and Richard Clark

and jail clerk Don Ables (I would have posted these

photos but wasn't able to do so). The two detectives at

left are wearing suits and ties in these two photographs. The man at

right, Ables, is wearing a checked short-sleeve

shirt over an undershirt. Oswald was disheveled in the lineups

and wearing only an undershirt with his pants. He also was bruised.

Joseph Ball asked Detective Jim Leavelle in his WC testimony,

"Is it unusual to use officers in the showup?" Leavelle

replied, "Yes; we don't normally do it. . . . I know in

all cases we usually try to have them dress

as alike as possible, the same as each other." That

clearly was not the case with these lineups. Although

the detectives are wearing suits and ties in the photos, Captain Will Fritz said

the officers took off their coats and neckties for the lineups; but Perry said

he took off his coat and tie but put on another sport coat, and

Clark said he took off his coat and tie but put on a red vest.

 

The Warren Commission exhibit you are referring to, that photo was taken about six months after the assassination. Therefore, it is irrelevant to what Perry, Clark and Ables were wearing during the lineups in November of 1963.

If they weren't wearing suits then don't say they were wearing suits. 

7 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

See Warren Commission Exhibit 1054 in Vol. XXII ("Photographs

of individuals present in lineups with Oswald") for two

photos of the participants in the lineups,

Dallas Police vice squad detectives William Perry and Richard Clark

and jail clerk Don Ables (I would have posted these

photos but wasn't able to do so). The two detectives at

left are wearing suits and ties in these two photographs. The man at

right, Ables, is wearing a checked short-sleeve

shirt over an undershirt. Oswald was disheveled in the lineups

and wearing only an undershirt with his pants. He also was bruised.

Joseph Ball asked Detective Jim Leavelle in his WC testimony,

"Is it unusual to use officers in the showup?" Leavelle

replied, "Yes; we don't normally do it. . . . I know in

all cases we usually try to have them dress

as alike as possible, the same as each other." That

clearly was not the case with these lineups. Although

the detectives are wearing suits and ties in the photos, Captain Will Fritz said

the officers took off their coats and neckties for the lineups; but Perry said

he took off his coat and tie but put on another sport coat, and

Clark said he took off his coat and tie but put on a red vest.

 

So now they're not wearing suits in the lineup?

It should be noted that Jack Tatum has the killer with his hands in his jacket pocket as he leans over talking to Tippit through the window (no hands on the patrol car).

48 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

You're entitled to your opinion. I think its just obvious those prints likely came from the killer. 

But you have no reason to believe that it's obvious that those prints came from the killer. 

At the 50:50 mark...

Did McBride really say that Oswald was placed in the lineups alongside men in suits?

Good grief. 

33 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Someone left full-hand prints on that right front fender. By your logic since no one saw any anyone do so then it is most likely no one left those prints. A right hand on top of a right front bumper is not a usual or normal place for a person to put their right hand full-on, and the killer was rounding that right front of the car in a situation of stress and rapidly. No witness said they saw whether he did or did not physically touch the car at that moment because no one was looking at the right front fender at that moment (Benavides, the witness who saw him run away, got a good look at the back of the killer's head confirming he went back around that right front fender).

It is plausible the killer left his right hand print there, the killer was there, it agrees with the killer talking through the right passenger window vent to Tippit and the same fingerprints at the right passenger window, and the somewhat unusual position of full right-hand on something as low as the right front bumper from other causes reinforces that it looks like the killer left the right front bumper prints from a right hand. I do not understand your reasoning for making a probability judgment that the killer who went around that right front bumper (undisputed fact) "most likely never touched" the right front fender as he went around the front of the car. Where is your "most likely" coming from? Its extremely plausible and, since the prints are there in agreement with the killer's position and movements, likely that the killer was the source of those prints. 

You are simply trying way too hard to link those prints to Tippit's killer. There's no real reason to believe the prints belong to the killer. None whatsoever.

The prints belong to the same person.  No one saw the killer touch the right front fender.  Therefore, other than your bias, there is no reason to believe the prints on the passenger door belong to the killer. 

4 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Both prints belong to the same person. The killer did not touch the right front fender. Therefore, there is no real reason to believe that the prints on the passenger door belong to the killer at all. 

7 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No witness said that, but witnesses saw the killer go around the right front fender and back around it again. The killer was witnessed going around the right front fender shooting Tippit, then witnessed (having turned around) going back around the same right front fender as he walked rapidly or ran west on Tenth (then south on Patton and etc.).

No one saw him touch the right front fender or bumper, in the same way he was seen leaning with hands on the right front door at the window when talking to Tippit through the vent. The prints from the right front fender are identified in Myers as from a right hand. One reconstruction would be the killer, if a right-handed shooter, after administering the coup de grace to Tippit's head, turned around, transferred the revolver to his left hand as he was seen with it moments later at the corner of Tenth and Patton pulling shell hulls out of it with his right hand (and then reloading with his right hand into the revolver held in his left hand). With the revolver in his left hand and his right hand free, and in a hurry, he uses his free right hand to balance or perhaps avoid stumbling as he goes back around that right front fender to make his escape. Thereby accounting for the prints from a right hand in that location.  

Exactly.  No witness said they saw the killer touch the right front fender. 

Then if no one said they saw the killer touch the right front fender, why have you so adamantly included it?

In fact, I would argue that since Lutz determined both prints (passenger door/window & right front fender) belonged to the same person, then it's more probable that the print on the passenger door/window didn't belong to the killer since the killer most likely never touched the right front fender. 

27 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I just explained what you were trying to do in detail.

I did not mention every single outlet, only some that were easy to recall and express.  These are some I did not mention:

Showtime

All five streamers

Canada pre screening with Paul Bleau, which made CBC radio, look at their numbers, and other Quebec print media

Canada after the screening, with Talk Radio and more Paul Bleau interviews

The 15 interviews that Oliver did after Cannes, in France and on domestic channels like RT, that one did over a  million views.

The three You Tube trailers, combined for over a million.

The Italian Newspapers especially in Rome which covered Oliver at the FIlm Festival. How many people in Rome Bill?  Both version played there.  (My name was mentioned prominently in the news stories.)

The domestic interviews that Oliver did, with people like Abby Martin and Valutainment.

I could go on and on.  I hate to tell you Bill, but Oliver Stone is a pretty big figure internationally.   You may not like it, but yes he has that kind of visibility all over the world.  And no JFK documentary had ever had the life or reach this one has had.  And no one will ever do it again.  

I stand by what I said and since I now know who you are --Good Bye

I don't hate Oliver Stone. I'm a fan of almost all of his movies, including JFK.

Let me get this straight, if I put an interview I did on YouTube and only 1,200 people watch it, am I allowed to claim that I've reached an audience of 40 million? I'm sure YouTube has 40 million visitors.

Your statement was (and still is) laughable.

1 minute ago, Greg Doudna said:

Touche Bill. However, it is the coincidence of the two locations matching where the killer is known to have been from eyewitnesses, in the one case (the right front door window) the killer directly witnessed placing his hands, that makes the killer look like the most likely source. Fair enough?

Who said the killer touched the right front fender of the patrol car? Maybe I've missed something.

8 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Here is Larry's post from a few pages back:

 

"BTW- Ruth Paine was either "misremembering" or dissembling when she denied that she had spoken to Oliver Stone in Max Goode's movie. In 2013, I asked Oliver at the Wecht 50th anniversary program why he had changed the names of the Paines to Williams but did not change the names of any other important characters. He said it was because the Paines threatened to sue him and his production company.

Too bad Max did not know this when he interviewed her.  She made it sound like Oliver was either afraid to contact her or ignored her because she would contradict his thesis. Even if it was the Paines' lawyer who contacted Stone, her statement was inaccurate. And she did that laugh when she said that which is her "tell" when she is being evasive.

I wish Max had also grilled her on the phone message from the employment office. She was evasive with Liebler who was not interested in getting a straight answer."  

 

I assumed you were defending her position (or what Larry interpreted as her position.)

Will you acknowledge then that Oliver Stone, whatever his failings, was almost certainly not afraid to contact Ruth Paine?  

No, I do not believe that Oliver Stone was afraid to contact Ruth Paine. That is not to say that he attempted to contact her, however.

2 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

To be clear, I recognize there is a slight chance that the fingerprints could be from a bystander or an officer in those ca. 20 minutes before Barnes lifted the prints. I subjectively think of it as in the neighborhood of ca. 90-95% likely they are from the killer, considered in isolation from other evidence and factors. Of course, it is the "other evidence and factors" which cause the differences of interpretation.

What would move that ca. 90-95% to ca. 100% would be if an identification match to those fingerprints was made and it matched to someone who was not one of the officers or bystanders that day. Such as e.g. a match to Curtis Craford (or someone else).

So that's it? Either the killer or a bystander? Couldn't possibly be anyone in the parking lot at the Southwest substation? Another officer from a previous shift? A mechanic? There are literally a dozen other options that you are choosing to ignore.

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

You're playing (and I don't mean Bingo).

Both statements can be true. 

1. The Paines wouldn't talk to Oliver.

2. They communicated in some way (presumably in writing) that they would sue.

See how easy things can be when one uses a little common sense?

I mean, honestly. Oliver Stone was scared to talk to Ruth Paine? Are you kidding? To paraphrase Corleone, if history has shown us anything it's that Oliver Stone is not afraid to talk to anyone!

 

 

Straw man. I don't think anyone has said that Oliver was scared to talk to Ruth.

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bill:

Please, when you get a PR report that is what happens.  That is the way the numbers are expressed.  Its in say the Montreal Gazette for example, about 175 K,  now did everyone read it, maybe, how many?  You don't know.

But I stand by that number being conservative since Paul Bleau was on several big media outlets in Quebec before we got there.  And he was on some later, and it does not include Talk Radio which Paul said we were being discussed. And if you ant some dead on numbers, take a look at what Oliver did on RT with Barry M. Well over one million right there.  The You Tube trailers were over a million total, again I did not count that.  So when you say that, I can counter you with other markets I did not include, and that does not include Showtime either.  Or the streamers.  I can go on and on.

How many people read you?  Hmm, I would be angry also.

 

 

Like I said, you put a disingenuous spin on it. Everyone can plainly see that for themselves. And I'm not angry. You certainly don't have that kind of power. This is real simple, just be honest. That's all.

14 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

The point is those fingerprints at the right front door window of the Tippit cruiser, and at the right front fender, almost certainly came from the killer,

I realize that is your point but my point is that you're wrong. There is no way you can claim that those partial prints lifted by Barnes "most certainly came from the Killer". No other way to put it other than you're spouting nonsense.

You could have said that there is a chance those partial prints came from the killer.  If you would have simply said that, then I wouldn't take issue with it because you would be factually correct.  But that is not what you said. 

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Not at all. 

Backed up by the Quebec PR Report, Paris Match, Joe Rogan, Glenn Greenwald, Coast to Coast, and man did Ed Curtin come through for us. He got his stuff into about seven platforms. 

And that does not include Oliver's Zoom appearances, in France and in the USA, or my appearance on Izvestia in Moscow or Channel 9 in Australia.

The sheer reach of all those potential markets is about 40 million, and that is being conservative.  And it is not over.  Me and Oliver will be on in Israel soon for a program that reaches 400K.  And I will be doing two appearances live in Florida.

The amazing thing about the film--and I will be explaining this in Dallas--is the length of its window.  Because remember, the DVD is not out yet.

PS For every Tom Gram you get a Von Pein and Brown.

You just went from "we reached an audience of 40 million" to "potentially". You don't see the difference?

At least be honest when tooting your own horn.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Bill,  I know Oliver. Do you?

Look at at the precedent of Helms with Nixon.

And do you know the people he talked to in Dallas?  Do you know the research team of 12 people who worked for a year in advance interviewing witnesses, calling people on the phone, Oliver actually in some people's living rooms.

DId you know all that?  Did you know he offered people money if they were reluctant to talk?  That is how bad he wanted everyone on paper.

No, you did not know that did you.  That is why he changed their names.

 

I know Ruth personally.  Do you?

You know Oliver.  Is that supposed to mean anything related to what we're discussing here?

I was aware of some of the things you mention above but I don't see how even one bit of that is somehow supposed to automatically mean he tried to contact Ruth. 

As for Oliver's film crew, I have concerns about their credibility. I can elaborate if you'd like. 

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

IN CASE ANYONE IS WONDERING WHY GD DIDNOT REPLY, THIS IS IT.

ITS FROM DALE M'S WEB SITE

The conversation was short, about twenty seconds or so. Eyewitness Helen Markham thought it was a friendly conversation, but wasn't close enough to hear what was being said. When eyewitness Jack Tatum rolled by in his car he could see Officer Tippit was either attempting to roll down the passenger window or was going to talk to Oswald through the open vent window. Suddenly, Oswald straightened up and stepped back as Officer Tippit climbed out of the squad car. 

Point being...?

53 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Easy; he would not have changed the names unless she threatened to sue.

And you believe that is the only possible conclusion to be reached?

I could just as easily say that he changed the name for fear of being sued since he never bothered to contact her.

The difference is I am not claiming either version to be factual. 

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Exactly. Also, we have two versions of the story now. Stone tells Schnaph that the Paines threatened to sue which implies communication with them. But he tells DiEugenio that they wouldn't talk to him and says nothing about a lawsuit.

Bingo.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

And I will also go into how we reached an audience of 40 million. 

A disingenuous exaggeration.

They can't even spell Tippit's name correctly.  It's a credibility issue.