On the two men Bowers saw ....

[Bill Miller]

Wrong. Let's say I was in Dealey Plaza on that tragic day so I had personal knowledge and I told you that I saw Johnny Roselli shooting from the manhole (and Johnny's on trial). Even though I had first-hand knowledge, you can't testify what I told you because Rosselli's lawyer has the right to cross-examine me re many things: how good my eyesight is; whether I am out to "get" Rosselli because Norwegians hate Italians; any number of avenues for cross-examination.

I could testify that you told me that you saw the shooter. This s exactly what Lane could testify to concerning what Lee Bowers told him. Whether Roselli was already dead or whether he or you took the 5th, I could testify as to what you said to me that you had first hand knowledge to.

And yes there are exceptions to the hearsay rules where even testimony can get in even when one thinks that it should not because of the hearsay rule. If you'd like, I can provide some links that explain this quite well.

And I appreciate that you have a law degree ... both lawyers pleading to the judge (one to allow testimony and one asking it not to be allowed) would presumably have law degrees, but one of them is going to win that hearsay argument and one of them is going to lose it.

Bill

Edited October 16, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Tim Gratz]

I could testify that you told me that you saw the shooter

Bo, Bill, THAT IS HEARSAY. Anything I told you outside of court is hearsay. Read the definition of hearsay.

[Bill Miller]

I could testify that you told me that you saw the shooter

Bo, Bill, THAT IS HEARSAY. Anything I told you outside of court is hearsay. Read the definition of hearsay.

This information can be found online:

There are two other common misconceptions concerning the hearsay rule. The first is that hearsay applies only to oral statements. The hearsay rule applies to all out-of-court statements whether oral, written or otherwise. The Federal Rules of Evidence defines a statement as an oral or written assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person, if the conduct is intended by the person as an assertion. Even written documents made under oath, such as affidavits or notarized statements, are subject to the 'hearsay rule'.

The second common misconception is that all out-of-court statements are hearsay. This is not the case. An out of court statement may or may not be hearsay depending on the purpose for which it is offered. If the statement is being offered to prove the truth of what it asserts, then it becomes hearsay. When offered for any other purpose the statement is not hearsay. For example: Witness testifies that yesterday he spoke to Jim (who was in Vermont) on the phone and that Jim made the following statement, "It's raining in Vermont!" If the attorney is seeking to use this statement to prove that it was in fact raining in Vermont, then it is hearsay. But, if the attorney is seeking to use the statement to prove that the phone lines were working that day, or that Jim had not lost the power of speech, or for any other purpose, then the statement is not being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, and therefore it is not hearsay.

What the above is saying is that someone like Lane could testify that Bowers told him that he saw two men behind the fence during JFK's assassination. What Lane cannot do is assert that what Bowers told him was accurate or factual.

Bill Miller

Edited October 16, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Bill Miller]

duplicate post deleted

Edited October 16, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Tim Gratz]

Bill, you are reading it wrong.

If the statement is being offered to prove the truth of what it asserts, then it becomes hearsay. When offered for any other purpose the statement is not hearsay

If Lane is testifying that Bowers told him there were two men behind the picket fence (i.e. to prove the truth of the out of court statement) that is classical, inadmissible hearsay.

What Lane cannot do is assert that what Bowers told him was accurate or factual.

This makes no sense at all. Lane is the attorney not the witness, correct? But how could ANYONE assert that Bowers was telling the truth? Truth determination often depends upon the witness' demeanor. That's why Bowers has to testify himself.

Not sure how I can make this clearer.

If everyone said there was no one behind the fence and the statement was being offered to prove that Bowers was nuts, then that's not hearsay.

[Bill Miller]

What Lane cannot do is assert that what Bowers told him was accurate or factual.

This makes no sense at all. Lane is the attorney not the witness, correct? But how could ANYONE assert that Bowers was telling the truth? Truth determination often depends upon the witness' demeanor. That's why Bowers has to testify himself.

Not sure how I can make this clearer.

As far as I know ... Lane was an interviewer investigating the JFK assassination and not working Bowers as counsel for anyone. And I believe that I said not once, but twice that Lane cannot assert that what Bowers said was factual or as you put it 'telling the truth'. But Lane can testify as to what Bowers said to him - factual or not.

Bill

[Tim Gratz]

If you are talking about in a formal legal proceeding, the answer is he cannot. It is hearsay.

Now whether an investigative body will chose to listen to hearsay, that's a different question.

And as noted in a previous thread, hearsay is admissible in a grand jury proceeding.

[Bill Miller]

If you are talking about in a formal legal proceeding, the answer is he cannot. It is hearsay.

Now whether an investigative body will chose to listen to hearsay, that's a different question.

And as noted in a previous thread, hearsay is admissible in a grand jury proceeding.

Tim,

Lawyers argue these things all the time and on Monday, Wednesday, and sometimes on Friday they lose their argument. Then there are times that on Tuesday, Thursday, and sometimes on Friday they win that same argument. I can only speak of what I have seen for myself.

I might add that the discussion that was going on in this thread was over someone merely contacting Lane to gather more information pertaining to marks that he may have made on a transcript and it was refused to be done due to alleged hearsay, which then has nothing to do with hearsay at all.

Here is some more information on the hearsay rules and how they apply to legal proceedings.

"Hearsay is "second-hand" information. It occurs when a witness testifies NOT about something they personally saw or heard, but testifies about something someone else told them or said they saw. Hearsay usually involves an attempt to get some crucial fact entered into evidence that cannot be entered into evidence by any other means. The constitutional due process danger that this represents is that it deprives the other side of an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the "real" witness who originally saw or heard something. The confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment has never been interpreted so literally as to preclude hearsay evidence. Care must be taken to avoid hearsay from consisting of rumor, gossip, or scuttlebutt. There are times when hearsay evidence is perhaps the right thing to do -- as in cases where a young child has been molested -- and, there are times when hearsay evidence is the only thing to do -- as in cases where the original witness has died or is unavailable. At common law, there were five well-established exceptions to the hearsay rule, and these exceptions have been a part of the hearsay rule from the beginning."

Bill

Edited October 16, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

If you are talking about in a formal legal proceeding, the answer is he cannot. It is hearsay.

Now whether an investigative body will chose to listen to hearsay, that's a different question.

And as noted in a previous thread, hearsay is admissible in a grand jury proceeding.

Tim,

Lawyers argue these things all the time and on Monday, Wednesday, and sometimes on Friday they lose their argument. Then there are times that on Tuesday, Thursday, and sometimes on Friday they win that same argument. I can only speak of what I have seen for myself.

I might add that the discussion that was going on in this thread was over someone merely contacting Lane to gather more information pertaining to marks that he may have made on a transcript and it was refused to be done due to alleged hearsay, which then has nothing to do with hearsay at all.

Bill

Alan,

Just for the record, my analysis coincides with your statements here.

On another point, Bowers says that there was no one behind OR before the fence.

That's correct.

One of the only times that hearsay is allowed, and this is extremely rare, is, for example, in the case that there exists NO other evidence of a probable fact such as, for example, that it was raining on that day.

But, since Bower's transcript exists, hearsay would NEVER be allowed.

The hearsay rule applies because what Lane &/or De Antonio said to Gary Mack or to anyone else regarding what Bowers said is inadmissible because the truth cannot be tried.

For example, if A says to B that C told him that D received a Degree of Bachelor of JFK Arts from Lancer University or from ED Forum U., then we must go to the actual records in archive of those Universities for proof because D may not have in fact received such a Degree.

The problem is why were critical passages of Bowers' interview expunged? -

[Bill Miller]

To all who have followed this thread and the logic or lack thereof of those people who believed that the two men Lee Bowers told Mr. Ball about were somehow related to the men who were standing on the steps when JFK was shot ... there has been something that should be added to this thread that I now beieve it is time to let be known. Having spent considerable time in and around the plaza myself, when Josiah Thompson's photo was first posted onto the forum as being represented as Lee Bowers tower view by the poster, I had a strong suspicion that the photo had not been taken inside Bower's tower, but rather outside of it. In a early conversation to Gary Mack about this particular photo, I had said that while it showed an example of what Lee Bowers view would have been like when seeing the north side of the stockade fence ... I felt the photo was taken at a shorter elevation than the what Bowers would have had and was probably taken from a car bumper or truck bed that was parked along side of the tower. I had asked Gary that if he ever got the chance to do it - I wanted him to go out to the tower under Bowers window and look to see if he could see down the walkway as the Thompson pictured had appeared to do. Gary Mack eventually got around to doing this and I am going to share his findings with the forum at this time and then I will close with a final thought concerning this matter.

Mack's message to me had read as follows:

"Hi Bill,

I followed up on your suggestion to check Lee Bowers' view of Dealey Plaza groundskeeper Emmett Hudson at the moment of the assassination. While I can get access to the railroad tower, the view from there is now obscured by overhanging tree branches. So I did the research from the other end - that of Emmett Hudson - and here is what I found.

There is a walkway extending from the pergola to just past the end of the cement wall; from there, steps continue down the hill to the Elm Street sidewalk. Halfway down the steps is a landing, of sorts, in which the step is much wider than all the others.

I stood where Hudson did, at the far west side of the first step below the landing, then turned around expecting to see the tower. Nope! No tower. It was entirely blocked from view by the pergola itself! No matter where I stood from the landing to the sidewalk, the tower was completely blocked by the north pergola.

That means, despite what some have theorized, Lee Bowers could not have seen Hudson, the man next to him, or the third man standing three steps below them. As we know from testimony and pictures, Hudson sat down on those steps and waited there with the other guy for several minutes before the motorcade arrived. That action guaranteed neither man would have been visible to Bowers at any time.

So where were the two men Bowers talked about to the Warren Commission, Emile de Antonio, Mark Lane, Jones Harris and others? Bowers said the men were behind the fence on the "high ground" just west of the west end of the pergola. That pinpoints the location. He could not have seen men on the steps for their location was completely blocked from Bowers' view by the pergola itself.

As you know from your visits to Dealey Plaza, the steps do not fall in a straight line from the walkway to the curb. They are curved. Their actual path, from the walkway, is semi-circular extending slightly to the west above the landing and back to the east below it. Because of that, I decided to check the steps above the landing even though Hudson was never there, as far as anyone knows.

If, and this is a very big if, Hudson stood on the second step above the walkway and leaned way over the west edge of the steps, he might see a small part of the large window where Bowers stood. But there's no reason to suspect that Hudson did that, nor was there any reason to walk around on the hill and avoid the steps. And even if Hudson did do that, the second man would still have been totally blocked from Bowers' view by the pergola.

Continuing up the steps away from the street, starting with the third step past the landing, the steps curve back toward the east into the pergola, further blocking any possible view back to the railroad tower.

Therefore, by conducting a simple, on-site, scientific test it is now proven that the two men Bowers saw were definitely not Emmett Hudson or either of the two other men waiting for President Kennedy more than halfway down those steps.

Gary Mack"

This test by Gary Mack worked in much the same way as an example I used when 'The Classic Gunman' was being debated some time ago between Tim Carroll and myself. Tim believed that there was a possibility that the Classic Gunman might have been real and possibly shooting at Kennedy. The film showing this alleged figure was the Orville Nix film. Well I knew that if there really was a Classic Gunman and he was shooting at JFK, then it must have been possible for JFK to have looked back the other way to see him. But there were no photos taken from inside the limo, but there was the photo that Mary Moorman had taken within 4/18s of a second of the kill shot to JFK and Mary's photo did not show anyone at the alleged Classic Gunman location. What Gary Mack did is based on the same principle. Gary knew that if Bowers could see the men on the steps, then the men on the steps should have been able to turn around and see Bowers. As Gary reported and as I suspected - the Shelter prevented Bowers from being able to see anyone on the steps.

So where did all the support come from about the two men Bowers saw as being the men on the steps? A quick review of the thread will give one the answer to that question. How ironic that this person made a comment about my rebuttal's by saying the following, "By the way, beware of anyone who says that something is so, but who then does not produce the proof that this something is so." Not counting the off-topic say nothing responses this person posted ... this individual pushed the idea that the two men Bowers told the Commission about were the men on the steps no less than thirty seven times. This person referenced Dale Myers site in support of his allegation no less than 12 times within his responses.

And how was it possible for this individual who warns his fellow forum members that just because someone says something is so, it doesn't make it so ... well lets recap once again at what it took to make the three men on the steps be the two men Lee had testified to seeing between he and the underpass.

What does it take to corroborate Myers contention???

1) So far it took someone to claim that when Bowers told Ball that the men were on the "High Ground" between he and the mouth of the underpass - that this meant that the men were on what Bowers called the incline between he and the walkway.

2) It took someone to claim that when Bowers said the word "south" - that Lee must have meant 'north'.

3) It took someone to then say that when Bowers said the man in the dark pants was "Heavy-Set" - that this must have meant that Bowers only meant that one skinny man looked bigger than the other skinny man.

4) It also took someone to claim that when Bowers told Ball about seeing two men - that Bowers must have meant three men.

5) It also took someone to believe that when Bowers said that the two men were 10 to 15 feet apart - that this meant that they were side by side and shoulder to shoulder for Hudson and the man next to him were only inches apart.

6) It also took someone to believe that when Bowers spoke of these two men standing as the the caravan came into the plaza from Main onto Houston Street - that Lee must have meant they were sitting next to each other and stood up when the caravan turned off of Houston and onto Elm Street.

(Wow! Bowers said the two men he saw were standing and looking up towards Main and Houston watching the caravan come down and Hudson said that he and the guy next to him were sitting and stood up only when the President came around the corner at Houston and Elm street and somehow in a twisted propaganda kind of way you seem to see them as saying the same thing)

Mr. BALL - Were they standing together or standing separately?

Mr. BOWERS - They were standing within 10 or 15 feet of each other, and gave no appearance of being together, as far as I knew.

Mr. BALL - In what direction were they facing?

Mr. BOWERS - They were facing and looking up towards Main and Houston, and following the caravan as it came down.

Mr.Hudson - ........ When the motorcade turned off of Houston onto Elm, we got up and stood up

7) It also took someone to resort to using such a well-known poor quality multi-generational film as the Nix film is, which doesn't even allow one to see these mens faces, so to be able to lay claim that the men on the steps wore plaid coats and shirts - while ignoring far better original high resolution scans that the 6Th Floor Museum has on hand which doesn't show any plaid designs.

One has to laugh when seeing all the switching out of players and what this person must have meant or that person in order to make such a ridiculous claim that the men on the steps were the two guys Bowers told Mr. Ball about, but to then say, "Whether mythical better quality images at the 6th Floor Museum show plaid or no plaid is completely beside the point & irrelevant" is a joke on two levels. Going back through the thread it was apparent that this individual needed to have the men on the steps to be wearing plaid or he knew that he had a problem. He then called the Towner camera originals 'the mythical better quality images'.

Now there is number 8: To make the three men on the steps/incline be the two men that Lee Bowers had claimed were on the 'High Ground' between he and the mouth of the underpass - this individual needs to now ignore the shelter connected to the colonnade and somehow make it go away. Nothing short of incorporating the help of David Copperfield is going to get that job done, but who knows? How amazing has it been to watch unfold a series of the switching out of words pertaining to when Bowers said this - then he must of meant that. Skinny men become fairly heavy set. Men said by Bowers to be standing as much as 15 feet apart are side by side and only inches apart. The term plaid is seen as meaning 'red-plaid'. If good 1st generation slides don't show a plaid design at all, then all one needs to do is refer to them as 'mythical' and then utilize a multi-generational film that can't show enough detail to see the faces of the men in question, but can be said to show the finer details of an alleged plaid design even if through the use of pixelization. And for what reason was all this done ... it was done to make a simple wording of a statement on a transcript appear to have some earth shattering meaning to it. But rather than to call the person who was said to be responsible for making the mark on the transcript - it was to be avoided at all cost. Kathy Beckett had this to say about the ever changing excuses being given for not doing the research necessary for those who felt there was something afoul about the transcript ...

"He was supposed to call them and report what they said (but) He wouldn't have been believed if he had, unless it was recorded.

Now,he does not need to call them, because we already know what they'll say, because any researcher who needs Bill " to read evidence for them, evidence that they already have to hand I add, needs looking at for many reasons." And since the names cames from Gary, and not from Bill, we now need a few more names(??) Are you arguing over the number of names or the evidence???"

That simple phone call could have led to knowing what else was written on the transcripts that may have cleared the matter up one way or another. Perhaps Lane marked that particular wording because it was in error. Perhaps elsewhere in the transcripts there were other references made to those men which was not so confusing. No, it seems that those wanting the three men on the steps to be the two same men Bowers testified about didn't want to find out any more than what they had been alleging. Perhaps that is why they never did the first basic test and that was to see if the RR tower could have even been viewed from the Hudson location.

The following principle seems to apply here and it reads as follows, "The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed" That principle is called 'Occam's Razor'.

Bill Miller

Edited October 17, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Miles Scull]

duplicate post

Therefore, by conducting a simple, on-site, scientific test it is now proven that the two men Bowers saw were definitely not Emmett Hudson or either of the two other men waiting for President Kennedy more than halfway down those steps.

Gary Mack"

Oops,

No can do.

It is helpful to hear of Gary's experiments.

Unfortunately, Gary does not provide photos.

Thus, his conclusions are not verifiable & cannot be accepted. Saying so is not proof.

Bowers' words stand solid, as do Myers' contentions where photos are provided.

See: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

[Bill Miller]

Oops,

No can do.

It is helpful to hear of Gary's experiments.

Unfortunately, Gary does not provide photos.

Thus, his conclusions are not verifiable & cannot be accepted. Saying so is not proof.

Bowers' words stand solid, as do Myers' contentions where photos are provided.

Well, Miles - you are wrong when saying that Mack didn't provide proof. Mack has provided Dealey Plaza to anyone who cares to come there and see the proof for themselves ... just as he invites people to come to the Museum and see high resolution scans of the assassination images.

Furthermore, an overhead photo of the RR yard would allow anyone to check the accuracy of his observation concerning not being able to see the tower from where Hudson stood. In fact, ask Dale Myers to tell you if what Mack said was accurate or not. It seems apparent that you DID NOT check any of these things for yourself for the same reason you wouldn't spend the cost of one jelly doughnut to have phoned Lane and asked for an explanation for the marks on the document. Nor have you provided any of the rest of the interview to see if Bowers referenced the men elsewhere.

Now about the interpretation of the said document:

SMOKE: Bowers believed for what ever reason that an officer rode his cycle halfway up the incline. (Note that Bowers still refers the hill leading down to the street as the "INCLINE" and the two men he told Ball about were on what Lee called the "HIGH GROUND") The riding of a motorcycle up the incline of course, did not happen. Dallas cycle rider Officer Haygood parked his cycle at the curb and dismounted his bike there. Bowers, having seen smoke just past the fence and over the embankment, obviously attributed that to an event that can be shown to have never happened. And if Haygood's cycle had smoked, then according to your past remarks concerning the direction that the wind was blowing, then the smoke would have been blown not up the embankment, but up and across Elm Street towards Moorman's location.

The post assassination photo below shows what looks like Haygood's cycle parked at the curb. There is a different post assassination photo (which I do not have at the moment) that shows Haygood actually parking his bike at the curb. Bowers had said that at the time of the shooting was when he noticed the flash of light and/or smoke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw

The image showing Haygood parking his cycle is well past the moment of the shooting. Thus there is a serious problem with both Haygood being the source for Bowers seeing the smoke at the time of the shooting. One is the location where Haygood parked his cycle in relation of the wind direction, and the other is in the time that this took place in relation to the moment Bowers saw the flash of light and/or smoke.

Image below of the cycle rider seen under the road sign and not running up the steps, but across and up the embankment where the smoke came through the trees.

Bowers then said that the police officer upon leaving his cycle had come up the embankment in the vicinity where the two men were that he described. Maybe it would help you if you saw the definition of the word "Vicinity" .......

vi·cin·i·ty (vĭ-sĭn'ĭ-tē) pronunciation

n., pl. -ties.

1. The state of being near in space or relationship; proximity: two restaurants in close vicinity.

2. A nearby, surrounding, or adjoining region; a neighborhood.

Richard C. Dodd said that the smoke came from the hedge on the north side of the plaza.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVHyFZuzGH4...ted&search=

This would be the small trees seen along the stockade fence. Unlike Bowers who could not see through a concrete shelter and over the embankment, Dodd said the police offer left his bike in the street, drew his pistol, and ran up the embankment towards the hedge.

James Leon Simmons said that the shot seem to have come from the stockade fence and a puff of smoke came out over the embankment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLd3O-Tch6o...ted&search=

So this is basically what Bowers said, but with a little more detail being given. Where along the fence did Simmons say the shot came from ... Lane shows the diagram that Simmons marked with the "X".

So when Bowers said that something happened in the immediate area of the embankment, Simmons makes it clear that the fence is considered to be in the immediate area of the embankment and it was from the hedges that run along the fence from where the smoke came from as it drifted out over the embankment.

It is by cross referencing these witnesses that what Bowers was telling Lane becomes quite clear and that it takes someone who doesn't care to actually research the matter in any depth to continue to embrace the three men on the steps as being the two men that Bowers told Ball about.

Bill Miller

Edited October 18, 2007 by Bill Miller

[Ken Rheberg]

duplicate post

Therefore, by conducting a simple, on-site, scientific test it is now proven that the two men Bowers saw were definitely not Emmett Hudson or either of the two other men waiting for President Kennedy more than halfway down those steps.

Gary Mack"

Oops,

No can do.

It is helpful to hear of Gary's experiments.

Unfortunately, Gary does not provide photos.

Thus, his conclusions are not verifiable & cannot be accepted. Saying so is not proof.

Bowers' words stand solid, as do Myers' contentions where photos are provided.

See: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

Miles,

This response of yours is, well, . . . just plain bizarre. Gary Mack has done us all a favor by taking the time to go down to the grassy knoll stairway, stand where Emmett Hudson was standing, and discover that Dale Myers was wrong (and that means you, too). Lee Bowers didn't see anyone on the stairway. A view of the three men was blocked by the pergola. It had to be someone else. But you go on to say:

"Gary does not provide photos. Thus, his conclusions are not verifiable & cannot be accepted. Saying so is not proof."

In the Ed Hoffman thread, you said Gary Mack should be revered. You're not showing much reverence here, Miles.

Why wouldn't you thank him for clearing this up? And then ask him to just take a few pictures to support his findings? That's all you'd have to do. Instead you outright reject what he's said with this grandiose statement:

"Bowers' words stand solid, as do Myers' contentions where photos are provided."

You're with Myers all the way. Yet, for support, you provide us with a website which has no photos. Only a computer image which is irrelevant.

Are you enjoying all this attention? I have no other explanation for why you do and say what you do.

Ken

[Miles Scull]

duplicate post

Therefore, by conducting a simple, on-site, scientific test it is now proven that the two men Bowers saw were definitely not Emmett Hudson or either of the two other men waiting for President Kennedy more than halfway down those steps.

Gary Mack"

Oops,

No can do.

It is helpful to hear of Gary's experiments.

Unfortunately, Gary does not provide photos.

Thus, his conclusions are not verifiable & cannot be accepted. Saying so is not proof.

Bowers' words stand solid, as do Myers' contentions where photos are provided.

See: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

Miles,

This response of yours is, well, . . . just plain bizarre. Ken

Bizarre but factually correct.

See: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman.htm

Notice any photos?

Also see: http://www.dfwvirtualtours.net/jfkstuff/freewayman.pdf

For a refutation of Ed Hoffman.

Finally, who is the bizarre hatted man in the photo in the yellow "?" circle who is smaller than the adjacent car? This shows the absolute need for clear & EXAMINED photographic evidence.

[Miles Scull]

duplicate post

Therefore, by conducting a simple, on-site, scientific test it is now proven that the two men Bowers saw were definitely not Emmett Hudson or either of the two other men waiting for President Kennedy more than halfway down those steps.

Gary Mack"

Oops,

No can do.

It is helpful to hear of Gary's experiments.

Unfortunately, Gary does not provide photos.

Thus, his conclusions are not verifiable & cannot be accepted. Saying so is not proof.

Bowers' words stand solid, as do Myers' contentions where photos are provided.

See: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_4.htm

Miles,

no photos. Only a computer image which is irrelevant.

Ken

Referring again to:

Alan,

Just for the record, my analysis coincides with your statements here.

On another point, Bowers says that there was no one behind OR before the fence.

That's correct.

One of the only times that hearsay is allowed, and this is extremely rare, is, for example, in the case that there exists NO other evidence of a probable fact such as, for example, that it was raining on that day.

But, since Bower's transcript exists, hearsay would NEVER be allowed.

The hearsay rule applies because what Lane &/or De Antonio said to Gary Mack or to anyone else regarding what Bowers said is inadmissible because the truth cannot be tried.

For example, if A says to B that C told him that D received a Degree of Bachelor of JFK Arts from Lancer University or from ED Forum U., then we must go to the actual records in archive of those Universities for proof because D may not have in fact received such a Degree.

The problem is why were critical passages of Bowers' interview expunged? -

I would ask Alan for inspection of Lane's conduct which many have noted.

It's always hard to see new ideas which change the old.