How reliable is Josiah Thompson?

[Josiah Thompson]

Mr. Rigby,

Sometimes a criticism is so far off the mark, so silly in fact, that it draws opprobrium back on the critic. Your last attempt to show that I am unreliable does precisely that.

Earlier, you charged that a typo in Appendix A: List of Witnesses in "Six Seconds" was a devious attempt on my part to defend the unchallenged authenticity of the Zapruder film. The typo was in mistakenly indicating in the chart that Mr. and Mrs. Franzen were on the north side of Elm Street when they were on the south side. I checked their statements, saw you were correct, and immediately acknowledged the mistake.

Next you claimed that I had mis-located Mr. an Mrs. Hester north of Elm Street and that this was again part of a plot to defend the Zapruder film. When it was pointed out that the Zapruder film shows them near the Pergola (north of Elm St.) before the shooting and that #7 Altgens shows them near the Pergola (north of Elm St.) seconds after of the shooting, you claimed the Altgens photo was not taken by Altgens and hence fake. When it was pointed out that Richard Sprague and Richard Trask had verified that the negative of Altgens #7 was in the AP files in both chronological and serial order with the other Altgens negatives, you had no reply.

Next you incoherently attempted to find fault with how I characterized the reports of two witnesses (Austin Miller, Royce Skelton). When I checked and reported back that my characterization of their reports was true in every respect, you had no reply.

Now you charge me with being “misogynistic” for not including in my chart summaries of the reports of four women: Gloria Holt, Stella Mae Jacobs, Sharon Nelson and Carol Reed. These women and other witnesses were excluded from the chart for the simple reason that their reports said nothing about (1) number of shots, (2) bunching of shots, (3) direction of sounds/shots, (4) total time of shots. I even told you why they were excluded from the chart. They are listed under the category: “OTHER WITNESSES MENTIONED IN GOVERNMENT REPORTS.” The heading for this group of witnesses reads: “Although the names of the following witnesses appear in official government reports, the witnesses were either not questioned by any investigative agency, or were questioned so superficially as not to elicit significant data.” Can’t you read? They were left out of the chart because they didn’t say anything significant.

You also claimed I mischaracterized the reports of three witnesses: Karen Westbrook, Karan Hicks and Gloria Calvery. With respect to Westbrook and Hicks, you are just plain wrong. The characterization in the chart is true and correct. However, you are correct that the chart mistakenly says with respect to Calvery: “JFK directly in front of her on last shot.” This, once again is a typo and a harmless one at that. Why do I say “harmless?” Because Calvery is positioned on a map on page 32 of Six Seconds that locates various witnesses at the time of the first shot. There she is quoted correctly as follows: “The car he [the President] was in was almost directly in front of where I was standing when I heard the first shot.” (22H638)

You’ve been at this now for almost a week and your batting average is pretty low. You have discovered precisely two typos in a chart of witnesses that stretches over 17 pages and one of those typos was harmless because the witness was correctly quoted in the text. I said earlier that you had produced a mouse. That mouse is shrinking. So is my patience.

[Paul Rigby]

So much for Thompson’s summaries. In fact, the Franzens were on the south curb of Elm; and their accounts more interesting than Thompson would have his readers discover by reading them for themselves.

OK, while we’re on the subject of the Franzens, and Mr T’s apology for mislocating both parents and son – don’t forget the son: three mislocations for the price of one, now that’s what I call value for the reader’s money - on the wrong side of Elm, let’s jump a category in the thread, and move, for the moment, to the third category of my planned series...

3) Censored and misleading summaries of eyewitness testimony in Six Seconds in Dallas

“Underneath everything, I’d become weary of deception. I wanted to be done with it. But then I hadn’t dealt with my predilection for the dramatic, nor had I acknowledged the price of candor,”

Josiah Thompson. Gumshoe: Reflections in a Private Eye (London: Pan Books Ltd, 1988), p.75.

When is a Boone not a boon to a proponent of Z film authenticity?

Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone, witness 13 in Thompson’s “Master List of Assassination Witnesses,” Six Seconds in Dallas (Bernard Geis, 1967), p.255:

Location: Sheriff’s Office, Main St.

No. of shots: 3

Bunching of shots: 2 & 3

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Total time of shots: ---

Date of report: 3/25/64

References: 3H291-295

Remarks: ---

The testimony from Boone our intrepid truth-seeker would have us confine our attention begins here:

http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol3/page291.php

Boone:

“Some of the bystanders over there seemed to think the shots came from up over the railroad in the freight yards, from over the triple underpass,” 3H292

So Boone, on 25 March 1964, failed to express an opinion of his own as to the origins of the shots when testifying before the Presidential Commission. Thompson, it would appear, was telling the truth.

Or was he?

The problem is, of course, that Thompson omitted to mention that Boone had contributed three pages to what became Decker Exhibit No. 5323. ‘Supplementary Investigation Report [dated Nov. 22, 1963],’ within Dallas County Sheriff’s Office record…,’ as published in Hearings, v. 19. Here we find that Boone did have an opinion of his own, at least he did on 22 November 1963, before the indications of unnamed witnesses, who, as we have seen, suggested to him that the shots had come from the freight yards or the overpass:

"…I heard three shots coming [sic] from the vicinity of where the President's car was…,” 19H508.

Thus between 22 November 1963, and 25 March 1964, Boone had divested himself of his initial impression and purged himself of heresy. Sensible man.

In his major statement of 22 November, Boone reported that he had encountered, upon reaching Elm Street, a named witness, H. W. Betzner, who had taken “three pictures” - all of which Boone had retained and handed to “Officer Reynolds to be placed with Betzner’s statement”– “just seconds prior to the rifle shots” (19H508). Here’s Thompson’s Table summary of Betzner’s testimony:

Location: Elm St., S. side, short distance down from corner

No. of shots: “at least” 2

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Total time of shots: ---

Date of report: 11/22/63

References: 19H467

Remarks: ---

Upon inspection, we find that on p.467 of volume 19, Betzner failed to express an opinion as to the origin of the shots in a manner remarkably similar to Mr and Mrs Franzen (see earlier posting in this thread). Nor can it be seriously argued that the same statement contains any observations sufficiently arresting to merit inclusion in Thompson’s table:

“I heard at least two shots fired and I saw what looked like a firecracker going off in the President’s car. My assumption for this was because I saw fragments going up in the air. I also saw a man in either the President’s car or in the car behind his and someone down in one of those cars pulled out what looked like a rifle. I also remember seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone’s hand in the President’s car or somewhere immediately around his car…I walked down toward where the President’s car had stopped. I saw a Police Officer and some men in plain clothes. I don’t know who they were. These Police Officers and the men in plain clothes were digging around in the dirt as if they were looking for a bullet.”

An explosion inside the presidential limo; SS men, in the presidential limo and/or the follow-up car, drawing a rifle and a handgun; the presidential limo stopping by the south curb of Elm, where policeman and plain clothes men subsequently searched for a bullet…

Nah, I can’t see anything among that little lot worthy of inclusion in the column entitled “Remarks,” can you?

Paul

[David G. Healy]

Surely, that last statement must be a joke. My girlfriend, at least, is laughing. If, after reading Josiah's posts and mine you conclude we're "right-wing", YOUR research is far more questionable than ours, Paul. Holy smokes. Josiah was an anti-Vietnam war activist at a time when it meant something. He was involved in radical activities against the government at a time when it could have gotten him killed. And me, I only marched in protest of the war in Iraq BEFORE the war, and walked the suburbs of Las Vegas in 2004 in support of Kerry. I also denounce the Bush Administration at every opportunity, and urge Bush and Cheney's immediate impeachment. If them's not right-wing credentials I don't know what is.

Pat, Paul starts with a conclusion and works his way backwards, thus he gets caught up in saying silly things to make it appear that he has legs.

LMFAO, no wonder you've gotten no further than this forum.... you get anything published? EVER!

[Paul Rigby]

You’ve been at this now for almost a week and your batting average is pretty low. You have discovered precisely two typos in a chart of witnesses that stretches over 17 pages and one of those typos was harmless because the witness was correctly quoted in the text. I said earlier that you had produced a mouse. That mouse is shrinking. So is my patience.

Meet yet another king-size rodent: Your attempt to claim James N. Crawford as a "KNOLL" witness. Enjoy!

Witness number 34, p.256, in Josiah Thompson’s exceptionally reliable Master List of assassination witnesses is one James N. Crawford. Here’s Thompson’s summary of his details in the familiar format:

Location: Corner, Elm/Houston

No. of shots: 3

Bunching of shots: 2 & 3

Direction of sound/shots: KNOLL: “From down the hill”

Total time of shots: ---

Date of report: 1/10/64; 4/1/64

References: Archives, CD 329, p.22; 6H171-174

Remarks: ---

This couldn’t be clearer, and was presumably intended to convince by the ever-so subtle deployment of capital letters: Crawford insisted the shots came from the “KNOLL.”

One very minor problem: Crawford didn’t, in either of the sources cited, have a word to say about the “KNOLL.” Here’s the proof:

Source 1:

The title of the first source, “Commission Document 329 – FBI Gemberling Report of 22 January 1964, re: Oswald/Russia/Cuba,” is, it should be noted, something of a misnomer. In fact, the document is dominated by an appended list entitled “Additional Assassination Witnesses,” among them, Crawford. The first part of his statement of Jan 1964 runs as follows:

“James N. Crawford, Deputy District Court Clerk, Dallas County District Court Clerk’s Office, Records Building, advised that approximately three minutes before the presidential parade approached the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets near the Texas School Book Depository, Mr Crawford along with a fellow employee, Mary Ann Mitchell, left the Dallas County District Court Clerk’s Office and went to the southeast corner of Elm and Houston Streets to await the approach of the presidential motorcade. As soon as he reached the southeast corner of Elm and Houston, Mr Crawford noted that the presidential motorcade was just rounding the corner at Houston and Main Street. Mr Crawford watched the President pass in the Presidential limousine turning west onto Elm Street toward the Elm Street Triple Underpass. Mr Crawford estimated that approximately four or five automobiles including the Presidential automobile, of the Presidential motorcade had turned down Elm when Mr Crawford heard the backfiring of an automobile. Mr Crawford believed these sounds came from one of the cars in the front of the Presidential motorcade which was approaching the Triple Underpass. Upon further evaluation of the sounds Crawford thought that the sounds might be fireworks. He looked around for signs of smoke.

Mr Crawford stated that to his best recollection there was a definite pause of as much as 15 to 20 seconds between the first and the second sound, and the second and third sounds came very close together…

Oh dear: No “KNOLL”!

Source 2:

Now to the second of Thompson’s sources for Crawford as “KNOLL” exponent. There’s a bottle of champagne to anyone who can locate the word, or, indeed, find the merest hint of the “KNOLL,” from anything offered by Crawford before the Warren Commission three months later:

“The testimony of James N. Crawford was taken at 11:15 a.m., on April 1, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.”

http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol6/page171.php

Mr. Ball: Did you see the President's car pass?

Mr. Crawford: I did.

Mr. Ball: And just tell me in your own words what you observed after that?

Mr. Crawford: As I observed the parade, I believe there was a car leading the President's car, followed by the President's car and followed, I suppose, by the Vice President's car and, in turn, by the Secret Service in a yellow closed sedan. The doors of the sedan were open. It was after the Secret Service sedan had gone around the corner that I heard the first report and at that time I thought it was a backfire of a car but,in analyzing the situation, it could not have been a backfire of a car because it would have had to have been the President's car or some car in the cavalcade there. The second shot followed some seconds, a little time elapsed after the first one, and followed very quickly by the third one. I could not see the President's car---

Mr. Ball: At that time?

Mr. Crawford: That's right; I couldn't even see the Secret Service car, at least I wasn't looking for it. As the report from the third shot sounded, I looked up. I had previously looked around to see if there was somebody shooting firecrackers to see if I could see a puff of smoke, and after I decided it wasn't a backfire from an automobile and as the third report was sounded, I looked up and from the far east corner of the sixth floor I saw a movement in the only window that was open on that floor. It was an indistinct movement. It was just barely a glimpse.

Mr. Ball: Which window?

Mr. Crawford: That would be the far east window---

Mr. Ball: On the---

Mr. Crawford: On the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. I turned to Miss Mitchell and made the statement that if those were shots they came from that window. That was based mainly on the fact of the quick movement observed in the window right at the conclusion of the report.

Mr. Ball:[/b Could you give me any better description than just a movement? Could you use any other words to describe what you saw by way of color or size of what you saw moving?

Mr. Crawford: If I were asked to describe it, I would say that it was a profile, somewhat from the waist up, but it was a very quick movement and rather indistinct and it was very light colored. It was either light colored or it was reflection from the sun. When the gun was found, or when a gun was found, I asked the question if it was white, simply because if it was a gun I saw, then it was either white or it was reflecting the sun so it would appear white or light colored.

Mr. Ball: Did you see any boxes in that window?

Mr. Crawford: Yes, directly behind the window, oh possibly three feet or less, there were boxes stacked up behind the window and I believe it was the only place in the building that I observed where boxes were stacked just like that.

Mr. Ball: Did you see any boxes in the window?

Mr. Crawford: No, I didn't see any. There wasn't any boxes in the window.

Mr. Ball: Did you stay there at that point very long, the southeast corner?

Mr. Crawford: No; as I said, I couldn't observe the President's car and I had no actual knowledge that he had been shot, so realizing that we should get the information almost immediately from the radio which had been covering the motorcade--we had been listening to it prior to going on the street--I thought our best information would come from that, so we went, Miss Mitchell and I, went back into the office. I have no way of knowing the time. I would say it was a minute or---I would say a minute.

Mr. Ball:After you heard the shots, did you return to the office?

Mr. Crawford: Yes.

Mr. Ball:The movement that you saw that you describe as something light and perhaps a profile from the waist up, you mean it looked like a profile of a person?

Mr. Crawford: That was-I had a hard time describing that. When I saw it, I automatically in my mind came to the conclusion that it was a person having moved out of the window. Now, to say that it was a brown haired, light skinned individual, I could not do that.

Mr. Ball:Could you tell whether it was a man or woman?

Mr. Crawford: I could not.

Mr. Ball:You made a report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the 10th of January?

Mr. Crawford: Yes.

Mr. Ball:Before I ask you about your report, did you have any impression as to the source of the sound, from what direction the sound came, the sound of the explosions?

Mr. Crawford:. Yes; I do. As I mentioned before, the sound, I thought it was a backfire in the cavalcade from down the hill, down the hill toward the underpass.

Mr. Ball:You mean west on Elm ?

Mr. Crawford: Yes, and that was a little confusing and in analyzing it later, evidently the report that I heard, and probably a lot of other people, the officers or the FBI, it evidently was a sound that was reflected by the underpass and therefore came back. It did not sound to me, ever, as I remember, the high-powered rifle sounding. It was not the sharp crack.

Mr. Ball:What caused you to look up at the Texas School Book Depository Building?

Mr. Crawford: The sound had to be coming from somewhere; the noise was being made at some place, so I didn't see anyone shooting firecrackers or anything else and I thought "this idiot surely shouldn't do such a thing," but if they were, where were they, and if they were shots, where were they coming from, and that caused me to search the whole area on Houston Street and in front of the Texas Depository on Elm Street and then up and that's how I happened to be looking up at the time, rather than observing things in the street, probably.

Mr. Ball:Did you ever see any smoke?

Mr. Crawford: No, sir; I did not.

Mr. Ball:In your remark to Mary Ann Mitchell, did you say "if those were shots, they came from that window"?

Mr. Crawford: Yes.

Mr. Ball:That is what you reported to the FBI agent, also?

Mr. Crawford: Yes, I suppose; at that time, I was still not absolutely sure that they were shots and that's why I said if they were shots. I was basing that, I am sure I was basing that mainly on the fact of this quick movement that I observed. In other words, if I were firing the shots, I would have jumped back immediately at the conclusion of them.

Mr. Ball:Later on, did you go back in the street and talk to someone?

Mr. Crawford: Yes.

Mr. Ball:Did you talk to a deputy sheriff?

Mr. Crawford: Allen Swett.

Mr. Ball:What did you tell him?

Mr. Crawford: I told him to have the men search the boxes directly behind this window that was open on the sixth floor-the window in the far east corner.

Mr. Ball:Did you tell him anything of what you had seen?

Mr. Crawford: I don't think so. I think I was so amazed that I could walk across the street and walk up to this building that was supposedly under surveillance and the man had not been---I say "the man"---there had not been anyone apprehended.

Mr. Ball:How long was it after you heard the shots that you walked up to Allen Swett and talked to him?

Mr. Crawford: My guess is it could have been anywhere from 10-20 minutes. My guess would be around 15-20 minutes.

Mr. Ball:In the statement you made to the FBI agent, he reports you said you walked to the Texas School Book Depository where you contacted Deputy Sheriff Allen Swett and advised him of the movement you had seen in the sixth floor window?

Mr. Crawford: I must have said something about the movement. I did tell him to search those windows, I think.

Mr. Ball:Could you in your own words give us your memory of what you told Allen Swett?

Mr. Crawford: I would probably have said, as I remember it, that to have the men search--have someone search the boxes directly behind that window. I had seen some movement directly after the shots. That was, I think, all I said. I did not-there was no conversation and at the conclusion of my statement, he directed several men up there.

Mr. Ball:Did you ever go in the building yourself?

Mr. Crawford: I did not and I still have not been in there.

Mr. Ball:I think that's all, Mr. Crawford. Thanks very much.

Mr. Crawford: Thank you, Mr. Ball.

Mr. Ball:Incidentally, will you waive signature on this?

Mr. Crawford: Yes; I will.

Crawford’s initial response, then, was that the sounds had emanated from a vehicle at the head of the motorcade. He dismissed the notion because it was unthinkable to him that the Secret Service could be involved. He then looked around and his eye was caught by movement of what seemed to him a human figure at a sixth floor window of the TSBD.

And the “KNOLL”? Pure, 100% Thompsonian invention. But then, what's new?

Paul

[William Kelly]

How Reliable is Josiah Thompson.

Reliable enough to be introduced in a court of law as an expert witness.

How Reliable is Paul Rigby?

He now reminds me of the Monty Python character whose hands and legs are cut off, yet he continues to torment and insult his adversaries.

Bill Kelly

[Pat Speer]

Come on, Paul. It's clear you're just trying to annoy Thompson. For what purpose? Because he said something you didn't like about something else?

While you are correct that he mis-characterized Crawford's words to be KNOLL, you miss that from where Crawford was standing the limo was in line with the...KNOLL...and that Crawford's saying he thought the sound came from the limousine or head of the motorcade implied the shot came from the KNOLL, and not the depository. This was what Thompson was trying to communicate. But yes, you are correct. His words might mislead someone a wee bit...into thinking there was a shot from the knoll, and thus, a conspiracy. So, make up your mind--was he misleading people into thinking there was a conspiracy, or no conspiracy?

One wonders why you want to spend your energy on this. Single-assassin theorists most always count anyone saying the shots came from the vicinity of Houston and Elm as someone claiming the shots came from the depository. Aren't their mistakes more worthy of discussion? Or is it just more fun to attack fellow forum members?

P.S. In chapters 5 thru 9 at patspeer.com, I pick up where Josiah left off and go through the statements of the witnesses to demonstrate beyond any real doubt that the first shot was NOT a miss around frame 160, as currently purported by single-assassin theorists. If you'd like to argue that the first shot was a miss at frame 160, please do so.

[Josiah Thompson]

Dear me, Mr. Rigby, you really should pay attention to quotation marks.

In the chart you are so assiduously studying under the column “Direction of sound/shots,” two general categories keep appearing again and again. One is KNOLL and the other is TSBD. Following the assignment of either one of these general categories, you will find next to it a direct quote from the witness. Therefore, in James N. Crawford’s case, the general category was KNOLL: which, in turn, was followed by a direct quote from Crawford: “from down the hill.” The usefulness of this system is that the reader gets a judgment of the general direction from which a witness reports hearing a shot as well as a taste of his actual statement.

You offer champagne for anyone who can find the Crawford using the term “KNOLL.” But the offer only shows your inability to read the chart correctly. It is as silly as making the similar offer for anyone who can find Mrs. Robert E. Sanders (TSBD: “building above her”) using the term “TSBD.” Or William H. Shelley (KNOLL: “came from the west”) using the term “KNOLL.” In short, since I never implied nor asserted that Crawford said the shots were coming from the “KNOLL,” you missed the point entirely.

Did James Crawford hear shots coming from the general direction of the KNOLL? Let’s see what he says. The quotes all come from you.

First off, he is standing on the southeast corner of Elm and Houston Streets. Here’s what an FBI agent says he recalled in an interview in January 1964:

“Mr. Crawford watched the President pass in the Presidential limousine turning west onto Elm Street toward the Elm Street Triple Underpass. Mr Crawford estimated that approximately four or five automobiles including the Presidential automobile, of the Presidential motorcade had turned down Elm when Mr Crawford heard the backfiring of an automobile. Mr Crawford believed these sounds came from one of the cars in the front of the Presidential motorcade which was approaching the Triple Underpass.”

Later, when he was questioned by Commission Counsel Joseph Ball of the Warren Commission on April 1, 1964:

“Mr. Ball: Before I ask you about your report, did you have any impression as to the source of the sound, from what direction the sound came, the sound of the explosions?

Mr. Crawford:. Yes; I do. As I mentioned before, the sound, I thought it was a backfire in the cavalcade from down the hill, down the hill toward the underpass.“

Given Crawford’s position at the southeast corner, there can be no doubt that he’s hearing shots from the general direction of the knoll.

I’d like to say that this fencing with you has been fun... but I really can’t. And now it’s becoming tiresome and I have real work to do. Since over all these days’ time you’ve been unable to come up with anything significant, I’m just going to figure that you’ve had your chance and I don’t have to deal with you anymore. I find it very revealing that when your criticism is shown to be full of hot air, you don't try to defend it. You just throw up some more mud hoping it will stick on the wall. Guess who pioneered that particular form of argument? 'Bye!

You’ve been at this now for almost a week and your batting average is pretty low. You have discovered precisely two typos in a chart of witnesses that stretches over 17 pages and one of those typos was harmless because the witness was correctly quoted in the text. I said earlier that you had produced a mouse. That mouse is shrinking. So is my patience.

Meet yet another king-size rodent: Your attempt to claim James N. Crawford as a "KNOLL" witness. Enjoy!

Witness number 34, p.256, in Josiah Thompson’s exceptionally reliable Master List of assassination witnesses is one James N. Crawford. Here’s Thompson’s summary of his details in the familiar format:

Location: Corner, Elm/Houston

No. of shots: 3

Bunching of shots: 2 & 3

Direction of sound/shots: KNOLL: “From down the hill”

Total time of shots: ---

Date of report: 1/10/64; 4/1/64

References: Archives, CD 329, p.22; 6H171-174

Remarks: ---

This couldn’t be clearer, and was presumably intended to convince by the ever-so subtle deployment of capital letters: Crawford insisted the shots came from the “KNOLL.”

One very minor problem: Crawford didn’t, in either of the sources cited, have a word to say about the “KNOLL.” Here’s the proof:

Source 1:

The title of the first source, “Commission Document 329 – FBI Gemberling Report of 22 January 1964, re: Oswald/Russia/Cuba,” is, it should be noted, something of a misnomer. In fact, the document is dominated by an appended list entitled “Additional Assassination Witnesses,” among them, Crawford. The first part of his statement of Jan 1964 runs as follows:

“James N. Crawford, Deputy District Court Clerk, Dallas County District Court Clerk’s Office, Records Building, advised that approximately three minutes before the presidential parade approached the intersection of Elm and Houston Streets near the Texas School Book Depository, Mr Crawford along with a fellow employee, Mary Ann Mitchell, left the Dallas County District Court Clerk’s Office and went to the southeast corner of Elm and Houston Streets to await the approach of the presidential motorcade. As soon as he reached the southeast corner of Elm and Houston, Mr Crawford noted that the presidential motorcade was just rounding the corner at Houston and Main Street. Mr Crawford watched the President pass in the Presidential limousine turning west onto Elm Street toward the Elm Street Triple Underpass. Mr Crawford estimated that approximately four or five automobiles including the Presidential automobile, of the Presidential motorcade had turned down Elm when Mr Crawford heard the backfiring of an automobile. Mr Crawford believed these sounds came from one of the cars in the front of the Presidential motorcade which was approaching the Triple Underpass. Upon further evaluation of the sounds Crawford thought that the sounds might be fireworks. He looked around for signs of smoke.

Mr Crawford stated that to his best recollection there was a definite pause of as much as 15 to 20 seconds between the first and the second sound, and the second and third sounds came very close together…

Oh dear: No “KNOLL”!

Source 2:

Now to the second of Thompson’s sources for Crawford as “KNOLL” exponent. There’s a bottle of champagne to anyone who can locate the word, or, indeed, find the merest hint of the “KNOLL,” from anything offered by Crawford before the Warren Commission three months later:

“The testimony of James N. Crawford was taken at 11:15 a.m., on April 1, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Joseph A. Ball, assistant counsel of the President's Commission.”

http://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol6/page171.php

Mr. Ball: Did you see the President's car pass?

Mr. Crawford: I did.

Mr. Ball: And just tell me in your own words what you observed after that?

Mr. Crawford: As I observed the parade, I believe there was a car leading the President's car, followed by the President's car and followed, I suppose, by the Vice President's car and, in turn, by the Secret Service in a yellow closed sedan. The doors of the sedan were open. It was after the Secret Service sedan had gone around the corner that I heard the first report and at that time I thought it was a backfire of a car but,in analyzing the situation, it could not have been a backfire of a car because it would have had to have been the President's car or some car in the cavalcade there. The second shot followed some seconds, a little time elapsed after the first one, and followed very quickly by the third one. I could not see the President's car---

Mr. Ball: At that time?

Mr. Crawford: That's right; I couldn't even see the Secret Service car, at least I wasn't looking for it. As the report from the third shot sounded, I looked up. I had previously looked around to see if there was somebody shooting firecrackers to see if I could see a puff of smoke, and after I decided it wasn't a backfire from an automobile and as the third report was sounded, I looked up and from the far east corner of the sixth floor I saw a movement in the only window that was open on that floor. It was an indistinct movement. It was just barely a glimpse.

Mr. Ball: Which window?

Mr. Crawford: That would be the far east window---

Mr. Ball: On the---

Mr. Crawford: On the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. I turned to Miss Mitchell and made the statement that if those were shots they came from that window. That was based mainly on the fact of the quick movement observed in the window right at the conclusion of the report.

Mr. Ball:[/b Could you give me any better description than just a movement? Could you use any other words to describe what you saw by way of color or size of what you saw moving?

Mr. Crawford: If I were asked to describe it, I would say that it was a profile, somewhat from the waist up, but it was a very quick movement and rather indistinct and it was very light colored. It was either light colored or it was reflection from the sun. When the gun was found, or when a gun was found, I asked the question if it was white, simply because if it was a gun I saw, then it was either white or it was reflecting the sun so it would appear white or light colored.

Mr. Ball: Did you see any boxes in that window?

Mr. Crawford: Yes, directly behind the window, oh possibly three feet or less, there were boxes stacked up behind the window and I believe it was the only place in the building that I observed where boxes were stacked just like that.

Mr. Ball: Did you see any boxes in the window?

Mr. Crawford: No, I didn't see any. There wasn't any boxes in the window.

Mr. Ball: Did you stay there at that point very long, the southeast corner?

Mr. Crawford: No; as I said, I couldn't observe the President's car and I had no actual knowledge that he had been shot, so realizing that we should get the information almost immediately from the radio which had been covering the motorcade--we had been listening to it prior to going on the street--I thought our best information would come from that, so we went, Miss Mitchell and I, went back into the office. I have no way of knowing the time. I would say it was a minute or---I would say a minute.

Mr. Ball:After you heard the shots, did you return to the office?

Mr. Crawford: Yes.

Mr. Ball:The movement that you saw that you describe as something light and perhaps a profile from the waist up, you mean it looked like a profile of a person?

Mr. Crawford: That was-I had a hard time describing that. When I saw it, I automatically in my mind came to the conclusion that it was a person having moved out of the window. Now, to say that it was a brown haired, light skinned individual, I could not do that.

Mr. Ball:Could you tell whether it was a man or woman?

Mr. Crawford: I could not.

Mr. Ball:You made a report to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the 10th of January?

Mr. Crawford: Yes.

Mr. Ball:Before I ask you about your report, did you have any impression as to the source of the sound, from what direction the sound came, the sound of the explosions?

Mr. Crawford:. Yes; I do. As I mentioned before, the sound, I thought it was a backfire in the cavalcade from down the hill, down the hill toward the underpass.

Mr. Ball:You mean west on Elm ?

Mr. Crawford: Yes, and that was a little confusing and in analyzing it later, evidently the report that I heard, and probably a lot of other people, the officers or the FBI, it evidently was a sound that was reflected by the underpass and therefore came back. It did not sound to me, ever, as I remember, the high-powered rifle sounding. It was not the sharp crack.

Mr. Ball:What caused you to look up at the Texas School Book Depository Building?

Mr. Crawford: The sound had to be coming from somewhere; the noise was being made at some place, so I didn't see anyone shooting firecrackers or anything else and I thought "this idiot surely shouldn't do such a thing," but if they were, where were they, and if they were shots, where were they coming from, and that caused me to search the whole area on Houston Street and in front of the Texas Depository on Elm Street and then up and that's how I happened to be looking up at the time, rather than observing things in the street, probably.

Mr. Ball:Did you ever see any smoke?

Mr. Crawford: No, sir; I did not.

Mr. Ball:In your remark to Mary Ann Mitchell, did you say "if those were shots, they came from that window"?

Mr. Crawford: Yes.

Mr. Ball:That is what you reported to the FBI agent, also?

Mr. Crawford: Yes, I suppose; at that time, I was still not absolutely sure that they were shots and that's why I said if they were shots. I was basing that, I am sure I was basing that mainly on the fact of this quick movement that I observed. In other words, if I were firing the shots, I would have jumped back immediately at the conclusion of them.

Mr. Ball:Later on, did you go back in the street and talk to someone?

Mr. Crawford: Yes.

Mr. Ball:Did you talk to a deputy sheriff?

Mr. Crawford: Allen Swett.

Mr. Ball:What did you tell him?

Mr. Crawford: I told him to have the men search the boxes directly behind this window that was open on the sixth floor-the window in the far east corner.

Mr. Ball:Did you tell him anything of what you had seen?

Mr. Crawford: I don't think so. I think I was so amazed that I could walk across the street and walk up to this building that was supposedly under surveillance and the man had not been---I say "the man"---there had not been anyone apprehended.

Mr. Ball:How long was it after you heard the shots that you walked up to Allen Swett and talked to him?

Mr. Crawford: My guess is it could have been anywhere from 10-20 minutes. My guess would be around 15-20 minutes.

Mr. Ball:In the statement you made to the FBI agent, he reports you said you walked to the Texas School Book Depository where you contacted Deputy Sheriff Allen Swett and advised him of the movement you had seen in the sixth floor window?

Mr. Crawford: I must have said something about the movement. I did tell him to search those windows, I think.

Mr. Ball:Could you in your own words give us your memory of what you told Allen Swett?

Mr. Crawford: I would probably have said, as I remember it, that to have the men search--have someone search the boxes directly behind that window. I had seen some movement directly after the shots. That was, I think, all I said. I did not-there was no conversation and at the conclusion of my statement, he directed several men up there.

Mr. Ball:Did you ever go in the building yourself?

Mr. Crawford: I did not and I still have not been in there.

Mr. Ball:I think that's all, Mr. Crawford. Thanks very much.

Mr. Crawford: Thank you, Mr. Ball.

Mr. Ball:Incidentally, will you waive signature on this?

Mr. Crawford: Yes; I will.

Crawford’s initial response, then, was that the sounds had emanated from a vehicle at the head of the motorcade. He dismissed the notion because it was unthinkable to him that the Secret Service could be involved. He then looked around and his eye was caught by movement of what seemed to him a human figure at a sixth floor window of the TSBD.

And the “KNOLL”? Pure, 100% Thompsonian invention. But then, what's new?

Paul

Edited March 3, 2008 by Josiah Thompson

[Josiah Thompson]

Pat, please note that "KNOLL" and "TSBD" are general categories used in the chart with a witness's actual words in quotation marks beside them. I never implied nor asserted that Crawford used the word "knoll" so there is no mistake for Rigby to point to. It's clear from Crawford's words that the sound came to him from the general direction of the knoll. Hence, the entry is correct in spite of Rigby's insistence that it isn't. Rigby just misread the chart. This has happened again and again with his claims of mistakes.

In any case, thanks for your support. The continued blowing up of non-points into criticism is tiresome. I woul hope not just for me but for all of us.

Come on, Paul. It's clear you're just trying to annoy Thompson. For what purpose? Because he said something you didn't like about something else?

While you are correct that he mis-characterized Crawford's words to be KNOLL, you miss that from where Crawford was standing the limo was in line with the...KNOLL...and that Crawford's saying he thought the sound came from the limousine or head of the motorcade implied the shot came from the KNOLL, and not the depository. This was what Thompson was trying to communicate. But yes, you are correct. His words might mislead someone a wee bit...into thinking there was a shot from the knoll, and thus, a conspiracy. So, make up your mind--was he misleading people into thinking there was a conspiracy, or no conspiracy?

One wonders why you want to spend your energy on this. Single-assassin theorists most always count anyone saying the shots came from the vicinity of Houston and Elm as someone claiming the shots came from the depository. Aren't their mistakes more worthy of discussion? Or is it just more fun to attack fellow forum members?

P.S. In chapters 5 thru 9 at patspeer.com, I pick up where Josiah left off and go through the statements of the witnesses to demonstrate beyond any real doubt that the first shot was NOT a miss around frame 160, as currently purported by single-assassin theorists. If you'd like to argue that the first shot was a miss at frame 160, please do so.

Edited March 3, 2008 by Josiah Thompson

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Pat, I never implied nor asserted that Crawford used the word "knoll" so there is no mistake for Rigby to point to. It's clear from Crawford's words that the sound came to him from the general direction of the knoll. Hence, the entry is correct in spite of Rigby's insistence that it isn't. Rigby just misread the chart. This has happened again and again with his claims of mistakes.

In any case, thanks for your support. The continued blowing up of non-points into criticism is tiresome. I woul hope not just for me but for all of us.

Mr. Rigby has plenty of ability, if only he would apply it towards some of the real mysteries in this case.

[William Kelly]

Pat, I never implied nor asserted that Crawford used the word "knoll" so there is no mistake for Rigby to point to. It's clear from Crawford's words that the sound came to him from the general direction of the knoll. Hence, the entry is correct in spite of Rigby's insistence that it isn't. Rigby just misread the chart. This has happened again and again with his claims of mistakes.

In any case, thanks for your support. The continued blowing up of non-points into criticism is tiresome. I woul hope not just for me but for all of us.

Mr. Rigby has plenty of ability, if only he would apply it towards some of the real mysteries in this case.

Indeed, after debunking a previously held myth, it is much more interesting and even exciting to learn the extent of existing knowledge about any of the various aspects of the assassination, and then take it a step further by locating a previously unknown document amoung the 4 million records released by the JFK Act or locate a previously unknown witness who can shed a bit of light on a previously dark corner of the assassination mystery, but it takes a certain person to do that.

BK

[Bill Miller]

LMFAO, no wonder you've gotten no further than this forum.... you get anything published? EVER!

Thanks for pointing out another misconception. Hoax is a good example that just because something is published ... it doesn't mean that its not hogwash. If anything, TGZFH book demonstrated that the information contained within doesn't have to be factual ... just accusatory to sell books. I mean geesh, David ... you participated in that piece of garbage and then posted to this forum that you have seen no proof of alteration.

So thanks once again for helping to show that just because something is published ... it doesn't mean that its worth the paper it is written on. Another example might be all those tabloid articles that are published ... they too have the reputation as only being for amusement purposes.

Again, nice job for helping make that point clear.

Bill Miller

[Paul Rigby]

Witness number 34, p.256, in Josiah Thompson’s exceptionally reliable Master List of assassination witnesses is one James N. Crawford. Here’s Thompson’s summary of his details in the familiar format...

Thompson did not treat all inconvenient eyewitness testimony quite as crassly as that of James N. Crawford for the very good reason that he did not need to. Much of the work had been done for him long before, by fear, the desire to conform, and, in no small measure, the FBI. The latter’s lack of curiosity, to put it no stronger, in the face of some very interesting testimony, remains a thing of wonder.

Railway worker George A. Davis, witness number 37, p.257, in Thompson’s impeccable Master List of Assassination Witnesses illustrates both of these points. Here’s Thompson’s summary of Davis’ details in the usual format:

Location: RR overpass

No. of shots: ---

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Total time of shots: ---

Date of report: 3/18/64

References: 22H837

Remarks: Sounded unlike rifle fire; shots were very close together

This was comparatively subtle stuff. Nothing outright dishonest, you understand, but not quite the full story. The giveaway is in the mislocation of the second observation in the “Remarks” column – “shots were very close together” – which should, by rights, have been placed under the column heading “Bunching of shots.” In shifting this observation into the wrong column, Thompson used up space that should properly have been afforded a more fitting and interesting observation made by Davis. The observation in question is in bold below.

The pith of Davis’ statement, as given to FBI SAs Thomas T Trettis & E J Robertson on 17 March 1964:

“Mr Davis stated that he was a signalman for the Union Terminal Company…and was so employed on November 22, 1963. On this date, he took up a position on the Elm Street viaduct overlooking the route taken by the Presidential motorcade. Shortly after the motorcycle escort and the Presidential car came into view and was at a point just east of the viaduct, Mr Davis head a sound which he described as similar to firecrackers exploding. He stated they did not sound like rifle fire because they were not loud enough. All shots were very close together and he stated it was impossible for him to determine the number of shots. He stated that his first impression was that someone had played a prank, but then he saw guns in the hands of the Secret Service Agents with President Kennedy, saw President Kennedy slump forward, and the police motorcycle escort maneuver swiftly about the area and he realised it was not a prank.

Mr Davis stated that his attention was directed to the motorcycle escort and the car in which President Kennedy was riding, and he saw very little, if any, other activity in the area at that time…”

Did Davis really have the sequence in that order – first “guns in the hands of the Secret Service Agents with President Kennedy…” only then did he “slump forward” – or was that an FBI mistake?

In the absence of greater clarity, an honest summary would thus resemble this:

Location: North end of RR overpass

No. of shots: ---

Bunching of shots: Very close together

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Total time of shots: ---

Date of report: 3/18/64

References: 22H837

Remarks: Sounded unlike rifle fire; saw guns in the hands of Secret Service agents accompanying President

The second observation leads me to one of my own. The great film schism between pro- and anti-alterationists all too often obscures a related and equally profound division – between those who see Secret Service complicity as a given, and those who don’t. Thompson didn’t and still doesn’t; and has lots of films to prove it.

Paul

[Bill Miller]

Did Davis really have the sequence in that order – first “guns in the hands of the Secret Service Agents with President Kennedy…” only then did he “slump forward” – or was that an FBI mistake?

Paul ... one question if you please. Are you not the one who was trying to sell the idea that Greer shot JFK from inside the car? I am thinking it was you and if so, then it would be good to make other forum members aware of it so they can better understand where you're coming from.

[Josiah Thompson]

Nope, you missed again.

"Bunching of shots" refers to which of the shots were bunched together... the first two, the last two, etc. "All shots were very close together" simply refers to them all occurring in a short interval. However, since he gave no estimate of that interval, no indication could be put under that category. Hence, the proper rendition of his report was just as you have it in the chart: no indications under the chart's significant categories and then, under "Remarks," "Sounded unlike rifle fire; shots were very close together."

You are having such trouble finding anything in this appendix that can be called a "mistake" that I'll do you a favor. Go read through Case Closed by Gerald Posner. I know Posner thought he had found a couple of what he thought were mistakes in the witness appendix. I don't remember what they were or whether or not they were mistakes. But I feel sorry for you. You just cannot quite find one. So go read Posner. By the way, I never have claimed that my appendix or my book is "impeccable." I imagine there are some mistakes in it. Thus far you've found two typos: "north" for "south" and "last" for "first."

If you believe that Greer shot JFK from the driver's seat with a chrome revolver, you really are drinking Fetzer's Cool Aid. He was trying to sell that delusion back in the early nineties. If you really believe that one, it explains a lot.

Witness number 34, p.256, in Josiah Thompson’s exceptionally reliable Master List of assassination witnesses is one James N. Crawford. Here’s Thompson’s summary of his details in the familiar format...

Thompson did not treat all inconvenient eyewitness testimony quite as crassly as that of James N. Crawford for the very good reason that he did not need to. Much of the work had been done for him long before, by fear, the desire to conform, and, in no small measure, the FBI. The latter’s lack of curiosity, to put it no stronger, in the face of some very interesting testimony, remains a thing of wonder.

Railway worker George A. Davis, witness number 37, p.257, in Thompson’s impeccable Master List of Assassination Witnesses illustrates both of these points. Here’s Thompson’s summary of Davis’ details in the usual format:

Location: RR overpass

No. of shots: ---

Bunching of shots: ---

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Total time of shots: ---

Date of report: 3/18/64

References: 22H837

Remarks: Sounded unlike rifle fire; shots were very close together

This was comparatively subtle stuff. Nothing outright dishonest, you understand, but not quite the full story. The giveaway is in the mislocation of the second observation in the “Remarks” column – “shots were very close together” – which should, by rights, have been placed under the column heading “Bunching of shots.” In shifting this observation into the wrong column, Thompson used up space that should properly have been afforded a more fitting and interesting observation made by Davis. The observation in question is in bold below.

The pith of Davis’ statement, as given to FBI SAs Thomas T Trettis & E J Robertson on 17 March 1964:

“Mr Davis stated that he was a signalman for the Union Terminal Company…and was so employed on November 22, 1963. On this date, he took up a position on the Elm Street viaduct overlooking the route taken by the Presidential motorcade. Shortly after the motorcycle escort and the Presidential car came into view and was at a point just east of the viaduct, Mr Davis head a sound which he described as similar to firecrackers exploding. He stated they did not sound like rifle fire because they were not loud enough. All shots were very close together and he stated it was impossible for him to determine the number of shots. He stated that his first impression was that someone had played a prank, but then he saw guns in the hands of the Secret Service Agents with President Kennedy, saw President Kennedy slump forward, and the police motorcycle escort maneuver swiftly about the area and he realised it was not a prank.

Mr Davis stated that his attention was directed to the motorcycle escort and the car in which President Kennedy was riding, and he saw very little, if any, other activity in the area at that time…”

Did Davis really have the sequence in that order – first “guns in the hands of the Secret Service Agents with President Kennedy…” only then did he “slump forward” – or was that an FBI mistake?

In the absence of greater clarity, an honest summary would thus resemble this:

Location: North end of RR overpass

No. of shots: ---

Bunching of shots: Very close together

Direction of sound/shots: ---

Total time of shots: ---

Date of report: 3/18/64

References: 22H837

Remarks: Sounded unlike rifle fire; saw guns in the hands of Secret Service agents accompanying President

The second observation leads me to one of my own. The great film schism between pro- and anti-alterationists all too often obscures a related and equally profound division – between those who see Secret Service complicity as a given, and those who don’t. Thompson didn’t and still doesn’t; and has lots of films to prove it.

Paul

[Miles Scull]

You are having such trouble finding anything in this appendix that can be called a "mistake" that I'll do you a favor. Go read through Case Closed by Gerald Posner. I know Posner thought he had found a couple of what he thought were mistakes in the witness appendix. I don't remember what they were or whether or not they were mistakes. But I feel sorry for you. You just cannot quite find one. So go read Posner. By the way, I never have claimed that my appendix or my book is "impeccable." I imagine there are some mistakes in it. Thus far you've found two typos: "north" for "south" and "last" for "first."

But don't you see, not alot of people find any credibility in Posner, so it would be nothing to operate as a "mistake finder" in his work. Everyone would just say "Yeah--he has alot of mistakes in his book."

IMHO,Taking YOU on, now, is another matter entirely. You have done so much to prove the authenticity of the Z film, Moorman position in taking her photograph, etc. that any mistakes found in your work, including typos, are probably being done to create a "feather in the cap" of the poster.

Agreed.