Jump to content
The Education Forum

For David


Recommended Posts

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883 for identification, and received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER. Will you now describe what Exhibit No. 883 is, Inspector Gauthier, indicating, first of all, the approximate size of the cardboard?

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

For those who fail to learn from it, History has a way of repeating itself!

Also!

A "good con" works everytime!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883 for identification, and received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER. Will you now describe what Exhibit No. 883 is, Inspector Gauthier, indicating, first of all, the approximate size of the cardboard?

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

For those who fail to learn from it, History has a way of repeating itself!

Also!

A "good con" works everytime!

OK! Give up on what the H*** it's all about?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Mr. SPECTER. Can you outline in a general way how the movies taken by Mr. Zapruder came into your possession?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Mr. Zapruder, on realizing what he had in his photographs, took them immediately to a local Dallas processing plant, had them processed, and had three copies made. He turned two copies of those movies over to representatives of the Secret Service.

The original and other copy he sold to Life

The FBI was given one of the copies by the Secret Service. The Secret Service loaned a copy to us long enough for us to make a copy for our use, which we did, and this copy is the one that I have been examining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883 for identification, and received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER. Will you now describe what Exhibit No. 883 is, Inspector Gauthier, indicating, first of all, the approximate size of the cardboard?

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

For those who fail to learn from it, History has a way of repeating itself!

Also!

A "good con" works everytime!

OK! Give up on what the H*** it's all about?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/shaneyf2.htm

Mr. SPECTER. Can you outline in a general way how the movies taken by Mr. Zapruder came into your possession?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; Mr. Zapruder, on realizing what he had in his photographs, took them immediately to a local Dallas processing plant, had them processed, and had three copies made. He turned two copies of those movies over to representatives of the Secret Service.

The original and other copy he sold to Life

The FBI was given one of the copies by the Secret Service. The Secret Service loaned a copy to us long enough for us to make a copy for our use, which we did, and this copy is the one that I have been examining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film

:)

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883 for identification, and received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER. Will you now describe what Exhibit No. 883 is, Inspector Gauthier, indicating, first of all, the approximate size of the cardboard?

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

For those who fail to learn from it, History has a way of repeating itself!

Also!

A "good con" works everytime!

Most of this was posted the other day, but I am not certain that everyone fully grasps exactly what transpired.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw1.htm

MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, at this time we object to all this testimony concerning Dealey Plaza on the ground of relevancy. Your Honor has ruled many, many times that there is no connection between the happenings at Dealey Plaza and this case.

MR. OSER: It is the survey plat made by Mr. Robert West, drawn by him for the FBI, for the Federal Government on May 31, 1964.

THE COURT: What year?

MR. OSER: May 31, 1964 it is certified to, and I think Mr. West will testify in his opinion it actually represents what the land and topographical area was on November 22, 1963.

THE COURT: What is your next exhibit?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm

Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury.

A: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass

A: The first time the Jamieson people developed the original 16 millimeter, then copies were made at Eastman. I had three copies plus the original.

Q: What, if anything, did you do with the three copies and one original?

A: One copy was given to the Dallas Secret Service, and one they asked me to bring over to somewhere on Akard Street, I believe it was the FBI or Secret Service, to give them a copy to be sent to Washington. I think it was sent to Washington the same night by Army plane. One copy was given to Life Magazine.

Q: During the time your film was being processed, were you present, sir?

A: Yes, sir, I was.

Q: On that particular day did you have occasion to view what your film showed?

A: Yes, the same evening I saw this film.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, do you have in your possession at this present time a copy of this film?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: May I have it, sir?

A: Yes.

MR. OSER: If the Court please, the State will mark the envelope containing a roll of film as S-37 for purposes of identification.

THE COURT: And for purposes of identification only?

MR. OSER: Yes, sir.

BY MR. OSER:

Q: The contents of this package, the roll of film, have you had occasion to view the contents of this film?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What is contained on this roll of film, is that the same as you saw it from the developed original on November 22, 1963?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, what is depicted on this exhibit I have marked as S-37, the roll of film, as you saw it?

MR. DYMOND: I object. We object to his testifying as to what is depicted on it. If the film is admissible the film itself is best evidence.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. OSER: At this time we offer into evidence that which we previously marked for identification as S-37, the film testified to by Mr. Zapruder.

Q: Is the copy you have here today identical to the original or are there any plates missing out of this copy?

A: That would be hard for me to tell, sir.

THE COURT: I cannot hear the witness. What is it?

THE WITNESS: That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there are any frames missing.

THE COURT: What is your answer?

THE WITNESS: I couldn't say.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November?

A: Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, when these copies were made, do I understand you ended up with an original and two copies of the film?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You gave one copy to the Dallas Police Intelligence Section, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: One copy to the FBI?

A: Correct.

Q: And one copy to Life Magazine?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where did you get this copy you have produced here in open court today, if you disposed of all the copies?

A: I got them from Mr. Oser's office.

Q: In other words, this film has not been in your possession up until now, is that correct?

A: No. It was given to me in his office.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing?

A: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so?

Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film?

A: I couldn't tell you.

Q: So you couldn't tell whether any part has been skipped, is that correct?

A: I could not.

Q: This will sound repetitious, but it is because the Jury has now come in. Having viewed this film, sir, are you in a position to say whether the film you have just seen is a complete copy of what you took without any frames having been deleted or taken out or skipped?

A: I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows that I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell.

Q: Weren't some frames damaged by the people at Life Magazine to the point where copies couldn't be made of them?

MR. OSER: Objection.

MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception firstly because the film is irrelevant, secondly it has not been established this is the complete film, and further, it has not been in the possession or under the control of this witness from the time of its inception until the present time, making all this witness' testimony, the film which has been marked for identification as State-37, and the entire record up to now part of the bill.

(WHEREUPON, the exhibit having been previously identified as "S-37" was received in evidence.)

Take a good guess as to exactly what TWO pieces/items of critical evidence the Clay Shaw Trial placed into the hands of those who could make things disappear.

Gotta love anyone who can pull such as this off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883 for identification, and received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER. Will you now describe what Exhibit No. 883 is, Inspector Gauthier, indicating, first of all, the approximate size of the cardboard?

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

For those who fail to learn from it, History has a way of repeating itself!

Also!

A "good con" works everytime!

Most of this was posted the other day, but I am not certain that everyone fully grasps exactly what transpired.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw1.htm

MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, at this time we object to all this testimony concerning Dealey Plaza on the ground of relevancy. Your Honor has ruled many, many times that there is no connection between the happenings at Dealey Plaza and this case.

MR. OSER: It is the survey plat made by Mr. Robert West, drawn by him for the FBI, for the Federal Government on May 31, 1964.

THE COURT: What year?

MR. OSER: May 31, 1964 it is certified to, and I think Mr. West will testify in his opinion it actually represents what the land and topographical area was on November 22, 1963.

THE COURT: What is your next exhibit?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm

Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury.

A: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass

A: The first time the Jamieson people developed the original 16 millimeter, then copies were made at Eastman. I had three copies plus the original.

Q: What, if anything, did you do with the three copies and one original?

A: One copy was given to the Dallas Secret Service, and one they asked me to bring over to somewhere on Akard Street, I believe it was the FBI or Secret Service, to give them a copy to be sent to Washington. I think it was sent to Washington the same night by Army plane. One copy was given to Life Magazine.

Q: During the time your film was being processed, were you present, sir?

A: Yes, sir, I was.

Q: On that particular day did you have occasion to view what your film showed?

A: Yes, the same evening I saw this film.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, do you have in your possession at this present time a copy of this film?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: May I have it, sir?

A: Yes.

MR. OSER: If the Court please, the State will mark the envelope containing a roll of film as S-37 for purposes of identification.

THE COURT: And for purposes of identification only?

MR. OSER: Yes, sir.

BY MR. OSER:

Q: The contents of this package, the roll of film, have you had occasion to view the contents of this film?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What is contained on this roll of film, is that the same as you saw it from the developed original on November 22, 1963?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, what is depicted on this exhibit I have marked as S-37, the roll of film, as you saw it?

MR. DYMOND: I object. We object to his testifying as to what is depicted on it. If the film is admissible the film itself is best evidence.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. OSER: At this time we offer into evidence that which we previously marked for identification as S-37, the film testified to by Mr. Zapruder.

Q: Is the copy you have here today identical to the original or are there any plates missing out of this copy?

A: That would be hard for me to tell, sir.

THE COURT: I cannot hear the witness. What is it?

THE WITNESS: That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there are any frames missing.

THE COURT: What is your answer?

THE WITNESS: I couldn't say.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November?

A: Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, when these copies were made, do I understand you ended up with an original and two copies of the film?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You gave one copy to the Dallas Police Intelligence Section, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: One copy to the FBI?

A: Correct.

Q: And one copy to Life Magazine?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where did you get this copy you have produced here in open court today, if you disposed of all the copies?

A: I got them from Mr. Oser's office.

Q: In other words, this film has not been in your possession up until now, is that correct?

A: No. It was given to me in his office.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing?

A: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so?

Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film?

A: I couldn't tell you.

Q: So you couldn't tell whether any part has been skipped, is that correct?

A: I could not.

Q: This will sound repetitious, but it is because the Jury has now come in. Having viewed this film, sir, are you in a position to say whether the film you have just seen is a complete copy of what you took without any frames having been deleted or taken out or skipped?

A: I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows that I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell.

Q: Weren't some frames damaged by the people at Life Magazine to the point where copies couldn't be made of them?

MR. OSER: Objection.

MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception firstly because the film is irrelevant, secondly it has not been established this is the complete film, and further, it has not been in the possession or under the control of this witness from the time of its inception until the present time, making all this witness' testimony, the film which has been marked for identification as State-37, and the entire record up to now part of the bill.

(WHEREUPON, the exhibit having been previously identified as "S-37" was received in evidence.)

Take a good guess as to exactly what TWO pieces/items of critical evidence the Clay Shaw Trial placed into the hands of those who could make things disappear.

Gotta love anyone who can pull such as this off!

http://www.jfk-online.com/orthshaw.html

Now!

If one takes the time to sufficiently review this, along with the previously submitted information, they just may get a considerably more accurate picture of exactly what the Clay Shaw trial was truly all about.

Gotta love anyone who can pull such as this off!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gauthier.htm

Mr. SPECTER. May it please the Commission, we will mark the tracing Commission Exhibit No. 882, and not take it out, since the cardboard represents it, and place Commission Exhibit No. 883 on the cardboard drawing itself, and I would like to move for the admission into evidence of both Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 882 and 883 for identification, and received in evidence.)

Mr. SPECTER. Will you now describe what Exhibit No. 883 is, Inspector Gauthier, indicating, first of all, the approximate size of the cardboard?

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

For those who fail to learn from it, History has a way of repeating itself!

Also!

A "good con" works everytime!

Most of this was posted the other day, but I am not certain that everyone fully grasps exactly what transpired.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw1.htm

MR. DYMOND: If the Court please, at this time we object to all this testimony concerning Dealey Plaza on the ground of relevancy. Your Honor has ruled many, many times that there is no connection between the happenings at Dealey Plaza and this case.

MR. OSER: It is the survey plat made by Mr. Robert West, drawn by him for the FBI, for the Federal Government on May 31, 1964.

THE COURT: What year?

MR. OSER: May 31, 1964 it is certified to, and I think Mr. West will testify in his opinion it actually represents what the land and topographical area was on November 22, 1963.

THE COURT: What is your next exhibit?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm

Q: What did you see as you took your films in Dealey Plaza that day? Explain to the Jury.

A: I saw the approaching motorcade of the President coming from Houston Street, turning left on Elm Street and coming down towards the underpass

A: The first time the Jamieson people developed the original 16 millimeter, then copies were made at Eastman. I had three copies plus the original.

Q: What, if anything, did you do with the three copies and one original?

A: One copy was given to the Dallas Secret Service, and one they asked me to bring over to somewhere on Akard Street, I believe it was the FBI or Secret Service, to give them a copy to be sent to Washington. I think it was sent to Washington the same night by Army plane. One copy was given to Life Magazine.

Q: During the time your film was being processed, were you present, sir?

A: Yes, sir, I was.

Q: On that particular day did you have occasion to view what your film showed?

A: Yes, the same evening I saw this film.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, do you have in your possession at this present time a copy of this film?

A: Yes, I do.

Q: May I have it, sir?

A: Yes.

MR. OSER: If the Court please, the State will mark the envelope containing a roll of film as S-37 for purposes of identification.

THE COURT: And for purposes of identification only?

MR. OSER: Yes, sir.

BY MR. OSER:

Q: The contents of this package, the roll of film, have you had occasion to view the contents of this film?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: What is contained on this roll of film, is that the same as you saw it from the developed original on November 22, 1963?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, what is depicted on this exhibit I have marked as S-37, the roll of film, as you saw it?

MR. DYMOND: I object. We object to his testifying as to what is depicted on it. If the film is admissible the film itself is best evidence.

THE COURT: I sustain the objection.

MR. OSER: At this time we offer into evidence that which we previously marked for identification as S-37, the film testified to by Mr. Zapruder.

Q: Is the copy you have here today identical to the original or are there any plates missing out of this copy?

A: That would be hard for me to tell, sir.

THE COURT: I cannot hear the witness. What is it?

THE WITNESS: That would be hard for me to say. He asked me if there are any frames missing.

THE COURT: What is your answer?

THE WITNESS: I couldn't say.

BY MR. DYMOND:

Q: So you don't know whether it is a complete copy of the film you took on the 22nd of November?

A: Not if there are one or two frames missing, I couldn't tell you.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, when these copies were made, do I understand you ended up with an original and two copies of the film?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You gave one copy to the Dallas Police Intelligence Section, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: One copy to the FBI?

A: Correct.

Q: And one copy to Life Magazine?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Where did you get this copy you have produced here in open court today, if you disposed of all the copies?

A: I got them from Mr. Oser's office.

Q: In other words, this film has not been in your possession up until now, is that correct?

A: No. It was given to me in his office.

Q: Mr. Zapruder, are you able to testify that this film that you have just seen run is a complete copy of the pictures taken by you on that day, no frames being missing?

A: By complete, what do you mean? If there are any frames removed or so?

Q: Any frames removed or damaged or for any reason not shown in this film?

A: I couldn't tell you.

Q: So you couldn't tell whether any part has been skipped, is that correct?

A: I could not.

Q: This will sound repetitious, but it is because the Jury has now come in. Having viewed this film, sir, are you in a position to say whether the film you have just seen is a complete copy of what you took without any frames having been deleted or taken out or skipped?

A: I couldn't tell if any frames were removed. Seen as a whole it shows that I have seen. Seeing you have 18 frames a second you can take out one or two and I couldn't tell.

Q: Weren't some frames damaged by the people at Life Magazine to the point where copies couldn't be made of them?

MR. OSER: Objection.

MR. DYMOND: To which ruling Counsel reserves a bill of exception firstly because the film is irrelevant, secondly it has not been established this is the complete film, and further, it has not been in the possession or under the control of this witness from the time of its inception until the present time, making all this witness' testimony, the film which has been marked for identification as State-37, and the entire record up to now part of the bill.

(WHEREUPON, the exhibit having been previously identified as "S-37" was received in evidence.)

Take a good guess as to exactly what TWO pieces/items of critical evidence the Clay Shaw Trial placed into the hands of those who could make things disappear.

Gotta love anyone who can pull such as this off!

http://www.jfk-online.com/orthshaw.html

Now!

If one takes the time to sufficiently review this, along with the previously submitted information, they just may get a considerably more accurate picture of exactly what the Clay Shaw trial was truly all about.

Gotta love anyone who can pull such as this off!

http://www.jfklancer.com/History-Z.html

1969

February: LIFE complied with a subpoena from Jim Garrison and provided the film for showing at the Clay Shaw trial. Security was so lax that the film was illegally duplicated, and bootleg copies were soon sold all over the country. They were shown at conspiracy lectures, and even a time or two on local TV. (Stolley 1992)

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

Got it figured out yet David?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...