New Discovery Channel Program on JFK Limo

[Pamela Brown]

I have just returned from Dearborn, Michigan, where the rebuilt JFK Limousine that once was SS-100-X is on display. I was interviewed as part of one of the sections of the program. It was an amazing experience. I have spent time at the Ford Museum before, and many hours with the limo, but this time I was able to see it in the early hours before the public was allowed in. The camera crew started to set up at 5 a.m. and did interviews and some still footage including the interior, prior to 9:30 when the music was turned on and the crowds arrived. I was able to take some good photos also -- when the sun is up it shines on the limo and creates reflections and distortions.

Needless to say, I can't talk much about the contents of the program, but can give a heads-up that it looks to be not only interesting, but perhaps really valuable. I'll post more as I am able prior to the initial air date which is November 4, 2008.

Ironically, as I was being driven back home from the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport I noticed the huge blimp in the sky. It is over the gorgeous Interlachen Country Club in Edina, where the US Womens' Open is taking place. It's not every day that the Twin Cities are the focus of excitement for a sports event such as this.

Boy, was I naive. Little did I realize at the time I wrote this that the Z313 headshot test was probably already planned to be staged. On this trip Robert Erickson, the producer for Creative Differences, tried to insist that the SS color limo photos CE 352 and CE353 were taken at 1 a.m. 11.23.63. Wonder where he got that idea? I explained that only the black FBI photos were taken at 1 a.m; the color photos were not taken until the following afternoon, by Mssrs. Fox and Norton of the PRS/SS. Of course, IITC claims the color photos were taken at 1 a.m. Now it seems to have been an intentional misuse of evidence.

[Pamela Brown]

From post # 25........Re Nick Prencipe.....

Quote Pamela: "Weldon encouraged Stavis Ellis to move the location of the hole he thought he saw upwards, and for Nick Prencipe to 'forget' the location of the hole he saw after he had already provided a location for it. "

Quote B:......"There was only One witness who recalled seeing the hole a bit lower in the windshield, than the other witnesses, and that was Stavis Ellis...Doug notes this information in his chapter in "Murder In Dealey Plaza"...and he offers an explanation..He does not gloss anything over.....Doug spoke to Stavis hundreds of times..

Stavis was only certain that there was a bullethole and admitted his recollection as to the exact location could have been flawed...

Quote : Pamela "Not so. Nick Prencipe also saw a hole low on the windshield, at least when I interviewed him. Later, Weldon got him to say that he couldn't recall where the hole was. A legal tactic at the least. As you have pointed out, Weldon also got Ellis to be 'uncertain' about where the hole was he thought he saw. Rather convenient."

--------- Forwarded message ----------

> From: NPRINCE9@juno.com

> To: pamelamXXXXXXX

> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 08:18:36 -0400

> Subject: Re: Re: reply again

> Message-ID: <20000710.082154.-3779853.1.NPRINCE9XXXXXX

>

> Pam

> Over the years--many--I have met people from all walks of life and I

> am a pretty good listener and observer.

> When some have a particular interest or goal in mind--many things that

> are pertinent--but present an opposite version or opinion--there is

> always an inclination to avoid what is evident, or to attempt todiscredit

> it.

> I have always spoken exactly what I feel and to whomever I am addressing

> and I will never change. I have ralked with Presidents and in one case,

> gave one a scorching he did not expect--and apologized for it--this is

> the truth.

> >From day one, I have talked with fellow officers and other people, about

> talking with Greer the night of the event.

> I have not changed anything I ever stated, and nver will, even under

> oath. That is my position.

> As far as remembering who was where and what time it was and other

> confirmations, its been a long time and I never put too much emphasis on

> them, but the facts stated remain AS IS AND WERE.

>

> Thanks, good luck Nick

B.........

Since Rick Della Rosa has re-posted an email purportedly sent to me on alt.assassination.jfk without my permission and revived this scenario I realized that I may not have expressed my concern at Bernice's having posted an email which was not sent to her on this forum. I have no way of even verifying if the email has been altered because my pc crashed around that time and I lost all my files. I consider her doing this unethical and unhelpful.

In addition, as we can see from the fact that Bernice has this email in the first place (she got it from Rick) ,it has become evident that Rick has been behind the scenes of everything that happened involving my interview with Nick. This changes everything.

Nick asked me to interview him; I didn't ask to interview him. I told him up front that I would be publishing what he said. I took him at his word and published a brief summary of what he had told me in the chapter "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE. I had no idea then that I was being led down a primrose path. Sadly, that now seems to have been the case.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Pamela Brown]

Nick Prencipe's statements as used in the chapter "SS-100-X" from CAR CRASH CULTURE (Palgrave/Macmillan 2001)

THE WHITE HOUSE GARAGE AND A NEW WITNESS -- NICK PRENCIPE

USPP Motorcycle Officer Nick Prencipe states that he drove to the White

House Garage during the evening after having a conversation with the

driver, Bill Greer, at the West Executive entrance to the White House,

where Nick was stationed on November 22, 1963, in charge of assigning

escorts to different groups of people during a very busy evening. It

looked to Nick as if there were cocktail parties going on in the

hulking Executive Office Building across the street: in fact, LBJ's

people were gathering there, trying to decide if their meetings with

the new president would take place there or at the White House.

According to Nick, Greer was quite distressed that evening, "We really

missed you guys today," he said, mentioning one of the Dallas Police

Department Motorcycle Officers who wouldn't speed up. In this

discussion, Greer stated that there were "shots coming from every

direction," adding that "one of them came right through the

windshield."

Nick states that he walked into the White House Garage that evening

without being questioned, although he didn't recognize anyone there. H

e stated that he didn't see any army presence or any guards around the

car. The limo was not in a bay along the side of the Garage but was

sitting in the center. Nick says he is familiar with both SS-100-X and

SS-679-X, the follow-up car, and is certain the car he was was the

presidential limousine. The roof of the vehicle was up, and a tarp

covered the windows. Nick states that he walked over and lifted the

tarp. He noticed a hole in the windshield, low on the passenger side.

He saw no damage near the rearview mirror. How shall we weigh this

report? Will it be substantiated or contradicted by the statements of

two men who had reason to be with SS-100-X that night -- the FBI agent

who was in charge of the forensic exam and a witness from the Ford

Motor Company?

Analyzing the existing documentation of that evening, it appears that,

if Nick's reco9llections are accurate, he was in the Garage prior to

the exams that later took place on the vehicle around 9:00 p.m.

pp. 174-5

[Dixie Dea]

Pamela thanks for posting that CC article, I ad never read it before!

Also Bernice has been a member of this forum for a very long time and is well known here...most anyone here, would know she would not be guilty of what you have accused her of doing. Primarily for your information, since you chose to bring that current McAdams broo-haw here too I have re-posted what I just posted at McAdams. Hopefully this will settle the matter and the erroneous speculating will cease about Bernice, both at McAdams and here now too. I do realize it had to do with the fact that no one actually knew the true facts.

Dixie

_________________________________________________

Attention to all who are involved with the subject of Nick's emails specifically as it relates to Bernice. First of all, the discussion of Nicks email is not any part of my own interest or research. I am merely just a reader of what all is being discussed.. I did of course read Nick's emails, when Bernice posted them with permission,at Simkin's forum some time ago.. Secondly, I am quite close to her and I know for a fact that she would never post anything from anyone, without theiir permission to do so. She even gets upset when others do so or when they crib and repost elsewhere without her or whomever's permission.

Thirdly, Bernice is a real stickler for docuentation. Yet with these Nick emails she only gave the message and was not the messenger or the Principe researcher.

Bernice was not acquainted at all with Nick and he did not cc his emails to Pamela, to her

I also know for a fact that Bernice joined Rich's forum sometime after I did and I had not joined until sometime after Barb and some others had already left there, for whatever reason.

Way to much emphasis has been placed on Bernice in this entire matter. She merely posted Nick's amails, which Doug Weldon had sent to her with his permission, (which I would not have revealed, if Rich hadn't already done so). I only know she would never have done so, without his o.k. Yes, she does post things given to her, but again never without their prior permission! In addition she will always gives the person credit....unless the person wishes to remain anonymous.

The difference here as I see it, is between Richs recall and the information in Nick's email, provided to her by Doug Weldon. And....it is a fact, that Bernice works alone and is beholden to no one about anything whatsoever. In that way, we are both alike. She is not supportive of anyone about anything, unless she has also studied the info herself and happens to agree with it...and that goes for no matter if it is Rich, Simkin, Fetzer or McAdams. or whoever it might be. So she is as apt to disagree with them, as to do so.

She also has her own tremendous archive created by her own efforts. She has been willing to share generously with others what she has researched. She has been quite generous in sharing her studies with members at Rich's forum as well as Simkins forum and also other forums. She does not believe in hoarding her information. As a member of several foruns (just as I am) she is not actually aligned permanently with anyone.

She and I are regarded as supportive of each other, yet we don't always agree on some things either.Plus we don't have the same areas of research interest. She does her own work and most definitely is adamant about thinking for herself. Rich did name her as the forum archivist....but that is a bit misleading. She is not archiving only some posted forum info, she archives her own work or work that others have shared with her and given her permission to use..as well as printed information, such as from books, and

archives..and as I already stated she shares her work generously...as well as helping newcomers with their questions or with additioal information.

All that I personally know about Nick's emialls is what I have read from her posts And, I am in agreement with all of you, on what they do say. I did ask Bernice if she was a member at Rich's at the time both Nick and Pamela were also members and she isn't sure..she joined in Nov.2000

but was not able to access often till early 2001. She says that if so, she was very new and she does recall some sort of big arguments going on, but didn't really understand what it was all about or who they were. Although she does recall Nick's information later on and after she believes he may have died, but Pamela was gone by that time.

So, to make Bernice the culprit in all this mess is just wrong, when she did nothing whatsoever wrong, except post those emails at Simkins and with permission. There is no way whatsoever that she would have any involvement with anything such as forgery...and I also do not believe they were forged at all. I believe they were posted intact, just as Pamela had also received them. Except in decency and not pertinent anyway, she did remove the addresses when she posted them.

And I also want to add that no one played Pamela in regard to Nick, as she is now imagining. Pamela had every right to contact Nick or for him to also contact her, which ever way it was. It is perhaps her interviewing skills and accusatiions to Nick, that are perhaps questionable. Although of course, I don't actually know if that is a fact either, except that it has been mentioned on here.

One last thing...Bernice did not ask me to post this message and will probably not approve that I did so....it is just that I can't stand to see a good person and good researcher be so maligned here, when there is so much erroneous speculation being stated and the facts are not really even known. I also want to add that neither of us works with the "group mindset" of any forum. We just agree or maybe disagree from our own studies. I do hope this will now clairfy the aspects regarding Bernice. .....and that she only posted those emails from Nick, with Dougs knowledge and that was all there was to it..... period._________________________________________________

Dixie

[Pamela Brown]

Pamela thanks for posting that CC article, I ad never read it before!

Also Bernice has been a member of this forum for a very long time and is well known here...most anyone here, would know she would not be guilty of what you have accused her of doing. Primarily for your information, since you chose to bring that current McAdams broo-haw here too I have re-posted what I just posted at McAdams. Hopefully this will settle the matter and the erroneous speculating will cease about Bernice, both at McAdams and here now too. I do realize it had to do with the fact that no one actually knew the true facts.

Dixie

_________________________________________________

Attention to all who are involved with the subject of Nick's emails specifically as it relates to Bernice. First of all, the discussion of Nicks email is not any part of my own interest or research. I am merely just a reader of what all is being discussed.. I did of course read Nick's emails, when Bernice posted them with permission,at Simkin's forum some time ago.. Secondly, I am quite close to her and I know for a fact that she would never post anything from anyone, without theiir permission to do so. She even gets upset when others do so or when they crib and repost elsewhere without her or whomever's permission.

Thirdly, Bernice is a real stickler for docuentation. Yet with these Nick emails she only gave the message and was not the messenger or the Principe researcher.

Bernice was not acquainted at all with Nick and he did not cc his emails to Pamela, to her

I also know for a fact that Bernice joined Rich's forum sometime after I did and I had not joined until sometime after Barb and some others had already left there, for whatever reason.

Way to much emphasis has been placed on Bernice in this entire matter. She merely posted Nick's amails, which Doug Weldon had sent to her with his permission, (which I would not have revealed, if Rich hadn't already done so). I only know she would never have done so, without his o.k. Yes, she does post things given to her, but again never without their prior permission! In addition she will always gives the person credit....unless the person wishes to remain anonymous.

The difference here as I see it, is between Richs recall and the information in Nick's email, provided to her by Doug Weldon. And....it is a fact, that Bernice works alone and is beholden to no one about anything whatsoever. In that way, we are both alike. She is not supportive of anyone about anything, unless she has also studied the info herself and happens to agree with it...and that goes for no matter if it is Rich, Simkin, Fetzer or McAdams. or whoever it might be. So she is as apt to disagree with them, as to do so.

She also has her own tremendous archive created by her own efforts. She has been willing to share generously with others what she has researched. She has been quite generous in sharing her studies with members at Rich's forum as well as Simkins forum and also other forums. She does not believe in hoarding her information. As a member of several foruns (just as I am) she is not actually aligned permanently with anyone.

She and I are regarded as supportive of each other, yet we don't always agree on some things either.Plus we don't have the same areas of research interest. She does her own work and most definitely is adamant about thinking for herself. Rich did name her as the forum archivist....but that is a bit misleading. She is not archiving only some posted forum info, she archives her own work or work that others have shared with her and given her permission to use..as well as printed information, such as from books, and

archives..and as I already stated she shares her work generously...as well as helping newcomers with their questions or with additioal information.

All that I personally know about Nick's emialls is what I have read from her posts And, I am in agreement with all of you, on what they do say. I did ask Bernice if she was a member at Rich's at the time both Nick and Pamela were also members and she isn't sure..she joined in Nov.2000

but was not able to access often till early 2001. She says that if so, she was very new and she does recall some sort of big arguments going on, but didn't really understand what it was all about or who they were. Although she does recall Nick's information later on and after she believes he may have died, but Pamela was gone by that time.

So, to make Bernice the culprit in all this mess is just wrong, when she did nothing whatsoever wrong, except post those emails at Simkins and with permission. There is no way whatsoever that she would have any involvement with anything such as forgery...and I also do not believe they were forged at all. I believe they were posted intact, just as Pamela had also received them. Except in decency and not pertinent anyway, she did remove the addresses when she posted them.

And I also want to add that no one played Pamela in regard to Nick, as she is now imagining. Pamela had every right to contact Nick or for him to also contact her, which ever way it was. It is perhaps her interviewing skills and accusatiions to Nick, that are perhaps questionable. Although of course, I don't actually know if that is a fact either, except that it has been mentioned on here.

One last thing...Bernice did not ask me to post this message and will probably not approve that I did so....it is just that I can't stand to see a good person and good researcher be so maligned here, when there is so much erroneous speculation being stated and the facts are not really even known. I also want to add that neither of us works with the "group mindset" of any forum. We just agree or maybe disagree from our own studies. I do hope this will now clairfy the aspects regarding Bernice. .....and that she only posted those emails from Nick, with Dougs knowledge and that was all there was to it..... period._________________________________________________

Dixie

Dixie,

With all due respect, these emails were supposedly sent to me and they were posted without my permission. Bernice was not a recipient of them. Neither was Weldon. That is the issue. Are you saying it is ethical on this forum to go around posting emails you are saying were sent to other people, just because you claim you have a copy of one?

Who is being maligned here? I consider the posting not only a breach of research etiquette but a distressing invasion of privacy. There seems to be a level of disrespect here coming from Bernice, Rick and Weldon. Is that really what this forum is for?

[Bernice Moore]

First off thank you Dix, you have walked into this whatever.?..I am grateful for your support...

I am still trying to make any sense out of all, perhaps by weeks-end, months-end, years-end ??

Pamela,

No, you are in error that Rich ever sent any email of Nick's to me, nor did I to him...I have never had any discussion with him in regard to Nick... they also have been available on the EF for months....Perhaps that is the where from?? I really do not know...

There is no rule here stipulating that research emails nor emails cannot be posted, .....as far as research is concerned to do so is also regarded as a dead man's right to have his information spoken out for him, or her......if not, that window , and opportunity to the research world would be closed permanently...

...In fact once an email leaves your pc, it is said it is in the public domain......I have read....

Whatever went down with Nick, I was not involved with at the time on the Forum, nor have I ever conversed with Rich about such.

I never knew Nick..

I will not be made a scapegoat in all this, as some apparently it would seem , have been trying to do......

This whatever that has been going on at the alts, ..it is a problem not of my making...it is between one man's recall and information from a witness dead man's email....

I call anyone dishonest and challenge them, to prove such, who would state that I in anyway, altered or forged any research and or email or information EVER....

I say thank you Pamela for bringing this to light....perhaps a re-read of that alt thread is in order.....

B....

Edited May 19, 2009 by Bernice Moore

[Bernice Moore]

From Doug Weldon...re Nick Principe's information.....thread at the alts..

--- On Sun, 5/17/09, Doug Weldon <XXXXXXXXt> wrote:

From: Doug Weldon xxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: Alts link .

To: "bernice" <XXXXXXXXXX>

Received: Sunday, May 17, 2009, 7:34 PM

Bernice:

Thank you. So much of this is just silly. Nick was very consistent and discussed this with friends since 1963.

As I always do I talked with people who knew Nick to determine if he had a tendency to exaggerate or embellish facts. It is something I always do with anyone I talk with and has sometimes forced me to exclude evidence I would have liked to use.

I also have taped conversations with Nick. There were some areas that Nick discovered that his memory had been faulty and readiy admitted his errrors. This was not true about his meeting with Greer (not Kellerman) and neither Greer or Kellerman viewed the vehicle with Nick.

Pamela completely distorted what Nick was saying and it greatly disturbed him. He told her that he did not like her trying to misrepresent and twist what he was saying. He was very direct in telling her that she was distorting his accounts. Pamela even questioned whether Nick was who he said he was and did determine his bona fides.

For people who question Nick who never spoke with him or understand the context of his e-mails it is just simply ridiculous. Those people have a different agenda other than truth.

Nick Prencipe had other unique information about Lyndon Johnson that I will offer in my book. You are welcome to post this in the alts or whereever.

Best, Doug

B.......

[David G. Healy]

From Doug Weldon...re Nick Principe's information.....thread at the alts..

--- On Sun, 5/17/09, Doug Weldon <XXXXXXXXt> wrote:

From: Doug Weldon xxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: Alts link .

To: "bernice" <XXXXXXXXXX>

Received: Sunday, May 17, 2009, 7:34 PM

Bernice:

Thank you. So much of this is just silly. Nick was very consistent and discussed this with friends since 1963.

As I always do I talked with people who knew Nick to determine if he had a tendency to exaggerate or embellish facts. It is something I always do with anyone I talk with and has sometimes forced me to exclude evidence I would have liked to use.

I also have taped conversations with Nick. There were some areas that Nick discovered that his memory had been faulty and readiy admitted his errrors. This was not true about his meeting with Greer (not Kellerman) and neither Greer or Kellerman viewed the vehicle with Nick.

Pamela completely distorted what Nick was saying and it greatly disturbed him. He told her that he did not like her trying to misrepresent and twist what he was saying. He was very direct in telling her that she was distorting his accounts. Pamela even questioned whether Nick was who he said he was and did determine his bona fides.

For people who question Nick who never spoke with him or understand the context of his e-mails it is just simply ridiculous. Those people have a different agenda other than truth.

Nick Prencipe had other unique information about Lyndon Johnson that I will offer in my book. You are welcome to post this in the alts or whereever.

Best, Doug

B.......

tnx B.... this ought to make Pamela's day..... LM*AO!

[Dixie Dea]

Pamela

If you send me an email, you no longer own it...I do. I am free to share it with thers or not. If you ask me not to to share it with anyone, then I wold be obliged to honor your request. Otherwise, I could share it or not, as my own conscience tellsme. But in the case of Nick's emails to you, he did cc them to others, like Doug. In that case Doug, owned then just as you did. As Bernice mentioned, once an email writer dies, there is no furthewr obligatioton honor a silence request.

And also...at the time Bernice posted temails, you actyually even thanked her, because yiurs had been lost ia PC crash. Now suddenly, it is a big and erroneous issue with you, yet nothing has changed, other then you want to create trouble that doesn't even exist.

Dixie

.

[Bernice Moore]

From Doug Weldon.....

Bernice: Yes. Nick cc'd me. What's more Pamela, despite pretending that she doesn't know this, did KNOW it and confronted Nick about it.

Nick told her that he was doing such. Doug

B...

[Bernice Moore]

Hopefully this will be the last re this episode...

Bernice:

Pamela is again giving creedence to Robert Frazier and F. Vaughn Ferguson, neither of which had any credibility.

Frazier retired and hid when Weisberg tried to subpoenae him to court. " Murder In Dealey Plaza" shows Ferguson's credibility.

I have so much from Nick, both in e-mails and taped conversations.

He even sent me a cd he made. He was a talented singer.

You have my permission to publish anything I give you but Pamela is such a waste. >>

Doug

>> If you are wondering why I am forwarding all the back and forth mail

>> to you--Pam asks me questions and I answer them-------I have nothing to

>> hide. She seems to miss certain things or put things in--out of

>> context.---like the reason Bill was at the WH so early when he was

>> supposedly at Bethesda. I never said it was early--I worked from 7 in

>> the AM and I dont think I got home till the wee small hours of the next

>> day. I will answer her questions as well as I can--

>>

>> Nick

B.....

[Pamela Brown]

From Doug Weldon.....

Bernice: Yes. Nick cc'd me. What's more Pamela, despite pretending that she doesn't know this, did KNOW it and confronted Nick about it.

Nick told her that he was doing such. Doug

B...

So you are saying Nick cc's Weldon? You are missing the point here. You were not included in the email. It was purportedly sent to me. You do not have MY permission to post it.f

Weldon is attempting to claim I am 'pretending' not to know something? That is untrue and unhelpful. Why would he even make such a statement? And moreover, why would you post it?

There seems to be en entire cottage industry around this CCC interview. It is becoming evident that I was being led down a primrose path right from the start. You, Rich and Weldon seem to have all the answers as to why I was asked to interview Nick in the first place. Perhaps you would share them with us and perhaps even share some of your own emails --that is, ones actually sent to you -- to explain what has been going on for the last 9 years?

Edited May 19, 2009 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Pamela Brown]

Hopefully this will be the last re this episode...

Bernice:

Pamela is again giving creedence to Robert Frazier and F. Vaughn Ferguson, neither of which had any credibility.

Frazier retired and hid when Weisberg tried to subpoenae him to court. " Murder In Dealey Plaza" shows Ferguson's credibility.

I have so much from Nick, both in e-mails and taped conversations.

He even sent me a cd he made. He was a talented singer.

You have my permission to publish anything I give you but Pamela is such a waste. >>

Doug

>> If you are wondering why I am forwarding all the back and forth mail

>> to you--Pam asks me questions and I answer them-------I have nothing to

>> hide. She seems to miss certain things or put things in--out of

>> context.---like the reason Bill was at the WH so early when he was

>> supposedly at Bethesda. I never said it was early--I worked from 7 in

>> the AM and I dont think I got home till the wee small hours of the next

>> day. I will answer her questions as well as I can--

>>

>> Nick

B.....

Why would you post something from Weldon claiming that I am a 'waste'? How is that not to be construed as a second-hand ad hominem attack ? Just what do you hope to gain from that? What is wasteful are personal attacks that detract us from moving forward, wouldn't you agree?

Weldon's feeble attempt to dismiss Frazier and Ferguson is hilarious and revealing.

Robert Frazier was the FBI agent in charge of the exam in the WHG. Vaughn Ferguson is the FMC employee assigned to 100X who had been scheduled to go on the Texas trip but was instead sidelined at the last minute to order the cars for the Army-Navy game the following week-end. Both men have actual objective documentation connecting them to the limo. Ferguson stated that he was with the car day-and-night for four days after the assassination because LJB said he wanted to use it for the funeral. If Weldon chooses to discount their credentials, that is his choice. Unfortunately, it is done for a reason.

It is the Weldon witness whose story has no documentation. It seems to have been cobbled together from things Ferguson said when he was at Dearborn playing golf. He was very talkative and had lots of friends. He also had pieces of bloody leather from the rear seat which he probably talked about as well. A piece of that was auctioned a few years ago.

The Weldon/RDR brand of research seems to be to decry everything that doesn't work for their story and claim it to be forged or fraudulent. They then seem to like to weave a contrived version of conspiracy and wage warfare against anyone who gets in their way. In some cases, such as this with CCC, it appears they even try to contrive a situation designed to sandbag someone who presents a threat to them.

Others from Dearborn have also come forth with similar early sightings of the limo at Dearborn, where it did go when Ferguson drove it there in December after the new carpeting had been installed. But those stories at least include the Experimental Garage, which is the only place the limo actually went to to be worked on when it was in Dearborn.

"Hopefully that will be the last re this episode."

Edited May 19, 2009 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Bernice Moore]

From Doug Weldon.....

Bernice: Yes. Nick cc'd me. What's more Pamela, despite pretending that she doesn't know this, did KNOW it and confronted Nick about it.

Nick told her that he was doing such. Doug

B...

So you are saying Nick cc's Weldon? You are missing the point here. You were not included in the email. It was purportedly sent to me. You do not have MY permission to post it.f

Weldon is attempting to claim I am 'pretending' not to know something? That is untrue and unhelpful. Why would he even make such a statement? And moreover, why would you post it?

There seems to be en entire cottage industry around this CCC interview. It is becoming evident that I was being led down a primrose path right from the start. You, Rich and Weldon seem to have all the answers as to why I was asked to interview Nick in the first place. Perhaps you would share them with us and perhaps even share some of your own emails --that is, ones actually sent to you -- to explain what has been going on for the last 9 years?

Pam :

Please , try to understand once an email has been sent, it is in the Public Domain....If questionable to you, please do a search and retrieve the information, to your satisfaction....

I was not there on the F, when all this went down, between yourself and Nick, nor Doug, nor Rich......I have stated that previously , as well as Dixie, and am doing so again..

So whatever went down between you and them..... I have no knowledge of...

It was ....Your choice of whether and when you interviewed Nick....and you did so..

It is apparently somewhat rattling to you as to what has been going down at the alts, in the Judyth thread and now in another new that you have begun there...and I understand.....But imo, you have now only brought it here, to the EF, for your attention, to try to imply that for some reason you have been led down some garden path as you put it, and or being used as an excuse by you, to continue your denials, within the research..... that has been done in the past, and has been proceeding...and does not agree with yours.......

Note that differences between yours and others research is nothing new.....Yours as you seem to believe is far from the only findings, it did not stop there as you want to believe..yours is not the final given as they say....There is and has been much further work that has proceeded re all...

The research has been and is being continued....and as far as I understand there is much new within, and all as well as youself must wait, for Doug Weldon's book to be published. New information that I am not priveledge to either, so I cannot answer any questions pertaining to such......

From Doug....

Bernice

I do believe I was improper in referring to Pamela as a "waste." I want to apologize. However I disagree with her, it is inexcusable to make an ad hominem attack. I do not know Pamela, but no person, whatever their motives, is a "waste." My terminology was poor. Please post this on my behalf.

Doug Weldon

Bernice:

I do want to add that Pamela knew that Nick was forwarding his e-mails and there was no expectation of privacy. The last e-mail from Nick to Pamela was very revealing. I spent a couple of days with Harold Weisberg in 1996 and he did not think highly of Frazier. I have never spoken to Mr Frazier. I am not aware of any accounts by F. Vaughn'sFerguson's "golf buddies" giving an account of a hole in the windshield. George Whitaker was not a "golf buddy." .

Again, my apologies to Pamela. May she pursue what she believes is right.

Doug

This e-mail speaks for itself and answers the privacy issue.

Best,

Doug

nprince9@juno.com wrote:

>

>> Pam

>> I am not comfortable with what you have written in the past about

>> what I submit. You challenge every thing I submit and the basis for it

>> is some documentation the at you rely on more than an eye witness.

>> To attempt to correct only brings on a further barrage of questions and

>> more challenge.

>> I dont need it and I dont intend to continue it.

>> As far as what I forward to Doug Weldon, do you really believe that you

>> have the right to ask me that, or that I should even offer a reason ??

>>

>> Happy Holiday

>

>

B....

[Pamela Brown]

With all due respect, Bernice, here we go again. You are posting for another person. Why does Weldon get a free pass? What is keeping Weldon from becoming a member and posting a bio and photo like all the rest of us and having to be directly accountable for what he says? And although I do appreciate his apology for the earlier ad hominem attack, you have again posted statements from him that contain an insinuation that is inappropriate and emails that I have no way of verifying are not forged or altered in some way. I object to your posting statements where Weldon is claiming to know what I do or do not recall. Weldon seems to have a lot of time on his hands to live in the past, not to mention a vivid imagination. I don't.

In addition, I disagree with your thinking that emails are public domain. They are meant for those they were sent to and those not included in them have no right to post them. Have you seen anybody else post other peoples' emails here? In addition, I believe there are laws against doing so. You seem to be sincerely deluded about this.

You are part of a group with cult-like qualities -- the Rich Della Rosa 'forum'. Your posting for others and deferring to them gives credence to that possibility. Their hording and/or developing emails from the past to try to use against me shows us how the 'banishment' process works.

It seems that I was asked to interview Nick as part of some plan that Weldon and Rich have yet to disclose. Whatever it was, it backfired. That those statements were published in CCC is something they cannot accept, as evidenced by this 9-year vendetta. Nick may have been coached even prior to his interview with me; perhaps Weldon and Rich will share more of the behind-the-scenes manipulating with us.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Pamela McElwain-Brown