A shot fired through the front of the windshield- To Barb and Jerry

[John Dolva]

Interesting that belongs in the soviet section.

______

[Pamela Brown]

Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation.

As Barb put it: “No, you did not suggest a location to him. And I did not say you did. But you did more than ask him if he could be mistaken. First you informed him that you had spoken to other witnesses who had placed the hole they saw in a different location. You, in effect, put him on notice that he had it wrong. Then you asked him if he might have been mistaken. It's not a subtle point.”

If you want to get an accurate picture of what a witness recalls, you don’t tell the witness first what another witness recalled. That’s the one thing you don’t do. Having done this, the answer doesn’t matter since all you’ve done is underline your own willingness to contaminate the memory of the witness. That is also why it’s kind of dumb.

Josiah Thompson

Weldon may even acknowledge (he has in the past) attempting to *coach* PH witness Stavis Ellis to change the location of the hole Stavis believed he saw to *fit better* into Weldon's scenario. Weldon has an advantage in getting witnesses to do things, too, as he was once a prosecutor.

[Josiah Thompson]

Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation.

As Barb put it: “No, you did not suggest a location to him. And I did not say you did. But you did more than ask him if he could be mistaken. First you informed him that you had spoken to other witnesses who had placed the hole they saw in a different location. You, in effect, put him on notice that he had it wrong. Then you asked him if he might have been mistaken. It's not a subtle point.”

If you want to get an accurate picture of what a witness recalls, you don’t tell the witness first what another witness recalled. That’s the one thing you don’t do. Having done this, the answer doesn’t matter since all you’ve done is underline your own willingness to contaminate the memory of the witness. That is also why it’s kind of dumb.

Josiah Thompson

Weldon may even acknowledge (he has in the past) attempting to *coach* PH witness Stavis Ellis to change the location of the hole Stavis believed he saw to *fit better* into Weldon's scenario. Weldon has an advantage in getting witnesses to do things, too, as he was once a prosecutor.

Thanks for using the right word, Pamela. Of course, it's improper to "coach" a witness. Prosecutors do this all the time and get away with it. They use the excuse Weldon used... they were simply trying to "clarify" a witness's report. "Clarify" my fanny. There is never any excuse for telling one percipient witness what another percipient witness said. If a defense investigator tried it, he/she would be looking at an obstruction of justice charge.

The problem apparent here is endemic in this case. If you get folks who are zealously pursuing a particular theory, when they start interviewing witnesses all sorts "coaching" begins to happen. The result is that witnesses who may have had something of probative significance to add end up being contaminated and therefore worthless.

What happened with respect to Stavis Ellis?

Josiah Thompson

[Pamela Brown]

Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation.

As Barb put it: “No, you did not suggest a location to him. And I did not say you did. But you did more than ask him if he could be mistaken. First you informed him that you had spoken to other witnesses who had placed the hole they saw in a different location. You, in effect, put him on notice that he had it wrong. Then you asked him if he might have been mistaken. It's not a subtle point.”

If you want to get an accurate picture of what a witness recalls, you don’t tell the witness first what another witness recalled. That’s the one thing you don’t do. Having done this, the answer doesn’t matter since all you’ve done is underline your own willingness to contaminate the memory of the witness. That is also why it’s kind of dumb.

Josiah Thompson

Weldon may even acknowledge (he has in the past) attempting to *coach* PH witness Stavis Ellis to change the location of the hole Stavis believed he saw to *fit better* into Weldon's scenario. Weldon has an advantage in getting witnesses to do things, too, as he was once a prosecutor.

Weldon may also admit that he refused to let Stavis Ellis reply to my request to interview him. I guess that's what prosecutors do to *their* witnesses.

On the other hand, I did get to interview Prencipe first; why, I am not sure. Perhaps Weldon wanted me to do his homework for him (once again). He is probably regretting that now.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Pamela McElwain-Brown

[Doug Weldon]

Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation.

As Barb put it: “No, you did not suggest a location to him. And I did not say you did. But you did more than ask him if he could be mistaken. First you informed him that you had spoken to other witnesses who had placed the hole they saw in a different location. You, in effect, put him on notice that he had it wrong. Then you asked him if he might have been mistaken. It's not a subtle point.”

If you want to get an accurate picture of what a witness recalls, you don’t tell the witness first what another witness recalled. That’s the one thing you don’t do. Having done this, the answer doesn’t matter since all you’ve done is underline your own willingness to contaminate the memory of the witness. That is also why it’s kind of dumb.

Josiah Thompson

Weldon may even acknowledge (he has in the past) attempting to *coach* PH witness Stavis Ellis to change the location of the hole Stavis believed he saw to *fit better* into Weldon's scenario. Weldon has an advantage in getting witnesses to do things, too, as he was once a prosecutor.

Thanks for using the right word, Pamela. Of course, it's improper to "coach" a witness. Prosecutors do this all the time and get away with it. They use the excuse Weldon used... they were simply trying to "clarify" a witness's report. "Clarify" my fanny. There is never any excuse for telling one percipient witness what another percipient witness said. If a defense investigator tried it, he/she would be looking at an obstruction of justice charge.

The problem apparent here is endemic in this case. If you get folks who are zealously pursuing a particular theory, when they start interviewing witnesses all sorts "coaching" begins to happen. The result is that witnesses who may have had something of probative significance to add end up being contaminated and therefore worthless.

What happened with respect to Stavis Ellis?

Josiah Thompson

Josiah :

Thanks for your inquiry In order to get appropriate answers to fit my predetermined agenda, whenever I was able to do so, I found it advantageous to interview witnesses under gunpoint. There were occasional problems such as with Ellis who lived in Texas and my living in Michigan, Nick living in Florida, or Glanges living in Texas. In cases such as that I would try to hold a family member hostage and would bug their phones and intercept their mail to ensure they would not talk with anyone without my prior approval and careful monitoring of what they said. It may appear to have been extreme in retrospect but it was highly effective. In other instances it was amazing how these career police oficers and professionals could so easily be hynotized and say or do anything I asked. I see your article was a total joint effort and you acknowledge your part in the writing of the article. Perhaps you can respond to some of my criticisms and why you see police officers as "casual observers" or totally ignored Whitaker. Thank you in advance.

Doug Weldon

Perhaps you missed my latest post on this subject. I consider Doug and me to be on the same team, moving in the same direction. At least both of us realize the significance of the PH and WHG witnesses who believed they saw a t&t hole in the windshield. I don't think we have all the answsers; Doug may think he does. That's ok with me. My issue is with those who are trying to shut down research on these witnesses and dismiss what they have to say.

Pamela

1/11/2010

[Craig Lamson]

Let's forget all the garbage about beta wireframes and unfinished 3d renderings and people picking apart his work.

Martin claims the location of the windshield defect matches in both A6 and A 7. Fine. If thats the case he can simply stroke the LOS from each photo on this drawing of the Limo. Clean, simple and to the point, and no need to 'render" anything.

Show us the defect Martin....

Edited February 28, 2010 by Don Jeffries

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Doug, your response is "Right on!" Rarely do we see such an elaborate assortment of trolls, shills, and fakes from the top of the deck to the bottom. The evidence in favor of your position is extensive and varied. It ranges from photographic to medical to acoustical. Jim Lewis has been traveling through the South and firing high-velocity bullets through the windshields of abandoned cars from about 200 yards to see if he can hit a dummy in the back seat. He has not only done that but has also discovered (i) that the bullets make the share of a spiral nebula in the windshields and (ii) that, as the pass through, the bullets create the sound of a firecracker. What better empirical proof could we have than this? Many spectators, as we all know, reported that the sound of the first shot was different and that it sounded like that of a "firecracker". The images in these junked cars is the same as the image in the Altgens. Martin has confirmed that the image is in the windshield, not at some distance behind the limo. Josiah has a penchant for absurd theories when the evidence contradicts his position. He has gone so far as to suggest that the throat wound--which was described by Malcolm Perry, M.D., three times as a wound of entry during the Parkland Press Conference, which I published in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998); drawn in diagrams by Charles Crenshas, M.D., which I also published there; and included in his front-page story in The New York Times by Tom Wicker in the most important story of his career--was actually an exit wound caused by a bone fragment caused by a hit to the back of the head fired from above and behind just as THE WARREN REPORT (1964) proposed. He thereby disqualifies himself not only as a student of the death of JFK but as a competent PI, since no competent PI would even confound the features of this wound (as a clean, small puncture wound) with those of an exit would (irregular, with ragged edges and skin pushed outward). Now he suggests that the spiral nebula with a dark hole in the center is actually a feature of a purse or a dress or some other item belonging to a woman in the background! The situation must be desperate for this man to make himself look like an idiot by advancing these completely ad hoc hypotheses for which there is no evidence. I guess that is what he learned at Yale: that he can discount logic and evidence, because his boyish charm is all that matters! What a farce!

I have made this point before but, given the totality of the evidence--including several small wounds to the face caused by shards of glass, Malcolm Perry's descriptions of the entry wound at the Parkland press conference, the spiral nebulae pattern made by firing high-velocity bullets through the windshields of vehicles and hitting dummies in the back seat, the sound of a firecracker made when that happens, that Martin has confirmed the image is in the windshield and not in the background, the trajectory alignment, the witnesses who saw a hole at the hospital, the articles some of them wrote about it, the reports from Ford, on and on, all of which are highly probable if a bullet had traversed the windshield en route to the throat--the likelihood that there was such a spiral nebula as the result of firing a high-velocity bullet through the windshield is extremely high. Certainly, given the motivation to conceal evidence of conspiracy in this case, it is overwhelmingly more likely that some of these photos were altered to conceal the spiral nebula than it is that the spiral nebula did not exist, as is confirmed by other photographs. It is a common technique to attempt to place greater weight upon photographs in this case than upon witness testimony and other forms of evidence. That is a blunder, insofar as photographs and films require witness authentication to be admissible in courts of law and, as we all know from the study of this case, manipulating X-rays, autopsy photographs, and other photos and films turns out to have been the principal mode of creating a false impression of the evidence in this case, including the backyard photographs. So it is unsurprising in the extreme that the "official photographs" would not show the spiral nebula. What is important is that its existence is confirmed by the convergence of so many other forms of proof, both physical, medical and even acoustical. No other hypothesis appears even remotely capable of explaining all of the evidence. You will notice that when I make these points, they post several trivial replies in the hope that no one will notice. Rarely in the study of an event like this will there be such a powerful convergence of medical, photographic, and acoustical evidence.

Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation.

As Barb put it: “No, you did not suggest a location to him. And I did not say you did. But you did more than ask him if he could be mistaken. First you informed him that you had spoken to other witnesses who had placed the hole they saw in a different location. You, in effect, put him on notice that he had it wrong. Then you asked him if he might have been mistaken. It's not a subtle point.”

If you want to get an accurate picture of what a witness recalls, you don’t tell the witness first what another witness recalled. That’s the one thing you don’t do. Having done this, the answer doesn’t matter since all you’ve done is underline your own willingness to contaminate the memory of the witness. That is also why it’s kind of dumb.

Josiah Thompson

Weldon may even acknowledge (he has in the past) attempting to *coach* PH witness Stavis Ellis to change the location of the hole Stavis believed he saw to *fit better* into Weldon's scenario. Weldon has an advantage in getting witnesses to do things, too, as he was once a prosecutor.

Thanks for using the right word, Pamela. Of course, it's improper to "coach" a witness. Prosecutors do this all the time and get away with it. They use the excuse Weldon used... they were simply trying to "clarify" a witness's report. "Clarify" my fanny. There is never any excuse for telling one percipient witness what another percipient witness said. If a defense investigator tried it, he/she would be looking at an obstruction of justice charge.

The problem apparent here is endemic in this case. If you get folks who are zealously pursuing a particular theory, when they start interviewing witnesses all sorts "coaching" begins to happen. The result is that witnesses who may have had something of probative significance to add end up being contaminated and therefore worthless.

What happened with respect to Stavis Ellis?

Josiah Thompson

Josiah :

Thanks for your inquiry In order to get appropriate answers to fit my predetermined agenda, whenever I was able to do so, I found it advantageous to interview witnesses under gunpoint. There were occasional problems such as with Ellis who lived in Texas and my living in Michigan, Nick living in Florida, or Glanges living in Texas. In cases such as that I would try to hold a family member hostage and would bug their phones and intercept their mail to ensure they would not talk with anyone without my prior approval and careful monitoring of what they said. It may appear to have been extreme in retrospect but it was highly effective. In other instances it was amazing how these career police oficers and professionals could so easily be hynotized and say or do anything I asked. I see your article was a total joint effort and you acknowledge your part in the writing of the article. Perhaps you can respond to some of my criticisms and why you see police officers as "casual observers" or totally ignored Whitaker. Thank you in advance.

Doug Weldon

Perhaps you missed my latest post on this subject. I consider Doug and me to be on the same team, moving in the same direction. At least both of us realize the significance of the PH and WHG witnesses who believed they saw a t&t hole in the windshield. I don't think we have all the answsers; Doug may think he does. That's ok with me. My issue is with those who are trying to shut down research on these witnesses and dismiss what they have to say.

Pamela

1/11/2010

Edited February 27, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Michael Crane]

Not to deflect the discussion at hand,but I work in the glass industry,and have seen what bullet holes do to glass.I have never known the velocity that bullets keep after impact with laminated glass.Thanks Jim,you have educated me with your last post of how this has been accomplished by Jim Lewis.

[Josiah Thompson]

Josiah :

Thanks for your inquiry In order to get appropriate answers to fit my predetermined agenda, whenever I was able to do so, I found it advantageous to interview witnesses under gunpoint.

Ha, Ha... that's very funny. Now to the point at issue.

Apparently, in interviewing Principe you indicated to Principe what other witnesses said concerning the location of damage to the windshield. Do you still want to claim that such a gambit is not "coaching" a witness and that you were only clarifying what Principe had remembered? Sorry, this doesn't even remotely pass the smell test.

By telling a witness what an other witness said, you contaminate that witnesses recollections. This is a no-no in any law or prosecutor's office in the nation. Do you really want to contend that such coaching is just fine and that it was something as a prosecutor you urged your investigators to do? If so, I'd like to hear it rather than a jocular response that simply ignores the seriousness of what you did.

Josiah Thompson

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Doug,

Where did Stavis Ellis tell you the hole he saw in the windshield was located? Specifically.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation.

As Barb put it: “No, you did not suggest a location to him. And I did not say you did. But you did more than ask him if he could be mistaken. First you informed him that you had spoken to other witnesses who had placed the hole they saw in a different location. You, in effect, put him on notice that he had it wrong. Then you asked him if he might have been mistaken. It's not a subtle point.”

If you want to get an accurate picture of what a witness recalls, you don’t tell the witness first what another witness recalled. That’s the one thing you don’t do. Having done this, the answer doesn’t matter since all you’ve done is underline your own willingness to contaminate the memory of the witness. That is also why it’s kind of dumb.

Josiah Thompson

Weldon may even acknowledge (he has in the past) attempting to *coach* PH witness Stavis Ellis to change the location of the hole Stavis believed he saw to *fit better* into Weldon's scenario. Weldon has an advantage in getting witnesses to do things, too, as he was once a prosecutor.

Thanks for using the right word, Pamela. Of course, it's improper to "coach" a witness. Prosecutors do this all the time and get away with it. They use the excuse Weldon used... they were simply trying to "clarify" a witness's report. "Clarify" my fanny. There is never any excuse for telling one percipient witness what another percipient witness said. If a defense investigator tried it, he/she would be looking at an obstruction of justice charge.

The problem apparent here is endemic in this case. If you get folks who are zealously pursuing a particular theory, when they start interviewing witnesses all sorts "coaching" begins to happen. The result is that witnesses who may have had something of probative significance to add end up being contaminated and therefore worthless.

What happened with respect to Stavis Ellis?

Josiah Thompson

Josiah :

Thanks for your inquiry In order to get appropriate answers to fit my predetermined agenda, whenever I was able to do so, I found it advantageous to interview witnesses under gunpoint. There were occasional problems such as with Ellis who lived in Texas and my living in Michigan, Nick living in Florida, or Glanges living in Texas. In cases such as that I would try to hold a family member hostage and would bug their phones and intercept their mail to ensure they would not talk with anyone without my prior approval and careful monitoring of what they said. It may appear to have been extreme in retrospect but it was highly effective. In other instances it was amazing how these career police oficers and professionals could so easily be hynotized and say or do anything I asked. I see your article was a total joint effort and you acknowledge your part in the writing of the article. Perhaps you can respond to some of my criticisms and why you see police officers as "casual observers" or totally ignored Whitaker. Thank you in advance.

Doug Weldon

[Doug Weldon]

Josiah :

Thanks for your inquiry In order to get appropriate answers to fit my predetermined agenda, whenever I was able to do so, I found it advantageous to interview witnesses under gunpoint.

Ha, Ha... that's very funny. Now to the point at issue.

Apparently, in interviewing Principe you indicated to Principe what other witnesses said concerning the location of damage to the windshield. Do you still want to claim that such a gambit is not "coaching" a witness and that you were only clarifying what Principe had remembered? Sorry, this doesn't even remotely pass the smell test.

By telling a witness what an other witness said, you contaminate that witnesses recollections. This is a no-no in any law or prosecutor's office in the nation. Do you really want to contend that such coaching is just fine and that it was something as a prosecutor you urged your investigators to do? If so, I'd like to hear it rather than a jocular response that simply ignores the seriousness of what you did.

Josiah Thompson

Read the transcript again. Nick had already given me his account and where he saw the hole. :W: Now, Nick, now I am going to tell you as a basis, and Pamela is aware of this also, that I know of at least a couple and mentioned their names, and I’ve talked to Stavis Ellis extensively, and I know I have talked to at least three or four people that saw a bullet hole through the windshield. Now a couple of them describe it in a little bit different location.

P: Okay.

W: Is there any possibility that just time could have effected how certain you are where that bullet hole was in that windshield?

P: No question about it.

W: Okay, so it’s possible that you could be in error about that location?

P: Yes, there is definitely.

I said a couple of them saw in a slightly different location (Not all of them ) and I never made mention of where that location might have been. I was only trying to verify how certain he was about the location. I never suggested anything different to him, i.e., where the location might have been, etc. I make no apologies. He had already given his account and I was aware of everything he told Pamela. It's like the birthday example I gave to Barb. Transcripts, as you know, can sometimes be deceiving. The tone of the voice and the nature of the converation sometimes has to be listened to to truly understand it. It was not a trick. As I explain in MIDP (where I acknowledge Ellis giving a different location if anyone cares to read it) it is the fact that they saw a hole which is critical. The exact details and who may or may not have been there at the time, are going to fade with time and the most reliable recollections are going to be of those who viewed the hole the longest period of time. In this instance it is Whitaker and Taylor and both described the hole in the same spot. With Nick I spoke with someone who knew him in 1963, Dick Giordono, and with Ellis I have a taped interview with him by someone in 1970 and him being on the radio in Canada I believe in 1976. It matters not to me whether we agree or disagree whether he could be tainted after he gave his account but once again I would like to move on and examine my criticism of your article.

Doug

[William Plumlee]

Doug,

Where did Stavis Ellis tell you the hole he saw in the windshield was located? Specifically.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

Thompson's opportunistic response to utilize this exchange as something improper is ridiculous. I did not expect this from someone engaging in an intelligent conversation.

As Barb put it: “No, you did not suggest a location to him. And I did not say you did. But you did more than ask him if he could be mistaken. First you informed him that you had spoken to other witnesses who had placed the hole they saw in a different location. You, in effect, put him on notice that he had it wrong. Then you asked him if he might have been mistaken. It's not a subtle point.”

If you want to get an accurate picture of what a witness recalls, you don’t tell the witness first what another witness recalled. That’s the one thing you don’t do. Having done this, the answer doesn’t matter since all you’ve done is underline your own willingness to contaminate the memory of the witness. That is also why it’s kind of dumb.

Josiah Thompson

Weldon may even acknowledge (he has in the past) attempting to *coach* PH witness Stavis Ellis to change the location of the hole Stavis believed he saw to *fit better* into Weldon's scenario. Weldon has an advantage in getting witnesses to do things, too, as he was once a prosecutor.

Thanks for using the right word, Pamela. Of course, it's improper to "coach" a witness. Prosecutors do this all the time and get away with it. They use the excuse Weldon used... they were simply trying to "clarify" a witness's report. "Clarify" my fanny. There is never any excuse for telling one percipient witness what another percipient witness said. If a defense investigator tried it, he/she would be looking at an obstruction of justice charge.

The problem apparent here is endemic in this case. If you get folks who are zealously pursuing a particular theory, when they start interviewing witnesses all sorts "coaching" begins to happen. The result is that witnesses who may have had something of probative significance to add end up being contaminated and therefore worthless.

What happened with respect to Stavis Ellis?

Josiah Thompson

Josiah :

Thanks for your inquiry In order to get appropriate answers to fit my predetermined agenda, whenever I was able to do so, I found it advantageous to interview witnesses under gunpoint. There were occasional problems such as with Ellis who lived in Texas and my living in Michigan, Nick living in Florida, or Glanges living in Texas. In cases such as that I would try to hold a family member hostage and would bug their phones and intercept their mail to ensure they would not talk with anyone without my prior approval and careful monitoring of what they said. It may appear to have been extreme in retrospect but it was highly effective. In other instances it was amazing how these career police oficers and professionals could so easily be hynotized and say or do anything I asked. I see your article was a total joint effort and you acknowledge your part in the writing of the article. Perhaps you can respond to some of my criticisms and why you see police officers as "casual observers" or totally ignored Whitaker. Thank you in advance.

Doug Weldon

WELL ITS WORKING.... OFF WE GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER.... AND WE"LL NEVER KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT A HOLE OR NO HOLE IN A WINDSHIELD. ITS PREDICTABLE. NOW PEOPLE WILL LOOSE INTEREST AND WILL LEAVE THE THREAD AND GO TO OTHER MATTERS AND LET YOU PEOPLE SLUG IT OUT. ... BEEN THERE BEFORE.....

[Doug Weldon]

Josiah :

Thanks for your inquiry In order to get appropriate answers to fit my predetermined agenda, whenever I was able to do so, I found it advantageous to interview witnesses under gunpoint.

Ha, Ha... that's very funny. Now to the point at issue.

Apparently, in interviewing Principe you indicated to Principe what other witnesses said concerning the location of damage to the windshield. Do you still want to claim that such a gambit is not "coaching" a witness and that you were only clarifying what Principe had remembered? Sorry, this doesn't even remotely pass the smell test.

By telling a witness what an other witness said, you contaminate that witnesses recollections. This is a no-no in any law or prosecutor's office in the nation. Do you really want to contend that such coaching is just fine and that it was something as a prosecutor you urged your investigators to do? If so, I'd like to hear it rather than a jocular response that simply ignores the seriousness of what you did.

Josiah Thompson

Read the transcript again. Nick had already given me his account and where he saw the hole. :W: Now, Nick, now I am going to tell you as a basis, and Pamela is aware of this also, that I know of at least a couple and mentioned their names, and I’ve talked to Stavis Ellis extensively, and I know I have talked to at least three or four people that saw a bullet hole through the windshield. Now a couple of them describe it in a little bit different location.

P: Okay.

W: Is there any possibility that just time could have effected how certain you are where that bullet hole was in that windshield?

P: No question about it.

W: Okay, so it’s possible that you could be in error about that location?

P: Yes, there is definitely.

I said a couple of them saw in a slightly different location (Not all of them ) and I never made mention of where that location might have been. I was only trying to verify how certain he was about the location. I never suggested anything different to him, i.e., where the location might have been, etc. I make no apologies. He had already given his account and I was aware of everything he told Pamela. It's like the birthday example I gave to Barb. Transcripts, as you know, can sometimes be deceiving. The tone of the voice and the nature of the converation sometimes has to be listened to to truly understand it. It was not a trick. As I explain in MIDP (where I acknowledge Ellis giving a different location if anyone cares to read it) it is the fact that they saw a hole which is critical. The exact details and who may or may not have been there at the time, are going to fade with time and the most reliable recollections are going to be of those who viewed the hole the longest period of time. In this instance it is Whitaker and Taylor and both described the hole in the same spot. With Nick I spoke with someone who knew him in 1963, Dick Giordono, and with Ellis I have a taped interview with him by someone in 1970 and him being on the radio in Canada I believe in 1976. It matters not to me whether we agree or disagree whether he could be tainted after he gave his account but once again I would like to move on and examine my criticism of your article.

Doug

My last point on this: "W: For example, as I asked you about the certainty, could you have been wrong about the location of the hole in the windshield. I did not want to influence you either way. I just want to accept whatever response you would offer."

Now can we move on.

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Doug,

Where did Stavis Ellis tell you the hole he saw in the windshield was located? Specifically.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

WELL ITS WORKING.... OFF WE GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER.... AND WE"LL NEVER KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT A HOLE OR NO HOLE IN A WINDSHIELD. ITS PREDICTABLE. NOW PEOPLE WILL LOOSE INTEREST AND WILL LEAVE THE THREAD AND GO TO OTHER MATTERS AND LET YOU PEOPLE SLUG IT OUT. ... BEEN THERE BEFORE.....

Uhhhh.... the witnesses, like Ellis specifically, are one of the issues Doug has with our article and has asked to have addressed. It very much goes to whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. No one is slugging. Doug mentions Ellis constantly but has given no specifics. Seems like a good idea to me to know just what Ellis told Doug to better be able to address the criticism he has made and asked to have addressed about our treatment of these witnesses in our article. That was his purpose for starting the thread. Geesh. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

[William Plumlee]

Doug,

Where did Stavis Ellis tell you the hole he saw in the windshield was located? Specifically.

Thanks,

Barb :-)

WELL ITS WORKING.... OFF WE GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER.... AND WE"LL NEVER KNOW A DAMN THING ABOUT A HOLE OR NO HOLE IN A WINDSHIELD. ITS PREDICTABLE. NOW PEOPLE WILL LOOSE INTEREST AND WILL LEAVE THE THREAD AND GO TO OTHER MATTERS AND LET YOU PEOPLE SLUG IT OUT. ... BEEN THERE BEFORE.....

Uhhhh.... the witnesses, like Ellis specifically, are one of the issues Doug has with our article and has asked to have addressed. It very much goes to whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. No one is slugging. Doug mentions Ellis constantly but has given no specifics. Seems like a good idea to me to know just what Ellis told Doug to better be able to address the criticism he has made and asked to have addressed about our treatment of these witnesses in our article. That was his purpose for starting the thread. Geesh. :-)

Bests,

Barb :-)

I understand. But, with all due respect; after twenty plus pages on a tight thread, what do we really know at this point? I don't mean to be disrespectful but its the professional tone which I see deteriorating. BUT! What do I know? I'M just a eight hundred pond guerilla in the room.