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

[Jack White]

Josiah/Barb,

An attempt to "elicit the truth" is in the eye of the beholder. In my view, Doug has no more of an agenda than either of you have on this issue. As I commented in an earlier thread last year about your article, I don't think you've eliminated the doubts that many of us have about whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. You seem to think you have. I don't unequivocally say you're wrong, but I still suspect there was a hole in the windshield.

Again, I think it comes down to two things; how you interpret the photographs and which witnesses you believe are credible. You clearly believe the "official" types like Frazier have more credibility. As a critic of the official "investigation," I think citizens who weren't directly connected to those who "investigated" the assassination have more credibility.

Thanks, Doug, for sharing all your good work.

Don...I agree. In 45 years of study I have learned one thing: NEVER TRUST OFFICIAL STORIES. They are all

concocted to fit the agendas of those telling the stories. More trustworthy is the work of impartial citizen investigators,

often working alone for many years, whose ONLY AGENDA IS TRUTH. The corollary to this is DON'T TRUST THOSE

WHO SUPPORT THE OFFICIAL STORIES...they too have agendas.

Jack

[Doug Weldon]

I am very careful in my interviews and I never misrepresent anything.

Since apologizing for being so hard on you in “coaching” Principe in his interview with you, I was given the audio tape of the interview. It is quite appalling not because you are not "careful in your interviews" and not because you "misrepresent anything." The problem with your interview of Principe is that it is designed to build a case and not elicit the truth.

There is a difference between doing interviews in an adversary proceeding and doing interviews as an historian. I let you off the hook on Principe because I recognized that everyone in the adversary game is playing the same game and trying to get what one wants from a witness. In certain cases, I’ve done sort of the same thing that you did with Principe. But I wasn’t investigating a case of national importance as an historian. The rules are different. An historian is supposed to be trying to get at the truth. You weren't. You were seeking to harvest a particular part of Principe's story. Here's why I say that.

When you start your interview of Principe you don’t tell him you are taping the phone call. He has to ask if you are taping and you admit that you are. In California, it is a felony to tape a phone call without the other party’s consent. Other states have other rules and I don’t know where you called him from. At the very least, this doesn't lead to Principe having a lot of confidence in you or your scruples.

You spend untold minutes probing what Principe knew of JFK’s sexual peccadillos. Why on earth would you spend even a moment on this?

Principe tells you that he was the victim of a Black Panther Party assassination attempt and that he ended up retiring from the force because of it. Any experienced investigator hearing this from a witness ought to inquire further. I never heard of any Black Panther Party attack on a capitol policemen ever. There may very well have been such an attack and you should have let Principe tell you about it. This is a thread from a witness that you want to unwind to determine whether you are dealing with a someone with an overactive imagination. He does tell you of the photos he has with varous notables, an admission that makes one wonder a bit about his present story.

When you get to the heart of the interview concerning his observations in the White House garage you keep offering him what he said to Pamela and only let him agree with what you tell him. This is the kind of treatment that is all too usual in the world of the adversary system but has no place in a genuine truth-seeking project. What appals me most is that you never do the most obvious thing, elicit from him what he did that day before visiting the White House garage. It would have been the easiest thing to say to him: "I bet you'll never forget the day of the Kennedy assassination. No one ever does. What were you doing when you heard of the shooting?" From there you could elicit a kind of chronicle of Principe's movements that day and night. Where was he assigned? When did he get off duty? How did he end up talking with Greer? Where and when did this happen? Why did he go to the White House garage that night at all? Then you could move on to his critical observation. "You say you saw the bullet hole from the front of the car? How close did you get to it? Was there an overhead light on it? Why did you say it was through-and-through and not just damage?"

Given the restraints you put on Principe in simply confirming what he told Pamela, Principe never gets a chance to tell his story apart from your choreographing it. What he does say is not reassuring. With regard to the damage in the windshield, Principe says, “I glanced at it and it was quick..” Much later in the interview, Principe confirms that the light was bad in the garage. His description of the bullet hole is generic and uninformative. When you ask him how certain he is of seeing it... where on the scale of 1 to 100 his confidence lies... Principe doesn’t answer directly and highlights what Greer told him about a shot through the windshield. Then Principe gives you the wrong answer with respect to the location of the windshield damage. Your voice changes noticeably and you tell him other witnesses didn’t place it where he placed it. Docilely, he responds to your coaching and says he might be wrong about its location.

Most importantly, you are dealing with a witness who has appeared thirty-five years after the event and you never ask him the obvious question, “About this bullet hole, back then in 1963 or thereabouts did you ever tell anyone about it? Like other officers or your friends and family?” Since you never asked the question, we’ll never know the answer.

I could go on and on. But the central point is clear. The interview you did is the kind of interview one might expect from an inexperienced Assistant District Attorney with few scruples who had been told by his boss to interview this witness and make sure the witness held to his story. It is the farthest thing from the kind of fact-finding interview one would expect from a trained historian pursuing historical truth. All the important questions that would help us evaluate the credibility of Principe’s story are never asked.

You tell Principe that you will be sending him your videotape later because you did not want to influence his story. Yet the interview from beginning to end is structured to preserve a particular part of his story... he saw a bullet-hole in the White House garage. You interviewed him to harvest this tale unchallenged by any serious questions. Both Richard Dudman and Secret Service Agent Taylor looked at the damage to the windshield and thought it contained a through-and-through bullet hole. Only later did we learn that Dudman did not observe a through-and-through hole and Taylor recanted after looking at the windshield in the Archives. The limousine in the White House garage contained a windshield with some damage in it. If Principe saw that windshield he could have made the same mistake as Dudman and Taylor made. The purpose of a genuine interview of Principe would have been to tease out whether he saw a hole or just damage. Your interview failed to do that. It failed because throughout the interview you functioned as a lawyer with a case to make rather that as an historian with a truth to find.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

Once again you are trying to perpetuate a silly game and create another diversiom. Taylor and Dudman did not make a mistake and both saw a hole. Dudman told Livingston "The hole in the windshield was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield." His account changed only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account, no more than they did Taylor's. One month before an affidavit was prepared for him Taylor confirmed that he saw a hole. He was then shown a windshield that was not in the limo in Dallas. What caused the Church staff to be concerned that he could not have seen the windshield enough to have seen a hole? Was his report ambiguous? Was he not riding in the limo for an hour on the way to the WH Garage? Did Geiglein question his report? Tell me in California how would a court treat someone changing their account after confirming it twice in twelve years? Would they throw out the case? Why did they have to prepare an affidavit for him? Did he not know how to write out his account? FYI, the agreement was that both Pamela and I would do taped interviews with Nick and exchange tapes and provide a copy to Nick and one of his friends named Irv. Nick was confirming that I was taping the conversation as we agreed. Are you trying to create something sinister and make me concerned and panic by pointing out it is a felony in California to tape a conversation without permission? Who are you trying to intimidate or kid? I don't think this innuendo impresses anyone. Nick was not on the witness stand. I wanted to find out what people thought about Kennedy and the short line of questioning about his sexual "peccadilloes" was to determine if it was something that really bothered people in law enforcement, i.e., the Secret Service. I wanted to know what he thought of Kennedy.

As you heard it was my first time speaking with Nick and it was a very congenial conversation. We talked for an hour. Nothing was suggested to him about where the hole should have been or how he should have answered any question. Nick said he talked to many people about it and as I posted before I talked with Dick Giordono, whom Nick had talked with.. We can play would of/could of/should of games in perpetuity. Why do you cast suspicion about his Black Panther story? Are you suggesting he was lying? Because you never heard of it, what the hell difference does that make? if you would have pursued a line of questioning on that what would that have to do with meeting Greer and seeing the limo in The WH Garage. I really don't care what you would have asked him. I can take your Marilyn Sitzman interview and tell you many questions I would have asked differently. It was proven that Nick was who he said he was and was employed on November 22, 1963. Why would he or anyone else lie? What is their motive? You can never answer that as there is no answer. Nick said he would have testified under oath if you read his e-mails. It is easy to do character assassination of the deceased. Tell me which of these witnesses did any of the three of you interview. All were accessible. You play a game where you suggest I manipulated Ellis to change his story? Ellis never changed. Read my chapter instead of saying that you don't have the book after you make the accusation that I got Ellis to change his account. It is much easier to imply something sinister rather than check something out. You stated you knew nothing about Glanges. It is obvious. It is obvious you had no idea who Whitaker was. Glanges sister is still alive. Why don't you track her down?

I can play your game and suggest this is the kind of work a third rate private investigator would do in preparing an article. It is only now that one of you is trying to read more about the witnesses. BTW Ellis and Freeman were together at Parkland. Tell me how you know Taylor and/or Dudman were honest in recanting their accounts and not frightened as Dudman obviously was. Tell me what you know about Taylor. It is obvious that you were not aware of the conflicts in the evidence. Is this how YOU find truth, by confronting evidence with speculation and creating suspicion with innuendo. The prosecutor argument is silly. I am not going to apologize for my career in the criminal justice system. I had no agenda. A prosecutor would try to prove the government right. Bugliousi and Posner made classic prosecutorial briefs. It appears that you do have an agenda to bury the facts, cast anyone or witness who disagrees with you as mistaken, a xxxx, or untrustworthy. It is classic The question I have to ask is why are you doing this? This is all a distraction. You are playing the game of an inexperienced defense attorney - create enough smoke and mirrors and go off on diversions and people will become confused about the truth. If you are going to rely on the official reports and they all conflict how are you going to choose which ones to believe? If the two windshields from 1963 and 1975 do not match, as many have shown, and I quote Jerry's opinion that they cannot be compared now, how are you going to explain it? If Taylor was shown a bogus windshield what would that mean to you? Jerry has been very straightforward and helpful. I appreciate that. I need to move forward on this. I was hoping we could have a civil, informed discussion but you are even cherry-picking Martin's analysis.

You are doing what the manual suggests. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. if the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table. You are pounding the table.

Hello Doug,

Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare. I'll try to look up your post - do you have the post #?

(Jerry)

PRENCIPE, NICK L., 84, of Cape Coral, formerly of Spring Hill, died Friday (June 15, 2001) at Hernando Pasco Hospice, Spring Hill. Born in University Park, Md., he moved to Cape Coral in 1974, recently coming to Spring Hill to be near family. He was a retired captain in the U.S. Park Police in Washington, D.C. He provided security for five presidents, 1941-1972. His memberships included being past president of U.S. Antique Auto Association, past president of the Italian American Club, Cape Coral, and the Lions and Moose clubs. Survivors include his wife of 60 years, Janet; two sisters, Annette Brady, Gettysburg, Pa., and Evelyn Umholtz, Spring Hill; nieces and nephews. Lee Memorial Park Funeral Home, Lehigh Acres.

Doug Weldon

[Jerry Logan]

........

Hello Doug,

Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare. I'll try to look up your post - do you have the post #?

(Jerry)

........

Doug Weldon

Doug,

This is about the third time you've misused my words so I think a correction is in order. I was specifically addressing Martin's CE350 comparisons with the HSCA NARA photos - NOT Altgens 6 or 7.

I have no problem with comparing the Altgens photos and I never have. Therefore, please stop impeaching Josiah with words that do not apply.

Jerry

[Robin Unger]

quote:

I put before you the fact that Hinrichs had shown that Lady #8 in the Couch photo has an apron on.

Hi Joshia.

I assume you are reffering to the color "Croft Photo", as apposed to Couch.

[John Dolva]

bag?

John:

Thanks.Your phoot looks okay. I am sure you are probably right but to me in post 223 it looks like one big black splotch. Am I missing something? It is probably why why I am not an expert in photography and I appreciate your patience.

Best,

Doug

No worries Doug. All I did was take the same photo you refer to and increase the gamma and saw what I then outlined. There's a lot of stuff in the darkness, it's just hidden by the contrasts. A simple utility like Image Analyzer (free from Meesoft) can adjust values, in this case: menu, operations, color correction, color mapper, exposure and slide the gamma up.

[Jack White]

quote:

I put before you the fact that Hinrichs had shown that Lady #8 in the Couch photo has an apron on.

Hi Joshia.

I assume you are reffering to the color "Croft Photo", as apposed to Couch.

Woman #8 has on a maternity apron and is holding a baby in her arms.

Attached to the apron are a wire basket and a small box. There is no

spiral nebula on her apron.

Jack

[Doug Weldon]

........

Hello Doug,

Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare. I'll try to look up your post - do you have the post #?

(Jerry)

........

Doug Weldon

Doug,

This is about the third time you've misused my words so I think a correction is in order. I was specifically addressing Martin's CE350 comparisons with the HSCA NARA photos - NOT Altgens 6 or 7.

I have no problem with comparing the Altgens photos and I never have. Therefore, please stop impeaching Josiah with words that do not apply.

Jerry

Jerry:

I thought I was clear. I was talking about the two photographs in the article, not the Altgen's photos. I did not intend to create any confusion.

Best,

Doug

[Doug Weldon]

........

Hello Doug,

Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare. I'll try to look up your post - do you have the post #?

(Jerry)

........

Doug Weldon

Doug,

This is about the third time you've misused my words so I think a correction is in order. I was specifically addressing Martin's CE350 comparisons with the HSCA NARA photos - NOT Altgens 6 or 7.

I have no problem with comparing the Altgens photos and I never have. Therefore, please stop impeaching Josiah with words that do not apply.

Jerry

Jerry:

I thought I was clear. I was talking about the two photographs in the article, not the Altgen's photos. I did not intend to create any confusion.

Best,

Doug

Jerry:

I am confused. How could Taylor have been shown the windshields in Altgen's? Taylor was shown a windshield, not a photo. I thought I was very clear.

Doug

[Doug Weldon]

bag?

John:

Thanks.Your phoot looks okay. I am sure you are probably right but to me in post 223 it looks like one big black splotch. Am I missing something? It is probably why why I am not an expert in photography and I appreciate your patience.

Best,

Doug

No worries Doug. All I did was take the same photo you refer to and increase the gamma and saw what I then outlined. There's a lot of stuff in the darkness, it's just hidden by the contrasts. A simple utility like Image Analyzer (free from Meesoft) can adjust values, in this case: menu, operations, color correction, color mapper, exposure and slide the gamma up.

Thanks so much.

Doug

[Jerry Logan]

.....

As you heard it was my first time speaking with Nick and it was a very congenial conversation. We talked for an hour. Nothing was suggested to him about where the hole should have been or how he should have answered any question. .......

Doug Weldon

Doug,

First, I want to acknowledge your willingness to share the entire interview with us. I take that as a sign of your basic candor and honesty.

I think, however, that the totality of the interview does grave, grave damage to your theory of the crime. On the one hand, Nick has a less than convincing view of the "hole".

By his account it's a brief peek, under pressure in poor lighting and he's predisposed to see a hole because Greer! has told him there's a hole and that's what he's looking for when he takes his peek.

So the "hole in the windshield" gets a minor boost from yes, "a casual observer." On the other hand, Nick torpedo's your theory of the crime at the waterline if his story is accurate.

On your theory, Greer is an integral part of a Secret Service plan to participate in the assassination of the President.

Greer slows the limousine so the job can be finished.

Greer is part of the Secret Service team that realizes there's a problem with a hole in the windshield at Parkland hospital.

On Nick's clear account, Bill Greer is supposed to have returned to Washington DC where he promptly reports to a uniformed police officer charged with protecting the President that bullets were flying from all directions and that one of them came through the windshield and almost hit Greer. So a key participant in your theory promptly reports all the incriminating details to his friend the police officer and even tells the officer where to find the bullet hole. That's a real conspiracy of silence.

Moreover, Nick has known Greer for many years. Nick reports that Greer was very, very upset the night of the assassination and when you hint that Greer might have been involved in some way Nick responds with No, he was a good guy. It seems to me that if you're going to accept Nick's account of the "hole" then you're also committed to accepting his account of the rest of the evening where a genuinely upset Bill Greer reports everything he's supposed to be hiding if your theory were true. On balance, I'd say the interview does you more harm than good.

Jerry

[Jerry Logan]

........

Hello Doug,

Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare. I'll try to look up your post - do you have the post #?

(Jerry)

........

Doug Weldon

Doug,

This is about the third time you've misused my words so I think a correction is in order. I was specifically addressing Martin's CE350 comparisons with the HSCA NARA photos - NOT Altgens 6 or 7.

I have no problem with comparing the Altgens photos and I never have. Therefore, please stop impeaching Josiah with words that do not apply.

Jerry

Jerry:

I thought I was clear. I was talking about the two photographs in the article, not the Altgen's photos. I did not intend to create any confusion.

Best,

Doug

Doug,

Josiah is talking about comparing the Altgens photos. When you quote my words to Josiah in that context it's bound to carry the suggestion that I had doubts about the photos Josiah is discussing. Otherwise, you're just calling attention to a comparison that Josiah is not making or discussing.

Jerry

[Jerry Logan]

........

Hello Doug,

Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare. I'll try to look up your post - do you have the post #?

(Jerry)

........

Doug Weldon

Doug,

This is about the third time you've misused my words so I think a correction is in order. I was specifically addressing Martin's CE350 comparisons with the HSCA NARA photos - NOT Altgens 6 or 7.

I have no problem with comparing the Altgens photos and I never have. Therefore, please stop impeaching Josiah with words that do not apply.

Jerry

Jerry:

I thought I was clear. I was talking about the two photographs in the article, not the Altgen's photos. I did not intend to create any confusion.

Best,

Doug

Jerry:

I am confused. How could Taylor have been shown the windshields in Altgen's? Taylor was shown a windshield, not a photo. I thought I was very clear.

Doug

Doug,

Actually, Taylor was shown photos as well as the windshield at the NARA (but I don't think Altgens).

Whatever Taylor looked at, Josiah was discussing the Altgens photos and my comment was not directed to, nor about, the Altgens photos.

I take it that you didn't mean to imply that my comments applied to Altgens and I'm fine with that now that we all understand each other.

Jerry

[Doug Weldon]

........

Hello Doug,

Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare. I'll try to look up your post - do you have the post #?

(Jerry)

........

Doug Weldon

Doug,

This is about the third time you've misused my words so I think a correction is in order. I was specifically addressing Martin's CE350 comparisons with the HSCA NARA photos - NOT Altgens 6 or 7.

I have no problem with comparing the Altgens photos and I never have. Therefore, please stop impeaching Josiah with words that do not apply.

Jerry

Jerry:

I thought I was clear. I was talking about the two photographs in the article, not the Altgen's photos. I did not intend to create any confusion.

Best,

Doug

Jerry:

I am confused. How could Taylor have been shown the windshields in Altgen's? Taylor was shown a windshield, not a photo. I thought I was very clear.

Doug

Doug,

Actually, Taylor was shown photos as well as the windshield at the NARA (but I don't think Altgens).

Whatever Taylor looked at, Josiah was discussing the Altgens photos and my comment was not directed to, nor about, the Altgens photos.

I take it that you didn't mean to imply that my comments applied to Altgens and I'm fine with that now that we all understand each other.

Jerry

Jerry,

You are absolutely correct. Even where we disagree, you have been straightforward on evrything. I regret that the total exchange deterioriated so much.

My best,

Doug

[Jerry Logan]

......... I am interested in the totality of the evidence and I remain convinced that none of you understood that in your article. If we had photograpic evidence that there might be a hole in Altgen's but no other corroborative evidence or if we still had the original windshield a debate would be specious. My questions were not answered nor was the twisted evidence addressed by anyone of you. We can go round and round but I need to write my book in an organized way and not in bits and pieces on this forum. It is obvious to me that none of you knew much of anything about the witnesses or the evidence. If othere have questions that is fine and I will lurk here but I don't feel it is fruitful to be like a dog chasing its tail.

My best to you,

Doug

Doug,

The problem with the "totality of the evidence" argument is that it is skewed. You've invested a lot of time in researching and defending the "hole" witnesses. Creating, for example, explanations when their "holes" are in completely different locations but they all saw a "hole" so the "totality of evidence" supports a hole on the passenger side, a hole on the driver's side, a hole high up near the frame, a hole low down near the frame and just a hole - who knows where.

You took us to task, you were astounded, when we pointed out that there were probably many, many people who would have reported no hole if they'd been asked. You wrote:

"“I am sincerely astounded by the contention Jerry made that witnesses "could have been found" who saw no hole in the windshield (assuming I guess that they saw the windshield at Parkland) but yet there are at least eight people (nine, if Prencipe is credible} who clearly saw a hole in the windshield! There is not one identifiable person at Parkland Hospital who saw the windshield and stated there was NO HOLE. I would like to use that logic and state I could have found 1000 people who saw the hole. Is there any difference in the logic? The closest evidence to someone not witnessing a hole is when Officer Ellis loudly stated there was a hole in the windshield and a Secret Service agent came up to him and said "That's not a hole, it's a fragment." Ellis loudly replied "It's not a damn fragment, it's a hole."”

Of course there are two problems with this. First, Todd Vaughn has pointed out that Officer BJ Martin reported that there was no damage to windshield but second, and more importantly, you've answered your own question many times over.....

“…In thirty one years of viewing police reports I have never seen one mention something that was not there. As can be seen in my youtube presentation from 1999 the negative could have been described ad infinitum, i.e., there were no crayon marks, grass stains, etc. found. “

“…Don’t' you find it unusual that he (Ferguson) did exactly what the FBI did, that he specifically described the negative, something that was not there. when he wrote "Examination of the windshield disclosed no perforation." Why would he specifically point out something that did not exist, the hole (perforation)? Why would this even have been an issue to him? I would think he would have written something to the effect "that examination of the windshield revealed substantial cracks radiating at a point directly beneath the mirror." The negative could have been written about ad infinitum (ad nauseam) such as "an examination of the windshield revealed no perforation, grass stains, dog prints, cat scratches, lipstick marks, etc. Again, in 31 years of examining police reports I have NEVER seen this happen yet both Ferguson and the FBI did the same thing.

…...

As I have thought about it there is one type of incidence that I have seen police reports desribe the negative. That would be in traffic accidents when it might be written that there were no skid marks. I have NEVER seen such in this context.”

As you yourself have so clearly pointed out - why would anyone mention what wasn't there unless they had a specific reason to report what wasn't there. You can't find the "no hole" statements because no one bothered to report what wasn't there. You've assembled a collection of mistakes, errors in perception as the result of casual observation rather than systematic evaluation. That's why the locations don't agree - because your witnesses aren't looking at the same hole - they're looking at blood spots or brain matter or hood ornaments or thinking a crack is a hole. I appreciate that you know some of these people and like them. The question is how would you feel about Officer Martin and all the others who didn't see anything if you only had a chance to get to know them as well.

Jerry

Edited March 2, 2010 by Jerry Logan

[Josiah Thompson]

//Josiah:

MY COMMENTS ARE IN bold-face:

Once again you are trying to perpetuate a silly game and create another diversiom. Taylor and Dudman did not make a mistake and both saw a hole. Dudman told Livingston "The hole in the windshield was high up in the left hand corner of the windshield." [A week after the shooting, Dudman told Livingston he could not see that the hole was through-and- through and not just damage on one side.].His account changed only after he was confronted by the government who obviously did not like his account, [Please provide citation to prove this extremely unlikely claim.] no more than they did Taylor's. One month before an affidavit was prepared for him Taylor confirmed that he saw a hole. [And two months and threemonths. Why because he thought he saw a hole. Then when he was shown the windshield from the limousine he recognized that what he thought was a hole was only damage to one side... as he explicitly points out.] He was then shown a windshield that was not in the limo in Dallas. [This is your own little theory. Prove it. You can have your own theories but not your own facts.] What caused the Church staff to be concerned that he could not have seen the windshield enough to have seen a hole? Was his report ambiguous? Was he not riding in the limo for an hour on the way to the WH Garage? [Huh! The damage was above the mirror on the driver's side. Greer drove the limousine to the hospital and later claimed he did not notice the windshield was damaged. It was night as Taylor sat in the passenger seat and rode to the WH garage.] Did Geiglein question his report? [Why should he?] Tell me in California how would a court treat someone changing their account after confirming it twice in twelve years? Would they throw out the case? [Who knows? You certainly don't.] Why did they have to prepare an affidavit for him? [Why not?] Did he not know how to write out his account? [so what?] FYI, the agreement was that both Pamela and I would do taped interviews with Nick and exchange tapes and provide a copy to Nick and one of his friends named Irv. Nick was confirming that I was taping the conversation as we agreed. [Why didn't you tell him? Why did he have to ask you?] Are you trying to create something sinister and make me concerned and panic by pointing out it is a felony in California to tape a conversation without permission? [i mentioned I didn't know what state you called from. It simply goes to show your sloppiness.] Who are you trying to intimidate or kid? (Huh! Silly question. I told you your failure to tell him you were taping him certainly did not increase his confidence in you. Did it?] I don't think this innuendo impresses anyone. [it wasn't an innuendo, it was a fact. Your witness had to ask you if you were taping him. Once again it shows your general sloppiness.] Nick was not on the witness stand. I wanted to find out what people thought about Kennedy and the short line of questioning about his sexual "peccadilloes" was to determine if it was something that really bothered people in law enforcement, i.e., the Secret Service. I wanted to know what he thought of Kennedy. [This is really lame. You kept probing about what he knew of Kennedy's sexual peccadillos because you wanted to know if it bothered people in government! This sure is a great time to find out this important fact.]

As you heard it was my first time speaking with Nick and it was a very congenial conversation. We talked for an hour. Nothing was suggested to him about where the hole should have been or how he should have answered any question. [On the contrary, again and again you tell him what he told Pamela and then ask if that is correct. This is leading your witness, counselor. More than leading, it is coaching your witness. Ask any lawyer (for example, Jerry) who has listened to your interview and see what they think. They will tell you that your interview sucks.] Nick said he talked to many people about it and as I posted before I talked with Dick Giordono, whom Nick had talked with.. [When did Nick talk with Dick Giordano and what did Giordano say? In your interview you never ask the critical question as to whom he told about seeing a hole in the windshield in the 1960s. It's just not there.] We can play would of/could of/should of games in perpetuity. Why do you cast suspicion about his Black Panther story? [because I don't know whether it is true or not. And I take it you don't either. That's why you should have asked him about it.] Are you suggesting he was lying? Because you never heard of it, what the hell difference does that make? if you would have pursued a line of questioning on that what would that have to do with meeting Greer and seeing the limo in The WH Garage. [i've told you clearly why you should have done that. Don't you read before you start spouting off? It would help you evaluate whether the witness on the phone with you had an overactive imagination.] I really don't care what you would have asked him. [Fine. You see yourself as a master of the historian's (not the lawyer's) interview technique?] I can take your Marilyn Sitzman interview and tell you many questions I would have asked differently. [Maybe. But you won't find me restricting her to a set script. Why? Because unlike you, I didn't have any.] It was proven that Nick was who he said he was and was employed on November 22, 1963. Why would he or anyone else lie? What is their motive? You can never answer that as there is no answer. [Of course I can answer that. The number of people who have cooked up stories about this case for personal aggrandizement are legion.]Nick said he would have testified under oath if you read his e-mails. It is easy to do character assassination of the deceased. Tell me which of these witnesses did any of the three of you interview. All were accessible. You play a game where you suggest I manipulated Ellis to change his story? [i never said anything about Ellis. You have me mixed up with one of my distinguished colleagues.] Ellis never changed. Read my chapter instead of saying that you don't have the book after you make the accusation that I got Ellis to change his account. It is much easier to imply something sinister rather than check something out. You stated you knew nothing about Glanges. It is obvious. It is obvious you had no idea who Whitaker was. Glanges sister is still alive. Why don't you track her down? [Why don't you/]

I can play your game and suggest this is the kind of work a third rate private investigator would do in preparing an article.

[i just pointed out what you did and didn't do in an interview that shows little expertise and a huge intent to harvest a story. If that shows you, I'm "a third rate private investigator" then so be it.] It is only now that one of you is trying to read more about the witnesses. BTW Ellis and Freeman were together at Parkland. Tell me how you know Taylor and/or Dudman were honest in recanting their accounts and not frightened as Dudman obviously was. [Once again. You don't get your own facts. Citation please.] Tell me what you know about Taylor. It is obvious that you were not aware of the conflicts in the evidence. Is this how YOU find truth, by confronting evidence with speculation and creating suspicion with innuendo. The prosecutor argument is silly. I am not going to apologize for my career in the criminal justice system. [No one is asking you to. I pointed out the opposite... that you couldn't stop being a lawyer even when you were supposed to be a historian.] I had no agenda. A prosecutor would try to prove the government right. [Why? Actually this sentence is so silly it can't be defended.] Bugliousi and Posner made classic prosecutorial briefs. [And you? Weren't you like them just trying to build your case by harvesting a story? Because you did that you left all the interesting questions unasked. Unasked questions don't get answers.] It appears that you do have an agenda to bury the facts, cast anyone or witness who disagrees with you as mistaken, a xxxx, or untrustworthy. It is classic. [bloviation a la your pal, Fetzer.] The question I have to ask is why are you doing this? This is all a distraction. You are playing the game of an inexperienced defense attorney - create enough smoke and mirrors and go off on diversions and people will become confused about the truth. [More bloviation a la Fetzer.] If you are going to rely on the official reports and they all conflict how are you going to choose which ones to believe? If the two windshields from 1963 and 1975 do not match, as many have shown, and I quote Jerry's opinion that they cannot be compared now, how are you going to explain it? If Taylor was shown a bogus windshield what would that mean to you? Jerry has been very straightforward and helpful. I appreciate that. [see above where Jerry corrects you.] I need to move forward on this. I was hoping we could have a civil, informed discussion but you are even cherry-picking Martin's analysis. [No, I'm not. What I cited was what Martin had proven not just an unstuffed opinion. You keep citing his opinions that have no backing.]

You are doing what the manual suggests. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. if the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither is on your side, pound the table. You are pounding the table. [A beautiful example of the psychological mechanism of projection! Nice way to end. Project onto your interlocutor what you yourself are doing!]

Hello Doug,

Yes, that's correct. Right now, I don't think any windshield comparison can be conclusive including Hunt's. If we can gather better data at the Archives it might be possible, but right now I'm certain that we really don't know exactly what it is we're trying to compare. I'll try to look up your post - do you have the post #?

(Jerry)

[see Jerry correction of you about this.]

PRENCIPE, NICK L., 84, of Cape Coral, formerly of Spring Hill, died Friday (June 15, 2001) at Hernando Pasco Hospice, Spring Hill. Born in University Park, Md., he moved to Cape Coral in 1974, recently coming to Spring Hill to be near family. He was a retired captain in the U.S. Park Police in Washington, D.C. He provided security for five presidents, 1941-1972. His memberships included being past president of U.S. Antique Auto Association, past president of the Italian American Club, Cape Coral, and the Lions and Moose clubs. Survivors include his wife of 60 years, Janet; two sisters, Annette Brady, Gettysburg, Pa., and Evelyn Umholtz, Spring Hill; nieces and nephews. Lee Memorial Park Funeral Home, Lehigh Acres.

Doug Weldon