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

[Doug Weldon]

.....

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,

Your are correct that at the end of our conversation I did suggest to Nick I had suspicions about Greer but my take on that has changed. Nick laughed at that. He liked Greer. I reflected on that. I always tried to find people who knew people that knew that person. Nick did think he was a good guy. i had to weigh that after our conversation. The tapes I have of Greer in 1970 and 1971 are interesting and I also communicated with Robert Milner, who has Greer's transcript in his possession. Milner was very supportive of me. I have never said anything about Greer at Parkland. Where are you getting this from? I believe he was very shaken when he talked with Nick. It is bizarre that later in life Greer was telling his friends that there was no damage to the windshield. Nick was very surprised at his WC testimony and could not understand it. I admit that I am disturbed by the photo of Greer laughing coming out of WC testimony. Please remember , this was my first conversation with Nick. I communicated with him extensely

Best,

Doug

[Don Jeffries]

Why is Doug being badgered about the way he questioned Prencipe? Josiah, you are evaluating him like the rules of a courtroom apply, and you are the presiding judge. I've never seen this principle applied to any other interrogation of a witness in this case. I guess that's the thanks Doug gets for providing a tape of the interview.

While Barb and Jerry use polite, refrained language (Josiah does not), the implication is obvious; you all three believe Doug has an "agenda" and are scrutinizing this interview (and all his work) in that light. One could just as easily postulate that you have your own agenda, and that is to discredit any notion of a hole in the windshield. I would prefer to replace "agenda" with "bias" or "preconceived notion." As in all the alteration debates, the lines have been drawn; no arguments from Doug will persuade you, just as none of your arguments will persuade him.

What is most obvious is that yet another witness friendly to CTers- Nick Prencipe- is being discredited by those in the critical community. Roger Craig, Richard Carr, Jean Hill, the list is very long. I'm still waiting for some threads on this or any other JFK forum detailing the shortcomings of witnesses friendly to the official story; Helen Markham, William Whaley, Howard Brennan, Amos Lee Euins, etc. The most "creditable" of them would have been laughed out of an honest courtroom, and the least creditable of the CT-friendly witnesses have more credibility than all the WC-friendly witnesses put together.

Josiah-Barb-Jerry- what witnesses associated with this case do you find creditable?

[Doug Weldon]

//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

Josiah:

I will apologize for the tone I used as I do not believe it is benefiting either of us and certainly not me. I hope I made things clear about Taylor and the windshields. I had no intent to misrepresent Jerry and I thought it was clear when I talked about the windshields in 1963 and 1975. This was my first conversation with Nick and I later commmunicated extensively with him. Later I obtained Giordono's name as did Pamela. I spoke twice with him. He had talked with Nick and knew him well in 1963. Corroboration was very important to me. I did communicate with Glanges sister and she actually has her own interesting story as she was in Germany at the time. Dudman being frightened is a conclusion I had from a conversation I had with him after a written correspondence.

I have respected you and because of that I moved this thread from one that I thought was demeaning to you. Form whatever opinion you want of me. You noted "The number of people who have cooked up stories about this case for personal aggrandizement are legion." I have always been careful about people who enjoyed their celebrity and I have tried not to utilize their information even where it may have bolstered the evidence I had. Many of these people were deathly afraid of what they knew and had no desire to talk about it. I guess one thing that being an attorney has helped with is that I can walk away from something without animosity . Criticize what you want and how you want. I am not going to be baited into further confrontation. Others will judge. May we find the truth.

Doug Weldon

[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,

Your are correct that at the end of our conversation I did suggest to Nick I had suspicions about Greer but my take on that has changed. Nick laughed at that. He liked Greer. I reflected on that. I always tried to find people who knew people that knew that person. Nick did think he was a good guy. i had to weigh that after our conversation. The tapes I have of Greer in 1970 and 1971 are interesting and I also communicated with Robert Milner, who has Greer's transcript in his possession. Milner was very supportive of me. I have never said anything about Greer at Parkland. Where are you getting this from? I believe he was very shaken when he talked with Nick. It is bizarre that later in life Greer was telling his friends that there was no damage to the windshield. Nick was very surprised at his WC testimony and could not understand it. I admit that I am disturbed by the photo of Greer laughing coming out of WC testimony. Please remember , this was my first conversation with Nick. I communicated with him extensely

Best,

Doug

Doug,

Thanks for the additional information. It would be helpful if you could tell us how your view of the Secret Service role has changed since your presentation and MIDP.

Who do you think were the bad guys?

Regards,

Jerry

[Don Jeffries]

I believe Pamela has done some nice work on the replacement of the windshield. Although she disagrees with Doug, I think it might be very helpful if she'd post a brief summary of the evidence for that.

Would you, Pamela? Thanks.

[Doug Weldon]

.....

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,

Your are correct that at the end of our conversation I did suggest to Nick I had suspicions about Greer but my take on that has changed. Nick laughed at that. He liked Greer. I reflected on that. I always tried to find people who knew people that knew that person. Nick did think he was a good guy. i had to weigh that after our conversation. The tapes I have of Greer in 1970 and 1971 are interesting and I also communicated with Robert Milner, who has Greer's transcript in his possession. Milner was very supportive of me. I have never said anything about Greer at Parkland. Where are you getting this from? I believe he was very shaken when he talked with Nick. It is bizarre that later in life Greer was telling his friends that there was no damage to the windshield. Nick was very surprised at his WC testimony and could not understand it. I admit that I am disturbed by the photo of Greer laughing coming out of WC testimony. Please remember , this was my first conversation with Nick. I communicated with him extensely

Best,

Doug

Doug,

Thanks for the additional information. It would be helpful if you could tell us how your view of the Secret Service role has changed since your presentation and MIDP.

Who do you think were the bad guys?

Regards,

Jerry

Jerry:

It is 3:40 a.m. here. I will expand on that later if you wish but I do believe that some members of the secret service were compromised. They are the ones Vince has mentioned. The reason I was asking Nick about opinions of sex and drug use is because I do not dismiss Seymour Hersh's "The Dark Side of Camelot" and the video (I will have to look up the name, I think it was Dangerous something. Itbelieve that some of them resented Kennedy and his actions and the role they played in it. Also they were very conservative also. I don't know if you knew that after the book was published and the film made all secret service agents were ordered not to talk about the assassination. I have a friend who was secret service under Ford. It is a good question and if you wish I can be a little more specific later.

Best,

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,

Your are correct that at the end of our conversation I did suggest to Nick I had suspicions about Greer but my take on that has changed. Nick laughed at that. He liked Greer. I reflected on that. I always tried to find people who knew people that knew that person. Nick did think he was a good guy. i had to weigh that after our conversation. The tapes I have of Greer in 1970 and 1971 are interesting and I also communicated with Robert Milner, who has Greer's transcript in his possession. Milner was very supportive of me. I have never said anything about Greer at Parkland. Where are you getting this from? I believe he was very shaken when he talked with Nick. It is bizarre that later in life Greer was telling his friends that there was no damage to the windshield. Nick was very surprised at his WC testimony and could not understand it. I admit that I am disturbed by the photo of Greer laughing coming out of WC testimony. Please remember , this was my first conversation with Nick. I communicated with him extensely

Best,

Doug

Doug,

Thanks for the additional information. It would be helpful if you could tell us how your view of the Secret Service role has changed since your presentation and MIDP.

Who do you think were the bad guys?

Regards,

Jerry

Jerry:

It is 3:40 a.m. here. I will expand on that later if you wish but I do believe that some members of the secret service were compromised. They are the ones Vince has mentioned. The reason I was asking Nick about opinions of sex and drug use is because I do not dismiss Seymour Hersh's "The Dark Side of Camelot" and the video (I will have to look up the name, I think it was Dangerous something. Itbelieve that some of them resented Kennedy and his actions and the role they played in it. Also they were very conservative also. I don't know if you knew that after the book was published and the film made all secret service agents were ordered not to talk about the assassination. I have a friend who was secret service under Ford. It is a good question and if you wish I can be a little more specific later.

Best,

Doug

Doug,

No problem! It's getting late here too. In fact, I'm taking the same approach as you with Don. He asked a good question but it's too late tonight for me to give him a good answer.

I'd really like you to elaborate on the Secret Service role because I thought that was a weak point in your previous work so it would be great to know where you stand now.

Am I correct to think you no longer believe that Greer "helped out" with the actual assassination on Elm Street?

I know later on is a different matter.

Regards,

Jerry

[Todd W. Vaughan]

.....

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,

Your are correct that at the end of our conversation I did suggest to Nick I had suspicions about Greer but my take on that has changed. Nick laughed at that. He liked Greer. I reflected on that. I always tried to find people who knew people that knew that person. Nick did think he was a good guy. i had to weigh that after our conversation. The tapes I have of Greer in 1970 and 1971 are interesting and I also communicated with Robert Milner, who has Greer's transcript in his possession. Milner was very supportive of me. I have never said anything about Greer at Parkland. Where are you getting this from? I believe he was very shaken when he talked with Nick. It is bizarre that later in life Greer was telling his friends that there was no damage to the windshield. Nick was very surprised at his WC testimony and could not understand it. I admit that I am disturbed by the photo of Greer laughing coming out of WC testimony. Please remember , this was my first conversation with Nick. I communicated with him extensely

Best,

Doug

Doug and all,

Regarding the "photo of Greer laughing coming out of WC testimony", have you considered the possibility that Greer is not laughing but is perhaps doing something else, like squinting his eyes and face in reaction to coming out into the sunlight?

That's what it has ALAWAY looked like to me.

Todd

[Todd W. Vaughan]

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

Jack,

These claims are absurd beyond belief.

Clear versions of Croft 3, rather than your blurred and pixilated enlargement, disprove everything you are claiming

Women #8 is clapping as the limousine drives by. The woman is wearing what appears to be dark colored apron of some sort with something of lighter color on the right hand side of the apron – perhaps a notepad of some sort in a pocket of the apron.

There is no child visible, no white cap, and no blanket. Likewise no child’s feet are seen. There is no wire basket attached to anything, and there is no open-topped box attached to the apron.

Her upper arms are not obscured by a shawl. In fact she is wearing short sleeves and her left shoulder is clearly visible.

And no one ever claimed that, in this view, anything visible resembles a spiral nebula.

Todd

[Josiah Thompson]

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.

Right on target, Robin. It was "Croft Photo" not Couch. Thanks so much.

Josiah Thompson

[Josiah Thompson]

Why is Doug being badgered about the way he questioned Prencipe? Josiah, you are evaluating him like the rules of a courtroom apply, and you are the presiding judge. I've never seen this principle applied to any other interrogation of a witness in this case. I guess that's the thanks Doug gets for providing a tape of the interview.

Nope. You got it just reversed. I criticize Doug Weldon because he questions Principe as if he were an assistant district attorney harvesting a story from a witness and not a historian trying to find out what Principe observed.

Josiah Thompson

[Doug Weldon]

Why is Doug being badgered about the way he questioned Prencipe? Josiah, you are evaluating him like the rules of a courtroom apply, and you are the presiding judge. I've never seen this principle applied to any other interrogation of a witness in this case. I guess that's the thanks Doug gets for providing a tape of the interview.

Nope. You got it just reversed. I criticize Doug Weldon because he questions Principe as if he were an assistant district attorney harvesting a story from a witness and not a historian trying to find out what Principe observed.

Josiah Thompson

Josiah:

Actually, as I have reflected on it you are probably correct about this point. I was not simply trying to collect historical accounts. I was trying to resolve the issue of the hole in the windshield and trying to find answers to the convoluted evidence that surrounded what happened to the windshield, the limo,the records and make some sense out of the different accounts. I tried to be careful not to lead, suggest answers to anyone, or misrepresent their responses. It was more investigative then collecting a bunch of accounts. I tried to corroborate what was said and I really tried to know who the witnesses were and what others thought of them, whether they conveyed their accounts before, were consistent, were clear on the substance of their accounts, and possessed the uncertainty of what would be expected. If there were earlier accounts recorded I would give more weight to that. If that is repugnant to you, so be it. I do not apologize for trying to find answers or the manner in which I examined the evidence. I found my legal background to be advantageous.

Doug Weldon

[Doug Weldon]

.....

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,

Your are correct that at the end of our conversation I did suggest to Nick I had suspicions about Greer but my take on that has changed. Nick laughed at that. He liked Greer. I reflected on that. I always tried to find people who knew people that knew that person. Nick did think he was a good guy. i had to weigh that after our conversation. The tapes I have of Greer in 1970 and 1971 are interesting and I also communicated with Robert Milner, who has Greer's transcript in his possession. Milner was very supportive of me. I have never said anything about Greer at Parkland. Where are you getting this from? I believe he was very shaken when he talked with Nick. It is bizarre that later in life Greer was telling his friends that there was no damage to the windshield. Nick was very surprised at his WC testimony and could not understand it. I admit that I am disturbed by the photo of Greer laughing coming out of WC testimony. Please remember , this was my first conversation with Nick. I communicated with him extensely

Best,

Doug

Doug and all,

Regarding the "photo of Greer laughing coming out of WC testimony", have you considered the possibility that Greer is not laughing but is perhaps doing something else, like squinting his eyes and face in reaction to coming out into the sunlight?

That's what it has ALAWAY looked like to me.

Todd

Todd:

I can see that possibility now that you have brought it up. I can also understand that there may have been some "gallows humor." Sometimes that would be the only way to cope with things. Greer remains an enigma to me. i do look at him differently now because of Nick and Milner. I don't know if you have received my e-mails. I would like to get that Martin report.

Doug

[Jerry Logan]

.... I have never said anything about Greer at Parkland. Where are you getting this from? ....

Doug,

Just a point of clarification. I wrote "Greer is part of the Secret Service team that realizes there's a problem with a hole in the windshield at Parkland hospital."

If two of your witnesses are accurate, then they strongly imply that the Secret Service knew that a hole in the windshield needed to be suppressed at Parkland.

Ellis says a Secret Service man denied an obvious hole and Glanges says they drove off in a violent escape when she even mentioned a hole.

This clearly suggests guilty knowledge on the part of Secret Service agents because one would have to already know the location, trajectory and number of shots before a hole in the windshield becomes a problem.

Otherwise, there's just a hole in a windshield after a number of shots were fired at a car - so what, that's hardly unexpected in the circumstances.

Therefore, by your witnesses accounts, Secret Service agents at Parkland already knew the hole needed to be hidden. And they could only know it needed to be hidden if they already knew where the shots were supposed to have originated and how many shots there were supposed to be. Greer was part of the team that supposedly knew that.

Regards,

Jerry

[Josiah Thompson]

Josiah:

Actually, as I have reflected on it you are probably correct about this point. I was not simply trying to collect historical accounts. I was trying to resolve the issue of the hole in the windshield and trying to find answers to the convoluted evidence that surrounded what happened to the windshield, the limo,the records and make some sense out of the different accounts. I tried to be careful not to lead, suggest answers to anyone, or misrepresent their responses. It was more investigative then collecting a bunch of accounts. I tried to corroborate what was said and I really tried to know who the witnesses were and what others thought of them, whether they conveyed their accounts before, were consistent, were clear on the substance of their accounts, and possessed the uncertainty of what would be expected. If there were earlier accounts recorded I would give more weight to that. If that is repugnant to you, so be it. I do not apologize for trying to find answers or the manner in which I examined the evidence. I found my legal background to be advantageous.

Doug Weldon

A historian does not just "collect historical accounts." A historian tries to find out the truth about an event or historical series of events. A lawyer tries to build a case. You did the latter.

Let's take what you said you did and then look at what you actually did.

You say: "I tried to be careful not to lead, suggest answers to anyone, or misrepresent their responses." I guess this means you didn't "lead" Principe by only letting him respond affirmatively to being told what he earlier said to Pamela. The fact that you never asked him what he meant when he said, "I got a glance at it. Very quick.." I guess should be taken as your search for the truth.

When you say you never "suggest answers to anyone," it's just laughable. Shall I quote what you do when Principe gives you the wrong answer as to the location of the hole/damage to the windshield?

Or let's take up your claim that you "tried to corroborate what was said." As part of that effort of corroboration did you ever tumble to the fact that William Greer could not possibly have met with Principe at the time and the place Principe asserted? Did you ever pay any attention to the national TV coverage and reports from other witnesses that place Greer either on the way to Bethesda or at Bethesda that night during the time in question. If you did do that job of corroboration, why didn't you tell anyone what you came up with? Why did the rest of us have to learn it from Barb Junkarrinen and not you?

You can say anything you want about your motivation and your commitment to objectivity and truth. The transcript of your interview discloses that you're just another attorney building a case... in this instance, the case that will establish the grounding of your book.

Josiah Thompson

Edited March 2, 2010 by Josiah Thompson