Jump to content
The Education Forum

Hear No Evil by Don Thomas


Recommended Posts

I think Oswalds ''pristine'' face outside the theatre and his color mugshot is relevant. Perhaps not to the goons at DPD but in court.

But, anyway, it's moot as he was silenced forever anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Doug and Jerry:

Did Oswald have his rights read to him? When? Where?

IN VB's book ALexander says that Texas already had a statute similar to Miranda on the books. Did they?

Jim:

I don't know what Jerry's response might be but I believe it is clear that Oswald asked for an attorney but was not provided one as they(DPD) continued to interrogate him. I am not aware of a Texas statute but if there was one it was not being followed. Many people have been critical of the DPD not recording their conversations with Oswald. However, it remains a common police practice in many jurisdictions today NOT to record interrogations.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Even so, it's intriguing to know that a stenographer was present at the original interviews of Leon Czolgosz (McKinley's assassin) in 1901. That the DPD failed to use one in 1963, and relied instead on Fritz's notes scribbled sometime later, is an embarrassment beyond words. According to Manchester, the WC's staff--mostly big city prosecutors--considered the DPD the "keystone cops". I think this reflected their bias, and that many of the DPD's purported screw-ups, e.g. its failure to photograph the brown paper "gun case"in the building, were not so innocent.

Pat:

You know where I stand on the conspiracy issue. However, I can only reply again that it is NOT an uncommon police practice today to not record OR have a stenographer present during a police interrogation. If a confession is made it would be common to write down the essence of the confession and have the defendant review and sign it. Unless there is a state statute mandating the recording or transcription of a confession it is a very risky process to do so. The first test for the admissibility of a confession is voluntariness and to record or transcribe something can only be beneficial to a defense attorney to dissect it and tear it aprt. The other difficulty is that it is rare that a person can tell the same story twice in the exact same manner and if there are multiple defendants, etc. their stories are going to differ, at least slightly.This can usually be used by a sharp defense attorney for tthe benefit of their client. I have both prosecuted and defended serious crimes. I have been present during police interrogations that you or any citizen might find appalling. We do often see cameras on a defendant on television reality news shows as they are questioned or waiting to be questioned so yes, it does happen in many instances. However, this is often done during a polygraph examination so that the actions of the defendant can be observed when noone is there, i.e., is he/she trying to practice their answers, control their breathing, etc. Since polygraphs are not admissible in any state, most people do not realize that a polygraph is simply an interrogation tool. The person is Mirandized, questioned, attacked with inconsistencies, and any admissions can be used. It is very artful but to sit through the hours of watching a polygraph is one of the most laborious things I have ever done. As critical as I am of many of the procedures I am not critical that there was no recording or transcript. However, I have always been bothered that a transcription was, in fact done, and may have disappeared.

Only my opinion,

Doug Weldon

In may ways we are becoming "less civilized" as constitutional protections, and especially Miranda is being diluted and police are being given far more leeway. It is to the point now where even if significant evidence of a defendant's innocence emerges, the court will say, too bad, you have exhausted your appeals, and many of these people are even put to death.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know why no scientific branch of government - no Science subcommittee of Congress, no federal government funded science organization, no college or university physics department will review and recreate the acoustic studies done by the HSCA?

While I intend to get this book, I assume he does address this issue.

BK

Edited by William Kelly
Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug and Jerry:

Did Oswald have his rights read to him? When? Where?

IN VB's book ALexander says that Texas already had a statute similar to Miranda on the books. Did they?

Jim:

I don't know what Jerry's response might be but I believe it is clear that Oswald asked for an attorney but was not provided one as they(DPD) continued to interrogate him. I am not aware of a Texas statute but if there was one it was not being followed. Many people have been critical of the DPD not recording their conversations with Oswald. However, it remains a common police practice in many jurisdictions today NOT to record interrogations.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Even so, it's intriguing to know that a stenographer was present at the original interviews of Leon Czolgosz (McKinley's assassin) in 1901. That the DPD failed to use one in 1963, and relied instead on Fritz's notes scribbled sometime later, is an embarrassment beyond words. According to Manchester, the WC's staff--mostly big city prosecutors--considered the DPD the "keystone cops". I think this reflected their bias, and that many of the DPD's purported screw-ups, e.g. its failure to photograph the brown paper "gun case"in the building, were not so innocent.

Pat:

You know where I stand on the conspiracy issue. However, I can only reply again that it is NOT an uncommon police practice today to not record OR have a stenographer present during a police interrogation. If a confession is made it would be common to write down the essence of the confession and have the defendant review and sign it. Unless there is a state statute mandating the recording or transcription of a confession it is a very risky process to do so. The first test for the admissibility of a confession is voluntariness and to record or transcribe something can only be beneficial to a defense attorney to dissect it and tear it aprt. The other difficulty is that it is rare that a person can tell the same story twice in the exact same manner and if there are multiple defendants, etc. their stories are going to differ, at least slightly.This can usually be used by a sharp defense attorney for tthe benefit of their client. I have both prosecuted and defended serious crimes. I have been present during police interrogations that you or any citizen might find appalling. We do often see cameras on a defendant on television reality news shows as they are questioned or waiting to be questioned so yes, it does happen in many instances. However, this is often done during a polygraph examination so that the actions of the defendant can be observed when noone is there, i.e., is he/she trying to practice their answers, control their breathing, etc. Since polygraphs are not admissible in any state, most people do not realize that a polygraph is simply an interrogation tool. The person is Mirandized, questioned, attacked with inconsistencies, and any admissions can be used. It is very artful but to sit through the hours of watching a polygraph is one of the most laborious things I have ever done. As critical as I am of many of the procedures I am not critical that there was no recording or transcript. However, I have always been bothered that a transcription was, in fact done, and may have disappeared.

Only my opinion,

Doug Weldon

Doug, I have no doubt that what you say is true. But the point I was making was not about SOP. This was the murder of the president. If Buffalo's officials in 1901 had the foresight to bring in a stenographer, why didn't Dallas' officials in 1963? They weren't just trying to capture a bad guy, after all; they were trying to identify a conspiracy. Anything Oswald said might help them ascertain who else was involved. So why wouldn't they want a transcription of the suspect's statements as they were made?

Equally as puzzling, or troubling, should one propose the DPD and the LBJ Administration innocent of any collusion is that the autopsies of Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley were announced within a day or two of their assassination, and the results of these autopsies discussed in the newspaper. So why did it take the LBJ Administration 5 days to ADMIT there'd been an autopsy, and why was it more than SIX MONTHS before the results of the autopsy were leaked?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It strikes me it was a done deal and anything but building a case against Oswald and making sure no records existed of ANY interviews was essential even if only one of the interviews contained something damaging to the coverup, which obviously begs the conclusion of DPD collusion. So to obliterate just one interview record : hide the omission by making it a blanket op.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug and Jerry:

Did Oswald have his rights read to him? When? Where?

IN VB's book ALexander says that Texas already had a statute similar to Miranda on the books. Did they?

Jim:

I don't know what Jerry's response might be but I believe it is clear that Oswald asked for an attorney but was not provided one as they(DPD) continued to interrogate him. I am not aware of a Texas statute but if there was one it was not being followed. Many people have been critical of the DPD not recording their conversations with Oswald. However, it remains a common police practice in many jurisdictions today NOT to record interrogations.

Best,

Doug Weldon

Even so, it's intriguing to know that a stenographer was present at the original interviews of Leon Czolgosz (McKinley's assassin) in 1901. That the DPD failed to use one in 1963, and relied instead on Fritz's notes scribbled sometime later, is an embarrassment beyond words. According to Manchester, the WC's staff--mostly big city prosecutors--considered the DPD the "keystone cops". I think this reflected their bias, and that many of the DPD's purported screw-ups, e.g. its failure to photograph the brown paper "gun case"in the building, were not so innocent.

Pat:

You know where I stand on the conspiracy issue. However, I can only reply again that it is NOT an uncommon police practice today to not record OR have a stenographer present during a police interrogation. If a confession is made it would be common to write down the essence of the confession and have the defendant review and sign it. Unless there is a state statute mandating the recording or transcription of a confession it is a very risky process to do so. The first test for the admissibility of a confession is voluntariness and to record or transcribe something can only be beneficial to a defense attorney to dissect it and tear it aprt. The other difficulty is that it is rare that a person can tell the same story twice in the exact same manner and if there are multiple defendants, etc. their stories are going to differ, at least slightly.This can usually be used by a sharp defense attorney for tthe benefit of their client. I have both prosecuted and defended serious crimes. I have been present during police interrogations that you or any citizen might find appalling. We do often see cameras on a defendant on television reality news shows as they are questioned or waiting to be questioned so yes, it does happen in many instances. However, this is often done during a polygraph examination so that the actions of the defendant can be observed when noone is there, i.e., is he/she trying to practice their answers, control their breathing, etc. Since polygraphs are not admissible in any state, most people do not realize that a polygraph is simply an interrogation tool. The person is Mirandized, questioned, attacked with inconsistencies, and any admissions can be used. It is very artful but to sit through the hours of watching a polygraph is one of the most laborious things I have ever done. As critical as I am of many of the procedures I am not critical that there was no recording or transcript. However, I have always been bothered that a transcription was, in fact done, and may have disappeared.

Only my opinion,

Doug Weldon

Doug, I have no doubt that what you say is true. But the point I was making was not about SOP. This was the murder of the president. If Buffalo's officials in 1901 had the foresight to bring in a stenographer, why didn't Dallas' officials in 1963? They weren't just trying to capture a bad guy, after all; they were trying to identify a conspiracy. Anything Oswald said might help them ascertain who else was involved. So why wouldn't they want a transcription of the suspect's statements as they were made?

Equally as puzzling, or troubling, should one propose the DPD and the LBJ Administration innocent of any collusion is that the autopsies of Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley were announced within a day or two of their assassination, and the results of these autopsies discussed in the newspaper. So why did it take the LBJ Administration 5 days to ADMIT there'd been an autopsy, and why was it more than SIX MONTHS before the results of the autopsy were leaked?

Pat:

DPD, of course, had nothing to do with the autopsy but I am not proposing that LBJ was not complicit in the assassination or the coverup. In fact, I believe that the overwhelming evidence shows that LBJ was involved in orchestrating the coverup and I believe he knew the assassination was going to happen. Your assertions are correct. Interestingly, though the federal government usurped Texas jurisdiction in the investigation of the case and illegally removing evidence and the body for autopsy, the one way in 1963 the federal government would have had jurisdiction is if the killing of Kennedy had been a conspiracy.

Doug Weldon

Link to post
Share on other sites

He accepts, based purely on his own impression, that the mystery photo depicts Kennedy's forehead. He seems unaware that I have studied this photo in detail, and have shown that the shape of the drainage hole in the photo shows that it was not taken from above, looking down into the skull, with the forehead in the foreground.

Pat,

It's really a mischaracterization to say he bases that "purely on his own impression." In fact, he based it on personal experience and on Humes' testimony as this passage from pgs. 254-255 makes clear:

"Some researchers have mistakenly interpreted photograph No. 44 as representing a posterior view of the skull. In fact, it is an anterior-superior perspective of the cranium following reflection of the scalp and removal of the brain. This was standard procedure when I performed craniotomies at the Pathology Department of the Memorial Medical Center in Long Beach California. I always reflected the anterior scalp forward to the eyebrow before removing the skull cap. Furthermore, the chief prosector, Dr. Humes, stated that he followed this procedure." [emphasis mine]

Martin, in my videos and on my webpage, I have demonstrated why this "analysis" is superficial and incorrect. Humes never claimed he removed the skullcap as in a standard procedure; in fact he initially claimed the mystery photo showed a "missile wound over entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of the scalp," a claim thoroughly incompatible with Thomas' interpretation of the photo. But Thomas (if he even knows this) never tells this to his readers. I have also shown that the shape of the drainage hole in the photo is incompatible with his orientation. But Thomas--who apparently has read my webpage--as he cites information from my webpage and thanks me in the beginning of his book--once again never tells this to his readers. Now it's possible he only skimmed through my webpage and missed the chapters devoted to proving the proper orientation of this photo. I'll grant him that. And it's also possible he studied my chapters and found them unconvincing. He's entitled to his own opinion. But, in his presentation of the photo, on page 256, he not only fails to point out the EOP bullet entrance I've been showing people for 6 years now, he fails to point out the beveled bone the HSCA claimed represented an exit. In fact, on page 429, he claims the HSCA identified no exit location for the bullet "for the simple reason that the bone in this area of the skull was completely blown out." This is 100% incorrect, and anyone claiming as much is obviously under-informed.

As I said, there are some major problems with the book.

From patspeer.com, chapter 14:

reflections.jpg?attachauth=ANoY7cpKRA4fSL5p9795J55sVJN_UwgTOb6VzkJlYAuXcCUmLDHTKSZeI8MY_lEElTMmLwL7UY8u5BTqxoHS1s6Wo-WF4Zu96bWNoyR4AtW0h1U-AH-8yNH5Rw89Ac6be66eqJNDcJ9zDnA826laDXJpqci_4EtAhZZYI7loQNu1wIaFTnCiwGMQchFa43fFAYUiW2_2XGd3&attredirects=0

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

on page 256, he not only fails to point out the EOP bullet entrance I've been showing people for 6 years now, he fails to point out the beveled bone the HSCA claimed represented an exit. In fact, on page 429, he claims the HSCA identified no exit location for the bullet "for the simple reason that the bone in this area of the skull was completely blown out." This is 100% incorrect, and anyone claiming as much is obviously under-informed.

As I said, there are some major problems with the book.

Why would he point out your theoretical EOP wound when his argument is that no bullet entered the back of the head? If he had to mention every theory he disagreed with I imagine his book would be twice as long as Reclaiming History, and who wants that?

And again I think you've misrepresented what he wrote:

"The pathology report never cited an exact position for this wound, for the simple reason that the bone in this area of the skull was completely blown out. A study of the recovered bony fragments allowed them to infer that if the autopsy team had reconstructed the skull there would probably still be an area of missing bone about 2.5 cm in diameter that would represent the outshoot. But as far as locating this outshoot the doctors disagreed as to whether it was in front of or behind the coronal suture." [emphasis mine]

It appears he believes Angel was a member of the FPP. Angel was a consultant, who placed the outshoot above the eye, and said the large bone fragment was frontal bone. Angel's conclusions were rejected by the pathology panel, which claimed the exit was visible on the intact skull, and not in the middle of blown out skull.

As a result, it seems that Thomas has confused Humes' testimony before the WC, in which he claimed the exact location of the exit could not be identified, and Baden's testimony, in which he claimed the mystery photo as oriented by Thomas proves where it was located.

If not, that is, if he isn't confused, then he is guilty of pulling a Bugliosi-esque fast one, IMO. I mean, he presents the mystery photo and points out its features, but fails to point out that there is beveled bone in the photo, and that the HSCA claimed this proved the fatal shot came from behind. I mean, really, how could he not point this out, even if he believed they were mistaken?

One of the smoking guns proving the "prostitution of science" in the case is that Humes testified before the WC that no exact location could be located and that there was no beveled exit on the intact skull, and that Baden testified before the HSCA, with his exhibit upside down no less, that the exact location could be identified, and that there was a beveled exit on the intact skull, and then LIED and said the doctors had identified this exit at autopsy. Well, how can this be? Well, as discussed in my video series, which Thomas either should have seen, or has seen, the orientation of the photo purportedly showing this beveled exit CHANGED from when first seen by Humes to when seen by Baden, and, as a consequence...almost magically, hmmm...this beveled "exit" moved from the back of the head to the forehead.

Now, I believe that, whether or not Thomas agrees with my and most CT's interpretation of the photo, he owed it to his readers to report that the interpretation of the photo had been changed, and that Baden had misled the HSCA about Humes' interpretation of the exit location, etc.

Bottom line. He was either unaware of something for which he should have been aware, or he deliberately avoided an important discussion that would have helped his overall thesis re the prostitution of science, at the possible expense of his "pet" theory.

I'm leaning toward option number one.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to post
Share on other sites

How did they explain the funnel shaped left of middle hair and the bone and mater (sic? dura*) damage, I think the bevelling there can be seen as on the inside, ditto the tissue damage which appears to form a line possibly three fragmented curved incursions the main one appearing to lead to the ear area??

edit : typo add*

Edited by John Dolva
Link to post
Share on other sites

If not, that is, if he isn't confused, then he is guilty of pulling a Bugliosi-esque fast one, IMO. I mean, he presents the mystery photo and points out its features, but fails to point out that there is beveled bone in the photo, and that the HSCA claimed this proved the fatal shot came from behind. I mean, really, how could he not point this out, even if he believed they were mistaken?

Again untrue.

From page 263:

"Likewise, the HSCA panel asserted that a semi-circular notch with exterior beveling seen in the forward margin of the defect in autopsy photograph No. 44, was a part of the outshoot."

Well, I'm glad for that. But why mention this 7 pages after presenting the photo? And then why claim, later on, that they never identified an exit location, "for the simple reason that the bone in this area of the skull was completely blown out"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first started looking into the case, in early 2003, one of the first things I did was study the assassination films, to see if I could identify when Hughes stopped filming, etc. I found that, even though the HSCA and others (including Thomas) accepted Hughes' statement that he thought the first shot rang out five seconds or so after he stopped filming, they were wrong to do so, as he didn't stop filming until AFTER the HSCA and others claimed the first shot rang out.

This ended up as one of the many reasons I came to reject the then (and still) widespread theory that the first shot rang out at Z-160.

While studying the films, moreover, I found that the Dorman film, from which the HSCA pulled its photo of McClain at the corner, supported this analysis, and showed McClain at the corner long after Z-160. While the film had several stops and starts, making any precise conclusions impossible, it did show Rosemary Willis run past the fountain, a point which could be matched to the Z-film with reasonable precision. McClain, however, didn't reach the corner for many seconds afterward. (My exact calculations are in a notebook now buried in a storage space.) Anyhow, I found this development incredibly disappointing, as I'd wanted to accept the acoustics analysis.

Then came November 2003, and Dale Myers appears on TV and says his study of the films proves McClain was out of position. This led me to read more about Myers, to notice changes on his website, and to my eventual creation of a chapter debunking his purportedly exact replication of the Zapruder film. When he put out his Epipolar analysis of the films in 2007, I studied that as well. While I didn't agree with every point of his study, I concluded that, far from being the deliberate deception that was his cartoon, his analysis of the films was a serious and valuable work, and for the most part accurate.

Shortly before this, I decided to add a section on the eyewitnesses to my website. On the slide below, you'll find what would have to be a pretty close match between Z-160 and a frame from the Hughes film, with both frames showing the LBJ SS back-up car turning onto Elm. Note that in the Hughes frame in the middle, as correctly claimed by Myers, McClain is at Houston and Main when the acoustics analysis has him at Houston and Elm. I'd hoped Thomas would acknowledge this in his new book, and explain how the dictabelt analysis could still have merit even if McClain was not in the exact locations determined by the study. But this was apparently too big a hurdle. Hence, he continues to claim McClain could be at the corner of Houston and Elm at Z-160, and that Hughes stopped filming five seconds before that time.

momotorcade.jpg

Edited by John Simkin
Link to post
Share on other sites

All:

That is still what is done, and at the same time the person is magistrated bond is set. I practiced law in MA for five years before relocating to Tx. in 1990 and there bond/bail hearings were also held and an attorney could argue why a person should be given a PR bond or at least a very low amount. In the jurisdictions where I practice in TX. defendant's are not automatically afforded that right, except in one instance: a person charged with a felony who is not indicted within ninety days is entitled to be freed on a PR bond. (Pursuant to a hearing, of course)

Dawn

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin, if you look at my last post you will see what Myers and I see. At Z-160, the LBJ back up car begins its turn at Houston and Elm. When this happens in the Hughes film McClain is still at Houston and Main. If I recall, the HSCA and Thomas claim this is the moment of the first shot. Since the acoustics analysis says McClain was approaching Houston and Elm at this point, this raises the question: how can he be in two places at once?

Link to post
Share on other sites

''in 2003, an independent researcher named Michael O'Dell reported that both the National Academy and Dr. Thomas had used incorrect timelines because they assumed the Dictabelt ran continuously. When corrected, these showed the impulses happened too late* to be the real shots even with Thomas's alternative synchronization.''' wiki - * how late?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...