The law, DSL, Bledsoe and Me

[Greg Parker]

Mr. Parker:Much of the stuff you're promoting is false, most notably, the nonsense that I have anything to do with any "lone nutter" position.

Here is what I said, David:

"Absurd Lone Nut debating tactic."

"There is that circular reasoning again. Straight from the McAdams LN Handbook."

Really sir, just ask this question: can your analysis of whether Mary Bledsoe was on particular bus in 1963 be believed,

Firstly, credit where it is due. The final position was arrived at by Lee and Duke after much debate and scrutiny of all the evidence. It actually took a little while for me to jump on board after following a slightly different tack.

if you cannot be relied upon to accurately represent my own position on the Kennedy assassination?

I haven't misrepresented your position at all. You need to read more carefully. But once again: I have said your debating tactics are the same as those used by LNs. In regard to your position on the assassination, I have articulated it succinctly as the body snatching theory.

And that you continually do so despite the fact that my book, BEST EVIDENCE, was published 30 years ago, was a best seller, and has been published by four separate publishers? (And there will be a fifth).

Speaking of: when is your Oswald book coming out?

The fact that I don't endorse a particular "conspiracy hypothesis" --notably, some of the indefensible stuff you have been endorsing--is an entirely different matter.

Oh? What have I endorsed that you disagree with?

My website home page states some of what I endorse:

http://www.reopenkennedycase.net

Apart from that, I endorse having the remaining files released early as a precursor to a new investigation.

Here's something you should perhaps learn, however, and that concerns the use of notes by a witness in a legal proceeding. Quoting from your post:

"Yet (as far as I'm aware) the use of notes by a witness in a legal proceeding is unprecedented."

". . . unprecedented. . . "??

Well, Mr. Parker, you're misinformed. I don't know how it works in Australia, but here in the U.S., its called "present recollection refreshed."

It even works in traffic court when an officer takes out his notebook, to recall how you behaved, or what you said, after you were stopped for running a red light.

I mean, just imagine the situation, Mr. Parker: you're driving in downtown Melbourne, and a kangaroo jumps in front of your car. You slam on the breaks, to avoid the kangaroo, and you cause a pileup. The kangaroo runs off and is nowhere to be seen.

An officer arrives at the scene and flags you for reckless driving. You tell him your story. He makes notes. Three months later, the case goes to trial. The officer remembers the generalities, but can't recall all the particulars.

"Your honor," he says, "I just don't remember all the details of Mr. Parker's kangaroo story. May I please refresh my recollection with notes I made at the time?"

The court says, "Yes, Officer Smith. You may consult your notes before relating the particulars of Mr. Parker's kangaroo story."

And so he does just that. . . and, if you're lucky, maybe your version will prevail and you won't be convicted of doing anything all that bad.

(And if you're really lucky, and if you told your account three times to officers of the Australian Bureau of Investigation, in the eight days following this automobile pile-up, there would be a pre-existing written record of your own account, and that clearly would work in your favor.)

You see? That's how it works.

Strewth! It was a flippin' wallaby and it was in Brisbane, not Melbourne!

And yes, the same general concepts apply to an elderly lady, who was interviewed three times by the FBI, in the eight days following the assassination, but who was nervous about her memory, and so she made notes before she appeared before the representatives of a presidential commission.

I know elderly people who make notes about all sorts of things. . .none of this is irregular, or improper, and, imho, it takes an excessively suspicious mind to (a) ignore the three original FBI reports and (b ) make the jump from the use of notes (four and a half months later) to the idea that the subsequent testimony (on 4/2/64) was all a fabrication.

And here, we're not even dealing with a kangaroo--just an elderly lady who was a passenger on a bus, who knew Oswald because he had boarded with her for a week, and who saw him board the bus.

But here, to begin your education about "recollection refreshed," is a link to the Cornell Law school website:

http://www.law.corne...e/ACRule612.htm

http://topics.law.co...ction_refreshed

Here's a brief excerpt. . . :

Present Recollection Refreshed

Overview

Resources

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a witness must testify from the basis of his current recollection, he cannot read from a document.However, if a witness forgets something he at one time knew and had personal knowledge of, he may be shown a writing to refresh his memory. The writing or document used by the witness to refresh his memory cannot be admitted as evidence or read to the jury, it can only be used to refresh the witness's memory of something he once knew.

Do you own an orchard perchance? I ask because you are very good at producing an apple every time you're presented with an orange.

Apart from the wollapper needing his notes to recall it was a wallaby in Brisbane and not a kangaroo in Melbourne; another common example would be a witness on the stand having difficulty recalling meeting the victim, and being presented with a contemporaneous letter he or she wrote which includes details of meeting the person in question. That is your apple.

But the orange is a witness having extensive notes written with the help of a government agent specifically to help get her through her testimony.

You do understand the difference, don't you, between the wollapper's notes and the witnesses letter written to a friend, and extensive notes written with help from an agent of the body conducting the investigation for the express purpose of providing testimony that IS NOT from current memory?

What does it say of you, that you believe the manner and circumstances of MB's testimony was perfectly legitimate and supported by law – when in fact neither of those contentions is true?

* * * *

Most of the criticism I have seen of Mary Bledsoe, because she used notes, and spoke haltingly, and obviously was under stress, is without merit.

The woman made out an affidavit on 11/23/63, and --in addition--was interviewed three times by the FBI. And you think she made it all up, eh?

I never cared for the fact that, in the original affidavit, she said Oswald "looked like a maniac," but, ya know, she's entitled. . . just like you're entitled to fruitlessly argue that she wasn't on the bus.

Yes, she was entitled to describe Oswald in similar language used by McWatters to describe Milton Jones.

Just like you're entitled to misrepresent Present Recollection Refreshed as being an apt description of the Bledsoe testimony.

The three FBI interviews --by five separate agents, who wrote three reports, over a period of eight days following 11/22/63 (starting with the first report on 11/23/63)--constitute credible evidence that Bledsoe did not fabricate her account (unless, of course, you think she was some kind of method actress. [is that your idea?] ).

The reason certain people have a clear animus towards this witness, and her account, is that placing Oswald on McWatters' bus prevents them from believing Roger Craig's account.

C'mon. . . admit it. . Isn't that what this is really all about?

Not at all. Only interested in where the evidence leads.

The fact is that Craig was a better witness, and there was infinitely more support (in both film and other witnesses) for his story than Mary's.

So out come the knives and all kinds of bizarre, illogical, and flawed hypotheses in order to accomplish the following:

(a) to argue that Mary Bledsoe was NOT on the bus (when Oswald [allegedly] boarded around Murphy and Elm);

The arguments for that are flawless; unlike those you posit via circular logic.

(b ) to argue that Oswald did not board that bus--at all;

Now you're catching on.

and finally, in an attempt to impeach Mary Bledsoe completely, comes item "c", the "cherry on the sundae". . . the "piece de resistance". . .

(c ) The futile attempt to argue that Mary Bledsoe was not Oswald's landlady, for the week starting October 7, 1963 (i.e., that all of that is a fiction, too), thus attempting to impeach her as a witness who certainly could have--and in fact did--immediately recognize Oswald as the person who boarded the bus.

MB testified that she used the calendar method of record-keeping (popularized by Ruth Paine, apparently) with Oswald because she had just resumed letting rooms.

Mr. BALL - That is the calendar for December 1963, and I notice it has dates and names and dates. Is that the way you keep books on your rooms?

Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes; but I don't now. I did then, because I just had started. The first one I got was in September.

Mr. BALL - September of 1963?

Mrs. BLEDSOE - Uh-huh.

Mr. BALL - He put his name on the calendar?

Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, got it in September. He got it, my son sold it for $5, and I didn't even know that he tore that out.

Mr. BALL - Now, let me see here in this calendar. It runs from January 1963, to December of 1963, but October of 1963, has been torn out?

As seen here, the indication is that she continued with this method up until at least December. Yet despite this testimony that the calendar contained names and dates for lodgers, the Warren Commission staffers were unable to come up with any names whatsoever when given that seemingly simple task!

If a TV producer is trolling the Internet for material to demonstrate the flawed and illogical reasoning of certain JFK assassination researchers, this would be "Exhibit A." Because, as I have noted, once you go down this path--as Farley has so proudly done (a path now endorsed by DiEugenio, who refers to it as a "daring and original" analysis)--the next stop is to subscribe to the following ancillary propositions:

(1) That Oswald was not in Whaley's cab ("Yes, he lied, too!")

(2) That someone else ran into the rooming house, at 1026 N. Beckley. ("Yes, Ms. Earlene Roberts was mistaken! It was an imposter who ran into her rooming house!").

So (the narrator will intone, after exposing all the numerous fallacies and implausibilities associated with this so-called "analysis"): "Here's what we end up with: we have one rooming house lady, with whom Lee Oswald boarded, and whose name he used as a reference on October 10, and who (supposedly) then made up a story that Oswald was on a bus (when he was not)--and who lied about that to 5 FBI agents in 3 different interviews over a period of 8 days. But that's not all: then we also have Oswald not in Whaley's cab, and then, to top it all off, we have another rooming house lady who didn't recognize her own boarder, when an imposter (not Oswald) ran into that residence, and then ran out, zipping up a jacket!"

Perhaps the narrator will raise an eyebrow and then ask: "Is this Dallas, Texas, or the Bermuda Triangle?"

Sadly for you, it's the Bermuda Triangle of your legitimacy as a private investigator.

Just how much of this malarkey is a reasonable person supposed to accept?

And no, in making that statement, I'm not a lone nutter.

Someone who believes that President Kennedy's body was altered to falsify the autopsy (i.e., to change the diagram of the shooting, so as to inculpate an innocent Lee Oswald) is not a lone nutter.

. . . unless, that is, those words are spoken by some third party who is deliberately not promoting the truth, but intent on painting an author with a well known public position (i.e., me) in a false light.

Certainly, it looks that way to me. So here's another term, Mr. Parker, that perhaps you ought to look up in a legal dictionary: "painting in a false light."

And yet again you fail to understand the law you quote.

While it is related to defamation, the public disclosure of facts falls under false light law, or tort of false light. This occurs when private facts, which are evidently not a matter of public concern, are publicly disclosed and the communication of which would be offensive or damaging to the person involved.

Evan Granowitz

asserts that false light law is intended to protect a non-public person's mental or emotional well-being and right to privacy rather than a protection of one's reputation, which, on the other hand, what tort of defamation upholds to protect.

http://evan-granowitz.com/

Firstly, no one has revealed anything about you which isn't well known already – to wit; that you use LN debate tactics and that your book's sub-text is a paean to the Warren Commission. Secondly, you're a "public person" by any definition. Thirdly, you wish to protect your reputation, not your "mental or emotional well-being" or your "right to privacy".This applies to the little guy like moi!

And no Mr. Parker, I'm not going to sue you. You have nothing to worry about. But I'm providing the definition so you'll have an accurate description of what you're doing (or attempting to do, for anyone gullible enough to believe such nonsense).

Oh, please DO sue. And when you can't get anyone to take your case because you have none, feel free to represent yourself.

You say you don't know how things work in Australia? Well, let me tell you - we're not a nation of lily-livered litigators so it is I who assures you that I won't sue – despite having an actual case through your continual misrepresentation of my position on Eddie Piper.

I have other plans.

Keep that in mind the next time you're sitting at your computer keyboard, and spreading misinformation about me.

Enjoy the sunshine, David. We've got a few more weeks of winter before spring arrives.

DSL

8/4/11; 7:15 PM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Mr. Parker:Much of the stuff you're promoting is false, most notably, the nonsense that I have anything to do with any "lone nutter" position.

Here is what I said, David:

"Absurd Lone Nut debating tactic."

"There is that circular reasoning again. Straight from the McAdams LN Handbook."

Really sir, just ask this question: can your analysis of whether Mary Bledsoe was on particular bus in 1963 be believed,

Firstly, credit where it is due. The final position was arrived at by Lee and Duke after much debate and scrutiny of all the evidence. It actually took a little while for me to jump on board after following a slightly different tack.

if you cannot be relied upon to accurately represent my own position on the Kennedy assassination?

I haven't misrepresented your position at all. You need to read more carefully. But once again: I have said your debating tactics are the same as those used by LNs. In regard to your position on the assassination, I have articulated it succinctly as the body snatching theory.

And that you continually do so despite the fact that my book, BEST EVIDENCE, was published 30 years ago, was a best seller, and has been published by four separate publishers? (And there will be a fifth).

Speaking of: when is your Oswald book coming out?

The fact that I don't endorse a particular "conspiracy hypothesis" --notably, some of the indefensible stuff you have been endorsing--is an entirely different matter.

Oh? What have I endorsed that you disagree with?

My website home page states some of what I endorse:

http://www.reopenkennedycase.net

Apart from that, I endorse having the remaining files released early as a precursor to a new investigation.

Here's something you should perhaps learn, however, and that concerns the use of notes by a witness in a legal proceeding. Quoting from your post:

"Yet (as far as I'm aware) the use of notes by a witness in a legal proceeding is unprecedented."

". . . unprecedented. . . "??

Well, Mr. Parker, you're misinformed. I don't know how it works in Australia, but here in the U.S., its called "present recollection refreshed."

It even works in traffic court when an officer takes out his notebook, to recall how you behaved, or what you said, after you were stopped for running a red light.

I mean, just imagine the situation, Mr. Parker: you're driving in downtown Melbourne, and a kangaroo jumps in front of your car. You slam on the breaks, to avoid the kangaroo, and you cause a pileup. The kangaroo runs off and is nowhere to be seen.

An officer arrives at the scene and flags you for reckless driving. You tell him your story. He makes notes. Three months later, the case goes to trial. The officer remembers the generalities, but can't recall all the particulars.

"Your honor," he says, "I just don't remember all the details of Mr. Parker's kangaroo story. May I please refresh my recollection with notes I made at the time?"

The court says, "Yes, Officer Smith. You may consult your notes before relating the particulars of Mr. Parker's kangaroo story."

And so he does just that. . . and, if you're lucky, maybe your version will prevail and you won't be convicted of doing anything all that bad.

(And if you're really lucky, and if you told your account three times to officers of the Australian Bureau of Investigation, in the eight days following this automobile pile-up, there would be a pre-existing written record of your own account, and that clearly would work in your favor.)

You see? That's how it works.

Strewth! It was a flippin' wallaby and it was in Brisbane, not Melbourne!

And yes, the same general concepts apply to an elderly lady, who was interviewed three times by the FBI, in the eight days following the assassination, but who was nervous about her memory, and so she made notes before she appeared before the representatives of a presidential commission.

I know elderly people who make notes about all sorts of things. . .none of this is irregular, or improper, and, imho, it takes an excessively suspicious mind to (a) ignore the three original FBI reports and (b ) make the jump from the use of notes (four and a half months later) to the idea that the subsequent testimony (on 4/2/64) was all a fabrication.

And here, we're not even dealing with a kangaroo--just an elderly lady who was a passenger on a bus, who knew Oswald because he had boarded with her for a week, and who saw him board the bus.

But here, to begin your education about "recollection refreshed," is a link to the Cornell Law school website:

http://www.law.corne...e/ACRule612.htm

http://topics.law.co...ction_refreshed

Here's a brief excerpt. . . :

Present Recollection Refreshed

Overview

Resources

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, a witness must testify from the basis of his current recollection, he cannot read from a document.However, if a witness forgets something he at one time knew and had personal knowledge of, he may be shown a writing to refresh his memory. The writing or document used by the witness to refresh his memory cannot be admitted as evidence or read to the jury, it can only be used to refresh the witness's memory of something he once knew.

Do you own an orchard perchance? I ask because you are very good at producing an apple every time you're presented with an orange.

Apart from the wollapper needing his notes to recall it was a wallaby in Brisbane and not a kangaroo in Melbourne; another common example would be a witness on the stand having difficulty recalling meeting the victim, and being presented with a contemporaneous letter he or she wrote which includes details of meeting the person in question. That is your apple.

But the orange is a witness having extensive notes written with the help of a government agent specifically to help get her through her testimony.

You do understand the difference, don't you, between the wollapper's notes and the witnesses letter written to a friend, and extensive notes written with help from an agent of the body conducting the investigation for the express purpose of providing testimony that IS NOT from current memory?

What does it say of you, that you believe the manner and circumstances of MB's testimony was perfectly legitimate and supported by law – when in fact neither of those contentions is true?

* * * *

Most of the criticism I have seen of Mary Bledsoe, because she used notes, and spoke haltingly, and obviously was under stress, is without merit.

The woman made out an affidavit on 11/23/63, and --in addition--was interviewed three times by the FBI. And you think she made it all up, eh?

I never cared for the fact that, in the original affidavit, she said Oswald "looked like a maniac," but, ya know, she's entitled. . . just like you're entitled to fruitlessly argue that she wasn't on the bus.

Yes, she was entitled to describe Oswald in similar language used by McWatters to describe Milton Jones.

Just like you're entitled to misrepresent Present Recollection Refreshed as being an apt description of the Bledsoe testimony.

The three FBI interviews --by five separate agents, who wrote three reports, over a period of eight days following 11/22/63 (starting with the first report on 11/23/63)--constitute credible evidence that Bledsoe did not fabricate her account (unless, of course, you think she was some kind of method actress. [is that your idea?] ).

The reason certain people have a clear animus towards this witness, and her account, is that placing Oswald on McWatters' bus prevents them from believing Roger Craig's account.

C'mon. . . admit it. . Isn't that what this is really all about?

Not at all. Only interested in where the evidence leads.

The fact is that Craig was a better witness, and there was infinitely more support (in both film and other witnesses) for his story than Mary's.

So out come the knives and all kinds of bizarre, illogical, and flawed hypotheses in order to accomplish the following:

(a) to argue that Mary Bledsoe was NOT on the bus (when Oswald [allegedly] boarded around Murphy and Elm);

The arguments for that are flawless; unlike those you posit via circular logic.

(b ) to argue that Oswald did not board that bus--at all;

Now you're catching on.

and finally, in an attempt to impeach Mary Bledsoe completely, comes item "c", the "cherry on the sundae". . . the "piece de resistance". . .

(c ) The futile attempt to argue that Mary Bledsoe was not Oswald's landlady, for the week starting October 7, 1963 (i.e., that all of that is a fiction, too), thus attempting to impeach her as a witness who certainly could have--and in fact did--immediately recognize Oswald as the person who boarded the bus.

MB testified that she used the calendar method of record-keeping (popularized by Ruth Paine, apparently) with Oswald because she had just resumed letting rooms.

Mr. BALL - That is the calendar for December 1963, and I notice it has dates and names and dates. Is that the way you keep books on your rooms?

Mrs. BLEDSOE - Yes; but I don't now. I did then, because I just had started. The first one I got was in September.

Mr. BALL - September of 1963?

Mrs. BLEDSOE - Uh-huh.

Mr. BALL - He put his name on the calendar?

Mrs. BLEDSOE - Well, got it in September. He got it, my son sold it for $5, and I didn't even know that he tore that out.

Mr. BALL - Now, let me see here in this calendar. It runs from January 1963, to December of 1963, but October of 1963, has been torn out?

As seen here, the indication is that she continued with this method up until at least December. Yet despite this testimony that the calendar contained names and dates for lodgers, the Warren Commission staffers were unable to come up with any names whatsoever when given that seemingly simple task!

If a TV producer is trolling the Internet for material to demonstrate the flawed and illogical reasoning of certain JFK assassination researchers, this would be "Exhibit A." Because, as I have noted, once you go down this path--as Farley has so proudly done (a path now endorsed by DiEugenio, who refers to it as a "daring and original" analysis)--the next stop is to subscribe to the following ancillary propositions:

(1) That Oswald was not in Whaley's cab ("Yes, he lied, too!")

(2) That someone else ran into the rooming house, at 1026 N. Beckley. ("Yes, Ms. Earlene Roberts was mistaken! It was an imposter who ran into her rooming house!").

So (the narrator will intone, after exposing all the numerous fallacies and implausibilities associated with this so-called "analysis"): "Here's what we end up with: we have one rooming house lady, with whom Lee Oswald boarded, and whose name he used as a reference on October 10, and who (supposedly) then made up a story that Oswald was on a bus (when he was not)--and who lied about that to 5 FBI agents in 3 different interviews over a period of 8 days. But that's not all: then we also have Oswald not in Whaley's cab, and then, to top it all off, we have another rooming house lady who didn't recognize her own boarder, when an imposter (not Oswald) ran into that residence, and then ran out, zipping up a jacket!"

Perhaps the narrator will raise an eyebrow and then ask: "Is this Dallas, Texas, or the Bermuda Triangle?"

Sadly for you, it's the Bermuda Triangle of your legitimacy as a private investigator.

Just how much of this malarkey is a reasonable person supposed to accept?

And no, in making that statement, I'm not a lone nutter.

Someone who believes that President Kennedy's body was altered to falsify the autopsy (i.e., to change the diagram of the shooting, so as to inculpate an innocent Lee Oswald) is not a lone nutter.

. . . unless, that is, those words are spoken by some third party who is deliberately not promoting the truth, but intent on painting an author with a well known public position (i.e., me) in a false light.

Certainly, it looks that way to me. So here's another term, Mr. Parker, that perhaps you ought to look up in a legal dictionary: "painting in a false light."

And yet again you fail to understand the law you quote.

While it is related to defamation, the public disclosure of facts falls under false light law, or tort of false light. This occurs when private facts, which are evidently not a matter of public concern, are publicly disclosed and the communication of which would be offensive or damaging to the person involved.

Evan Granowitz

asserts that false light law is intended to protect a non-public person's mental or emotional well-being and right to privacy rather than a protection of one's reputation, which, on the other hand, what tort of defamation upholds to protect.

http://evan-granowitz.com/

Firstly, no one has revealed anything about you which isn't well known already – to wit; that you use LN debate tactics and that your book's sub-text is a paean to the Warren Commission. Secondly, you're a "public person" by any definition. Thirdly, you wish to protect your reputation, not your "mental or emotional well-being" or your "right to privacy".This applies to the little guy like moi!

And no Mr. Parker, I'm not going to sue you. You have nothing to worry about. But I'm providing the definition so you'll have an accurate description of what you're doing (or attempting to do, for anyone gullible enough to believe such nonsense).

Oh, please DO sue. And when you can't get anyone to take your case because you have none, feel free to represent yourself.

You say you don't know how things work in Australia? Well, let me tell you - we're not a nation of lily-livered litigators so it is I who assures you that I won't sue – despite having an actual case through your continual misrepresentation of my position on Eddie Piper.

I have other plans.

Keep that in mind the next time you're sitting at your computer keyboard, and spreading misinformation about me.

Enjoy the sunshine, David. We've got a few more weeks of winter before spring arrives.

DSL

8/4/11; 7:15 PM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Greg,

You wrote, "The fact is that Craig was a better witness, and there was infinitely more support (in both film and other witnesses) for his story than Mary's."

What "film", either still or motion, supports Craig's story and how?

Todd

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Certainly there are other witnesses.

However, the photos, Murray and Allen, show Craig on the North side of Elm and Walthers on the South side of Elm as the supposed rambler is visible coming down Elm. The problem is that Craig was very specific that Walthers came up to him while he (Craig) was on the North side of Elm and that he (Craig) then crossed over to the south side of Elm. It was while he was on the south side of Elm, looking to see where a bullet had struck, that he heard the whistle and saw the rambler. So the photos show that the timing is wrong for that car to be the rambler Craig saw.

Bledsoe had also had a stroke sometime before she had rented to Oswald. My experience whith my elderly grandmother after her stroke was that she was forgettful, made copius notes in real time and when trying to recall things, and was at times somewhat paranoid, to the degree of consulting her lawyer for even for the most trival matter.

Sound like anyone who rented to Oswald?

Greg,

You wrote, "The fact is that Craig was a better witness, and there was infinitely more support (in both film and other witnesses) for his story than Mary's."

What "film", either still or motion, supports Craig's story and how?

Todd

Are you in agreement that there are witnesses that support Craig's story, Todd?

I think Greg is tucked up in bed right now but from my perspective the photographs of the station wagon on Elm and the Oswald lookalike walking down toward Elm Street past the concrete ornaments within the timeframes as detailed by Craig gives his story much more weight than Bledsoe's especially when combined with the addition of further corroborating witnesses.

Mary Bledsoe never proved she knew Oswald. I don't believe for a second that she was a "landlady" of anyone, let alone Oswald. I'd like to think that Police today are a little more rigorous in confirming relationships between people during criminal investigations rather than just taking one person's word for it.

If there was one other single witness on record that supported Mary's alleged relationship with Oswald then I would give it slightly more weight rather than shaking my head in utter disbelief. Her son may have been a good start. Or Cecil McWatters who remembered a lot about the events on his bus, but doesn't remember the memorable Mary.

Or then again, maybe he did...

Edited August 5, 2011 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Lee,

I didn't say you claimed it was Craig.

I don’t know for a fact that Craig ever sat down and identified himself either.

But Penn Jones knew Craig very well and he told me years ago (1976-77) that it was Craig. Also, Penn’s Forgive My Grief 3 (revised) has great photo of Craig from the waist up from December of 1969. It’s a dead ringer for the man identified as Craig in the Murray photos by Penn AND by Shaw and Harris (both of whom also knew Craig) in their book Cover-Ups. I’ve also seen other known photos of Craig and they match as well. Finally, video of Craig in Mark Lane’s Two Men in Dallas matches up.

I've never heard of the man being identified as anjyone but Craig. He most certainly is thin enough (we are talking about the same man right, the man in the background in a suit, on the North side fo Elm, right?) I'd love to hear who they claim it is.

But, regardless, even if that man in Murray is not Craig, it STILL doesn’t matter.

You see, Craig stated that he saw the rambler after Walthers came up to him on the North side of Elm, by the Fort Worth Turnpike sign and told him that a bullet had struck the curb on the south side of Elm. In the Murray photos, traffic is moving well, the “rambler” (behind the bus) is also moving well. But Walthers is still on the south side of Elm investigating the spot when the “rambler” is already headed down Elm. There is simply not enough time for time for Walthers to finish up, wait for traffic (which would include the passing "rambler", cross Elm, talk to Craig, and for Craig to cross to Elm – the car in question would already be well down Elm, likely out of Dealey Plaza.

Todd

I didn't claim that Craig is in the photograph.

I don't believe that that photograph is of Roger Craig in Murray and Allen, Todd. The guy is not thin enough and I IIRC other researchers have identified that man as somebody else. For me, it is the presence of the station wagon that is more significant and, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe Roger Craig ever identified himself as being that person in that particular photograph.

Certainly there are other witnesses.

However, the photos, Murray and Allen, show Craig on the North side of Elm and Walthers on the South side of Elm as the supposed rambler is visible coming down Elm. The problem is that Craig was very specific that Walthers came up to him while he (Craig) was on the North side of Elm and that he (Craig) then crossed over to the south side of Elm. It was while he was on the south side of Elm, looking to see where a bullet had struck, that he heard the whistle and saw the rambler. So the photos show that the timing is wrong for that car to be the rambler Craig saw.

Greg,

You wrote, "The fact is that Craig was a better witness, and there was infinitely more support (in both film and other witnesses) for his story than Mary's."

What "film", either still or motion, supports Craig's story and how?

Todd

Are you in agreement that there are witnesses that support Craig's story, Todd?

I think Greg is tucked up in bed right now but from my perspective the photographs of the station wagon on Elm and the Oswald lookalike walking down toward Elm Street past the concrete ornaments within the timeframes as detailed by Craig gives his story much more weight than Bledsoe's especially when combined with the addition of further corroborating witnesses.

Mary Bledsoe never proved she knew Oswald. I don't believe for a second that she was a "landlady" of anyone, let alone Oswald. I'd like to think that Police today are a little more rigorous in confirming relationships between people during criminal investigations rather than just taking one person's word for it.

If there was one other single witness on record that supported Mary's alleged relationship with Oswald then I would give it slightly more weight rather than shaking my head in utter disbelief. Her son may have been a good start. Or Cecil McWatters who remembered a lot about the events on his bus, but doesn't remember the memorable Mary.

Or then again, maybe he did...

Edited August 5, 2011 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Bernice Moore]

Lee,

I didn't say you claimed it was Craig.

I don't know for a fact that Craig ever sat down and identified himself either.

But Penn Jones knew Craig very well and he told me years ago (1976-77) that it was Craig. Also, Penn's Forgive My Grief 3 (revised) has great photo of Craig from the waist up from December of 1969. It's a dead ringer for the man identified as Craig in the Murray photos by Penn AND by Shaw and Harris (both of whom also knew Craig) in their book Cover-Ups. I've also seen other known photos of Craig and they match as well. Finally, video of Craig in Mark Lane's Two Men in Dallas matches up.

I've never heard of the man being identified as anjyone but Craig. He most certainly is thin enough (we are talking about the same man right, the man in the background in a suit, on the North side fo Elm, right?) I'd love to hear who they claim it is.

But, regardless, even if that man in Murray is not Craig, it STILL doesn't matter.

You see, Craig stated that he saw the rambler after Walthers came up to him on the North side of Elm, by the Fort Worth Turnpike sign and told him that a bullet had struck the curb on the south side of Elm. In the Murray photos, traffic is moving well, the "rambler" (behind the bus) is also moving well. But Walthers is still on the south side of Elm investigating the spot when the "rambler" is already headed down Elm. There is simply not enough time for time for Walthers to finish up, wait for traffic (which would include the passing "rambler", cross Elm, talk to Craig, and for Craig to cross to Elm – the car in question would already be well down Elm, likely out of Dealey Plaza.

Todd

I didn't claim that Craig is in the photograph.

I don't believe that that photograph is of Roger Craig in Murray and Allen, Todd. The guy is not thin enough and I IIRC other researchers have identified that man as somebody else. For me, it is the presence of the station wagon that is more significant and, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe Roger Craig ever identified himself as being that person in that particular photograph.

Certainly there are other witnesses.

However, the photos, Murray and Allen, show Craig on the North side of Elm and Walthers on the South side of Elm as the supposed rambler is visible coming down Elm. The problem is that Craig was very specific that Walthers came up to him while he (Craig) was on the North side of Elm and that he (Craig) then crossed over to the south side of Elm. It was while he was on the south side of Elm, looking to see where a bullet had struck, that he heard the whistle and saw the rambler. So the photos show that the timing is wrong for that car to be the rambler Craig saw.

Greg,

You wrote, "The fact is that Craig was a better witness, and there was infinitely more support (in both film and other witnesses) for his story than Mary's."

What "film", either still or motion, supports Craig's story and how?

Todd

Are you in agreement that there are witnesses that support Craig's story, Todd?

I think Greg is tucked up in bed right now but from my perspective the photographs of the station wagon on Elm and the Oswald lookalike walking down toward Elm Street past the concrete ornaments within the timeframes as detailed by Craig gives his story much more weight than Bledsoe's especially when combined with the addition of further corroborating witnesses.

Mary Bledsoe never proved she knew Oswald. I don't believe for a second that she was a "landlady" of anyone, let alone Oswald. I'd like to think that Police today are a little more rigorous in confirming relationships between people during criminal investigations rather than just taking one person's word for it.

If there was one other single witness on record that supported Mary's alleged relationship with Oswald then I would give it slightly more weight rather than shaking my head in utter disbelief. Her son may have been a good start. Or Cecil McWatters who remembered a lot about the events on his bus, but doesn't remember the memorable Mary.

Or then again, maybe he did...

FWIW...comp James Richards

[Michael Hogan]

Are you in agreement that there are witnesses that support Craig's story, Todd?

Certainly there are other witnesses.

John Kelin mentions some: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556&view=findpost&p=148044

[Todd W. Vaughan]

Lee,

I take great offense (as if you really care) to your claim that I would “say anything to prove a point.” or “defend my beliefs.”, essentially claiming I would LIE if necessary to prove a point. That’s just nothing more than another example of your willingness to launch unprovoked personal attacks at those who you disagree with.

As for your “The more total the evidence you provide the more the picking of nits begins and the more the parlor games start.”, that certainly is the pot calling the kettle black, given he nit picking you’ve done over Bledsoe.

My comments about Bledose and my grandmothers stroke were in no way meant to be a definitive, one-to-one comparison. And if you think for a minute that I think everyone who has a stroke and survives reacts the same way, or exhibits the same kind of behavior, then you have a screw loose somewhere.

It was simply something I thought of while mulling this all over, and I thought it would perhaps help to get some minds thinking of alternate explanations for in Bledsoe’s testimony.

And I never said Bledsoe took copius notes – that’s a figment of your own making. So will you stop spreading misinformation about me please? Thanks in advance.

Now, as for the mark on the cement apron around the manhole cover, something I’ve researched and paid particular attention to since 1979…

You’ve either misunderstood what I said or you’re intentionally twisting my words.

The fact of the matter is that I do believe that a mark of some sort was observed on the concrete apron of the manhole cover that day. However I should point out that there is only one witness on record as to having actually observed a physical mark that day, DPD Officer J.W. Foster, so it’s not like there are a bunch of witnesses to it like you falsely imply with your “What about this witness? What about that witness?” and “Sod the witnesses.”

And yes, the DPD crime lab was called to that location and took several photographs of the area. But those photographs the DPD took that day, as well as those taken by Murray and Allen and Cabluck, don’t show the mark that exists there today and is identified by everyone as the bullet mark (for example, see Groden and Livingstone in the photo section of High Treason)

That mark that exists today is located right in the southwest corner of the cement apron and it is fairly tight to the corner proper. But photos show that on 11/22/63 dirt and sod and leaves were covering the corner of the cement apron to the degree that a mark in that location would not even have been visible that day – that area was covered. For example, see Groden The Killing of a President at page 41.

So that could not have been the mark that was seen that day – it wasn’t exposed.

And yes, I think the mark that exists today is too big to be bullet mark - it’s too big, too deep, too defined, and as of 1991 the left and right upper edges of the mark each curve a bit and overhang slightly the mark itself, almost as if a small twig/ branch were partially imbedded in the concrete during the pour and then rotted away over time leaving an impression of itself.

Has the mark changed over time? To some degree, I’m sure. I bet the overhanging edges have worn back a bit. But I’ve seen clear photos taken of the mark in 1969 by R.B. Cutler and compared them to it in 1991 and it appeared to be essentially the same. Cutler even noted the overhanging edges back in 1969 and published one of the photos (Cutler, The Umbrella Man, 1975, p. 130-131).

As for your “experiment”, how silly. It bears no relationship to the issue at hand.

So, there you have your “No answers from Todd to these questions.”

Todd

Trying to defend Bledsoe at this late date is sort of trying to rehabilitate Warren Harding.

As per Craig, the guy has multiple corroboration going back to SSD.

But watch it Lee, Lifton tells us that Vaughan is a "first rate researcher".

This is the guy who once told me the shoulder drop by JBC in the Z film was an optical illusion. Even though Thompson actually measured it in his book from the top of the door.

Trying to defend Bledsoe at this late date is sort of trying to rehabilitate Warren Harding.

As per Craig, the guy has multiple corroboration going back to SSD.

But watch it Lee, Lifton tells us that Vaughan is  a "first rate researcher".

This is the guy who once told me the shoulder drop by JBC in the Z film was an optical illusion.  Even though Thompson actually measured it in his book  from the top of the door.

Vaughan reminds me a little of Duncan MacRae, Jim.  He'd say anything to prove a point.  The more total the evidence you provide the more the picking of nits begins and the more the parlor games start.

I'm not fond of people (including myself) using examples from their personal lives to prove an evidentiary point because if you disagree with it then it could easily look like you are personally attacking them.  Duncan once tried to use a personal experience he had as an extra in a police line-up to prove a point against me in a debate over witnesses ID'ing suspects.  It was a mugging incident and, according to Duncan, he was incorrectly identified as the assailant.  When I asked Duncan how he knew he had been incorrectly identified he claimed that the woman walked over and put her hand on his shoulder.  Now, obviously, this is complete baloney.  This is not how the police run line-ups in the UK.  Can you imagine?  "Okay. Mrs. Brown. You have just been attacked by a violent mugger. What we're going to do is take you in this room where we believe we have this person who will be in your nightmares for the foreseeable future. We need you to walk up to your assailant and not just point him out.  Oh no. We want you to touch him.  We need bodily contact for a valid ID to be established. Now, you're looking a bit nervous Mrs. Brown but you must count yourself lucky.  Our rape victims find this procedure much more challenging.  And if the violent mugger tries to bite pieces of your face off we'll make sure we get him off straight away and get you right to the hospital."

Once Duncan had been all 'round the houses trying to defend what amounted to some of the stinkiest crapola ever introduced on this forum to try and win an argument he then disappeared.

Well, guess what?  About 8 months later he used the crapola in a different way. To try and prove a point about faulty memories he used this line up to try and convince people that instead of making this experience up out of whole cloth he had simply created a "false memory."

Honestly.

Some people would say absolutely anything to:

i) Prove a point

ii) Defend their beliefs

Well Todd, IMO, is the same. He'll say anything to prove a point even if what he says can be taken apart in the blink of an eye.

"There was no bullet mark on the manhole cover on Elm Street", he once told me with such defiance that one would think he was stood next to it on 11/22/63.  What about this witness? What about that witness? What about this photo? What about that photo? Why did the Dallas Police take photos of that manhole cover if there was nothing there? Was it standard practice for photos to be taken by investigators of "nothing"?

No answers from Todd to these questions.  He simply said the Mark that is on the curb is too big to be a bullet strike.  Sod the witnesses.  He knows better because he knows guns and ammo. 

Do you not think the mark has changed over time? With the weather? And people touching and rubbing it?  48 years is a long time and each and every time I've been to Dealey Plaza I've seen dozens of people touching this mark. Placing their finger inside. I'm pretty sure it's changed.

I closed by asking Todd to perform an experiment. Get a small slab of concrete. Make a small nick in it with a chisel. Take a photo of it. Then over the next 48 years to rub that mark with his finger a dozen times a day.

I'm sure Todd will get back to us with the results in 2058. 

Along with the copious notes that Mary Bledsoe made after her unfortunate stroke.

It really is far too easy, isn't it?

Edited August 7, 2011 by Todd W. Vaughan

[Greg Parker]

And I never said Bledsoe took copius notes – that's a figment of your own making. So will you stop spreading misinformation about me please? Thanks in advance.

No. You said your grandmother did - and needed to - because of memory loss due to stroke. This was by way of comparison to what Bledsoe did. Sheesh. If your claim that you "never said Bledsoe took copious notes" is not a nitpick, then I'll write a glowing review of Best Evidence. I mean -- technically you never said those exact words... but that was surely the only inference that could be drawn.

Besides which, her testimony wasn't the shortest taken by the commission, so there is no reason to believe her notes were short - added to which I would doubt she would need the help of the Secret Service just to jot down one or two points.

Stroke, btw, involves short term memory loss. Long term memory is not a problem. If she needed help because of memory problems before the commission due to her stroke, she would have needed the same memory joggers during her vaunted three interviews with five different FBI agents.

The stroke, far from being the blessing you guys want it to be (as an excuse for the legally inappropriate assistance and slack given her), just makes her look even worse as a reliable and UNTAINTED witness.

[John Dolva]

I think that makes sense. there are worse situations such as knowing one needs to take notes but forgetting that very thing (to take notes (and long time memory can be A1 (often seemingly better)), and sure that can be a suggestible state. But that in itself is not a determinant, imo.

edit clarification (i hope)

Edited August 7, 2011 by John Dolva

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Lee,

I take great offense (as if you really care) to your claim that I would “say anything to prove a point.” or “defend my beliefs.”, essentially claiming I would LIE if necessary to prove a point.

Don,t worry Todd,

it comes with the territory when dealing with Oswald accusers.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Lee,

I take great offense (as if you really care) to your claim that I would “say anything to prove a point.” or “defend my beliefs.”, essentially claiming I would LIE if necessary to prove a point.

Don,t worry Todd,

it comes with the territory when dealing with Oswald accusers.

[Michael Hogan]

Lee,

I take great offense (as if you really care) to your claim that I would “say anything to prove a point.” or “defend my beliefs.”, essentially claiming I would LIE if necessary to prove a point.

Don,t worry Todd,

it comes with the

territory when

dealing with

Oswald accusers.

In my book, anyone who is an OSWALD ACCUSER is on the side of the assassins.

Leo Sauvage, God Bless him, was the best of the EARLY CRITICS

Leo Sauvage was the FIRST AND ONLY advocate Lee Oswald had among the early Warren Commission critics.

From The Oswald Affair by Leo Sauvage (p 189):

But above all, with the exception that the rights crying out to be upheld in this case were not the rights of the widow

who had come to accuse her husband

, but those of Lee Harvey Oswald, condemned and executed without trial.

Bold added.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

From The Oswald Affair by Leo Sauvage (p 189):

But above all, with the exception that the rights crying out to be upheld in this case were not the rights of the widow

who had come to accuse her husband

, but those of Lee Harvey Oswald, condemned and executed without trial.

Bold added.

As everyone knows by now, Marina's opinions in 1963 were influenced.

Her opinions changed as she discovered the true facts.

But as everyone also knows, Marina had absolutely no personal knowledge

about any crime committed in Dallas on 11/22/63.

[Michael Hogan]

In my book, anyone who is an OSWALD ACCUSER is on the side of the assassins.

Leo Sauvage, God Bless him, was the best of the EARLY CRITICS

Leo Sauvage was the FIRST AND ONLY advocate Lee Oswald had among the early Warren Commission critics.

From The Oswald Affair by Leo Sauvage (p 189):

But above all, with the exception that the rights crying out to be upheld in this case were not the rights of the widow

who had come to accuse her husband

, but those of Lee Harvey Oswald, condemned and executed without trial.

Bold added.

As everyone knows by now, Marina's opinions in 1963 were influenced. Her opinions changed as she discovered the true facts. But as everyone also knows, Marina had absolutely no personal knowledge about any crime committed in Dallas on 11/22/63.

That didn't stop her from providing false testimony when it mattered most. Sauvage devotes an entire chapter to this. The title of Chapter 11 of The Oswald Affair reads: MARINA OSWALD ACCUSES HER HUSBAND.

Leo Sauvage. God bless him.