WCR testimony deletion predictions thread

[Michael Clark]

{insert WC claim of the right to delete, omit, alter,  blah, blah blah, (once I find it again) here}

I have found quite a few places where I became startled by a feeling that something was missing in WC testimony. I am starting this thread to identify those points as I/we come across them. This is a kind of a tool for predicting what we feel might show-up once/if all or some of the deleted testimony has been released.

 

Edited February 3, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

This is a recent example that prompted me to open this thread. It is not one of the more blatant examples I have found. Here is a place to post and share such examples going foreword.

 

Just as they are discussing where Oswald was, and what he was doing around the time of the assassination, Ball diverts to the tasty communist connection. 

Mr. BALL. But he said he had had lunch with Junior?
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; and with someone else.
Mr. BALL. Did you find out that there was an employee named Junior at the Texas School Book Depository?

Mr. FRITZ. Probably we have it here, some of the officers probably did, we had all these people checked out. I didn't do it myself probably.

(something, I believe, is missing here)........

Mr. BALL. That same morning, you asked him also about his affiliations, didn't you ask him if he belonged to the Communist Party?

Edited February 3, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

At the two dashes it sounds to me like something has been deleted from Fritz's testimony.

Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't keep very close time on our work and I just left."

[Alistair Briggs]

Just on this part of testimony only,

49 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

At the two dashes it sounds to me like something has been deleted from Fritz's testimony.

Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think--I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't keep very close time on our work and I just left."

I know what you mean, and you might be correct to say that something has been deleted.

However, one thing I always consider when reading testimony is that it is a transcription of someone who is talking, and when people talk it doesn't always have the same natural flow that, say, writing has. When people talk, what they say can become disjointed, and 'jumpy'.

Looking at that part there it seems to be both disjointed and jumpy. See how the word 'excitment' and 'didn't' is used twice - that's the 'disjoint' and the bit inbetween (I also asked him why he left the building) is the 'jump' (backwards).

It's like he is starting off wanting/meaning to say: "Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, and that he saw all the excitement and he didn't think there would be any work done... so he left" but his brain process kicks in instantaneously at the word 'think' and instantaneously tells him to 'try again' as there is a better way to word what he is trying to say, so it 'jumps' backwards and comes out with 'I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there...'

Consider then how he may have written it down rather than talking it, it would (imo) have come out like this;

Mr. FRITZ. Well he told me that he was eating lunch with some of the employees when this happened, I also asked him why he left the building. He said there was so much excitement there then that "I didn't think there would be any work done that afternoon and we don't punch a clock and they don't keep very close time on our work and I just left."

(Hopefully that makes a bit of sense)

Regards

P.S. just an alternative thought of course, as I said you might be correct to say that something has been deleted.

[Alistair Briggs]

Michael, I always get a wee bit suspicious when I'm reading testimony and when it looks like it's about to get 'juicy' it says (discussion off record). lol Most of the time it is probably something innocent, but I bet sometimes it's not. lol

Regards.

[Michael Clark]

Alistair, I understand that disjointed testimony is to be expected. I just looks like there is a missing chunk of the narrative. 

Thanks for your input.

[Paul Brancato]

I think there are a few posters here who could tell you whether anything like missing parts of WC testimony is likely to be released later this year. 

[Michael Clark]

17 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I think there are a few posters here who could tell you whether anything like missing parts of WC testimony is likely to be released later this year. 

I have no expectations. My intention is to just isolate holes or obfuscation as I detect it. I have thought that I have seen many instances, and I just lose track of them. I have no idea what is expected this year, or at future release dates. I have no idea if deleted, omitted ect. testimony was ever expected, planned of intended for release. Anything you can add, Paul, would be appreciated.

Edited February 4, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Walton]

Read Perry's testimony.  It's not what's missing or "edited" but the way it was conducted.  I can't remember exactly but Dulles kind of jumps into it, changing the subject, and interrupting Perry's flow of the testimony.

Does it mean Dulles was sitting there rubbing his hands together and thinking, "Oh, I've got to disrupt this?" No, but once again, it's so much easier to create subterfuge in the written record of this case than to paint in blobs and black paint in the films.  To me, *that's* far more proof of sweeping things under the rug and subverting the truth than hearing others talk about removing frames in a film.

Then, of course, you have Ford adding "neck" in the final version of the report before release.  Really?  Again, the photo showing Kennedy's back wound is proof that the SBT could not have happened like the lawyers said it happened.  But again, to fudge that official record, Ford wrote it in.

Keep in mind, too, that Ford later reveals to the French prime minister in a private talk that yes, there was a conspiracy.

[Paul Brancato]

3 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Read Perry's testimony.  It's not what's missing or "edited" but the way it was conducted.  I can't remember exactly but Dulles kind of jumps into it, changing the subject, and interrupting Perry's flow of the testimony.

Does it mean Dulles was sitting there rubbing his hands together and thinking, "Oh, I've got to disrupt this?" No, but once again, it's so much easier to create subterfuge in the written record of this case than to paint in blobs and black paint in the films.  To me, *that's* far more proof of sweeping things under the rug and subverting the truth than hearing others talk about removing frames in a film.

Then, of course, you have Ford adding "neck" in the final version of the report before release.  Really?  Again, the photo showing Kennedy's back wound is proof that the SBT could not have happened like the lawyers said it happened.  But again, to fudge that official record, Ford wrote it in.

Keep in mind, too, that Ford later reveals to the French prime minister in a private talk that yes, there was a conspiracy.

I actually think Dulles was conscious of controlling the flow of questioning. I agree that clever questioning, possible editing of WC testimony is easier than altering the film record, and more provable. Of course many good researchers think the Z film was altered. I don't pretend to know the truth of that, but my intuition has always been that it's a distraction.