Frames of the Couch film

[Alan Healy]

It is odd that Couch would mention 'steps' unless there were steps near the loading dock of the TSBD or something he was referring to. I say this because he has spoken to Gary Mack on a few occassions and has always placed the blood stain near the corner of the TSBD on the sidewalk/pathway.

The steps & pathway that we see in the Darnell footage are near

the corner of the TSBD, in a manner of speaking.

Why don't you relay the details of Mals' conversations with Gary?

There were groves of people who went up that walkway and many of them could not have helped see the liguid on the sidewalk, but they would have seen it in color and not B&W.

There has to be a reason so many people ignored it and moved on and I suspect that it was because they were able to quickly see that it was not blood, but rather something else.

My guess is that these people in the Darnell footage were in the

process of being moved on by the law.

How many people in the Darnell footage who walk past the liquid

stop & take a look? Fifty percent of them?

Where did you get the feeling that

so many people ignored it and moved on?

What are you refering too?

A CSI investigator saw the liquid in a frame I showed him and he said as I expected that the liquid was not spilled in one direction as if knocked over. He pointed out the uniformed pooling as if someone merely poured a liquid onto the sidewalk and it equally pooled outward. I have already shared what was said about what would be expected if it had been someone bleeded that profusely.

Blood pools uniformly if the ground is level does it not?

...someone rising above the wall in a sitting or kneeling stance in the Bond. This would be compatible with rising up and removing the film from one's camera and handing it to one of the individuals in dark clothing as Arnold had described. So while not proven beyond all doubt, this is another instance where circumstantial evidence was found to support Arnold's story well after he had committed himself to it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bonds' 4-6 show nothing behind the wall.

Bond5

Towner3 is the first to show anyone/thing & then Bond7, that's well over a minute.

Towner3

[Only one man in dark clothing btw & he's looking over the fence.]

One minute is plenty of time for a bad wound to shed that amount

of blood imo, it's only about a half pint we are seeing after all.

Alan

Edited February 11, 2005 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

I think the man in black who passes by the pool of something is Buddy Walthers. I would be surprised he did not mention to the WC the blood if it had been blood. But maybe it's not even Walthers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Denis,

we know Walthers went up that way & that has to be him in the Towner photo running up the steps.

However to me, this guy in Darnell looks older.

I was thinking it may be the CSI lieutenant Day before he got called to the "floor"???

Alan

Edited February 11, 2005 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

I don't know if you meant to imply that these men are from the Homicde Bureau, but when I showed this picture to two former Dallas Policemen, one of them told me that these men would not be Detectives, precisely because they are carrying coats. To paraphrase, one of them said no Homicide Detective worth his salt would be investigating a crime scene carrying a coat.

Steve Thomas

Yes - I implied that these men may be detectives from the Homicide division. They certainly seem to be buying their hats at the same store. Many people in the plaza that day had on coats or were carrying them, especially rain coats. Most professionals don't like to get their suit's wet, so they carry a light coat to put on in the event it starts to rain. That is not to say that this is the case here, but I would bet that even Homicide detectives wore coats/rain coats at times. So considering that it was raining earlier and it had just started to clear before the motorcade started, I imagine that it is possible that some of these men still had their coats with them at the time of the shooting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I understand what Steves' source is getting at but this fellow can't have been on the scene for more than a couple minutes.

I think he's just checking things out before laying his coat down &getting stuck in, maybe.

Alan

Edited February 11, 2005 by Alan Healy

[Bill Miller]

The steps & pathway that we see in the Darnell footage are near

the corner of the TSBD, in a manner of speaking.

Why don't you relay the details of Mals' conversations with Gary?

It was Gary Mack who first told me that he didn't understand why Couch mentioned the steps because he had spoken with Couch a few times and the description of the blood on the sidewalk was just off the corner of the TSBD.

My guess is that these people in the Darnell footage were in the

process of being moved on by the law.

How many people in the Darnell footage who walk past the liquid

stop & take a look?  Fifty percent of them?

The Darnell film shows more people South of the stain than next to it, so one can assume they all probably saw it and yet no one appears to be concerned about it, nor did anyone seem to draw attention to it or give statements concerning it. That in itself is somewhat telling IMO as to anyone really thinking it was a pool of blood or not.

Blood pools uniformly if the ground is level does it not?

Yes, unless being spurted outward by an artery. As you may recall - I mentioned that if someone was loosing that much blood (I believe someone said that maybe a hand was shot off), then from what I thought and the information I obtained it seems that someone whould have noticed this victim and had the victim been able to get up and stagger away after losing so much blood, then he or she certainly would have left a trail heading in the direction they had went. There is no such evidence that I am aware of that supports anyone walking away while bleeding profusely.

Bonds' 4-6 show nothing behind the wall.

Bond5

I can understand your saying that considering the poor quality of the prints you posted.

Towner3 is the first to show anyone/thing & then Bond7, that's well over a minute.

Towner3

[Only one man in dark clothing btw & he's looking over the fence.]

Really ... only one man? You know - I never considered siamese twins. I guess that could make what I see technically one person by having two people joined at the hips. But then Gordon Arnold said there were two men at his location immediately after the shooting, so I prefer to stick with what I observed.

Wow, I have a first generation slide and I cannot tell if the guy is looking over the fence or towards the ground. My print and the one in Groden's book shows two dark shapes blocking out the Dallas skyline from what I can see, but keep in mind that I could not see that one of the men was 'looking over the fence' as you were able to do.

One minute is plenty of time for a bad wound to shed that amount

of blood imo, it's only about a half pint we are seeing after all.

Alan

Blood is thinker than water, so I doubt that you or I really know how much blood it would take to make a pool that size. Furthermore, what about the amount of blood that never made it onto the sidewalk (if it was to be considered blood at all)? In the Towner photo - the custodian looking fella was on the shelter steps - Zapruder, Sitzman, and Mr. Hester was a few feet away in the shelter - there are two men walking up the walkway in Towner's photo (one said to possibly be Buddy Walthers - you suggested it may be Lt. Day) and none of these people ever mentions a man laying on the ground bleeding out a pool of blood onto the sidewalk. Now does that seem logical to any reasonable person that they all would walk over a gunshot victim bleeding profusely and not report it? Just think about this and see if it helps you to better understand why all those people in the Darnell film didn't seem to be to concerned about what was on the sidewalk.

Edited February 11, 2005 by Bill Miller

[Alan Healy]

The area where the liquid is seen is visible in the Willis and Moorman photos and no one is standing there.

Yes but you cannot prove there is no one keeping out of sight behind the wall.

I learnt this from you as I'm sure you'll remember.

You may note that a close up was taken by Flynn of the sack lunch on the bench and he didn't see anything about the liquid on the sidewalk that he felt was worth wasting a picture over - that should be just one hint that it wasn't blood in Flynn's opinion.

If you have information on the other photos taken by Johnny Flynn that day then please share them with us.

If you have nothing then I wish you'd keep quite instead of guessing.

Anyone taking a hit by gunfire and having blood run down onto the ground to leave a puddle that large would had to of stayed standing there for a considerable time and that is not supported by the evidence at all. And as I said before - anyone who ran off immediately and left a pool of blood that large in a matter of a second or two would have left more blood on the ground as then moved along ... there is no evidence of this either.

In actual fact this liquid doesn't had to have appeared during the shooting, it could of been there before it started.

We have no way of knowing.

So believe that Flynn didn't think taking a photo of a large pool of blood was as important as taking a photo of a bag of buns if you like.

Flynn mave have photographed the blood for all we know, are you seriously saying you have proof he didn't?

Also, the Flynn photo was also taken hours after the murder, how do you know the liquid wasn't cleaned up?

Think that someone doesn't have to be seen at that location during the assassination to bleed a large pool of blood out on the ground if it pleases you. All I am doing is pointing out the common sense side of the equation as I see it and then leaving it up to others to decide for themselves based on their ability to think logically.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If Gordon Arnold had mentioned he saw blood on the path, then I know you'd be more than happy to push this patch as blood.

If it can be ruled out as blood then that's good but what you have produced so far isn't working.

Alan

Edited February 11, 2005 by Alan Healy

[Alan Healy]

It was Gary Mack who first told me that he didn't understand why Couch mentioned the steps because he had spoken with Couch a few times and the description of the blood on the sidewalk was just off the corner of the TSBD.

This was also mentioned by Couch in his WC testimony, what you have supplied doesn't clear things up.

I'm sure Gary would have got Mal to pinpoint the spot because we already have a general description from his testimony.

The Darnell film shows more people South of the stain than next to it, so one can assume they all probably saw it and yet no one appears to be concerned about it,

If they have been told to leave the area so that police work can begin then it is no wonder they are not concerned.

nor did anyone seem to draw attention to it or give statements concerning it. That in itself is somewhat telling IMO as to anyone really thinking it was a pool of blood or not.

How many of these people seen in this footage gave statements?

Let me guess, you have no idea!

I would guess none since they saw & heard just as much as these "detectives".

Yes, unless being spurted outward by an artery. As you may recall - I mentioned that if someone was loosing that much blood (I believe someone said that maybe a hand was shot off), then from what I thought and the information I obtained it seems that someone whould have noticed this victim and had the victim been able to get up and stagger away after losing so much blood, then he or she certainly would have left a trail heading in the direction they had went. There is no such evidence that I am aware of that supports anyone walking away while bleeding profusely.

Good point about the trail of blood but this b/w footage is the only evidence that could support Couches' sighting of blood.

Just because we don't have evidence of a trail doesn't mean there wasn't one.

You are only looking at the one side of the argument as usual.

I would say that an artery is very much like a hosepipe, if you have a small opening in it then the water/blood will spurt out but if there is a large hole then it will pump or ooze out.

Obviously there are many more factors involved, I'm no doctor.

I can understand your saying that considering the poor quality of the prints you posted.

But they're better than yours & I noticed that your very small Bond5 now has arrows pointing to the top of the fence & not the wall.

Are you now saying there is no longer someone behind the wall in 5?

Really ... only one man? You know - I never considered siamese twins. I guess that could make what I see technically one person by having two people joined at the hips. But then Gordon Arnold said there were two men at his location immediately after the shooting, so I prefer to stick with what I observed.

One man in dark clothing with his hands on the fence looking west, he is either peering over the fence or about to climb over it imo.

The other guy is not in dark clothing & looks to be walking north along the pathway.

Wow, I have a first generation slide and I cannot tell if the guy is looking over the fence or towards the ground. My print and the one in Groden's book shows two dark shapes blocking out the Dallas skyline from what I can see, but keep in mind that I could not see that one of the men was 'looking over the fence' as you were able to do.

One man in dark clothes & the other guy walking past in light clothes(see image above).

..there are two men walking up the walkway in Towner's photo (one said to possibly be Buddy Walthers - you suggested it may be Lt. Day)

I said it might be Lt. Day in the Darnell footage.

The Towner photo was over a minute after the headshot.

...and none of these people ever mentions a man laying on the ground bleeding out a pool of blood onto the sidewalk. Now does that seem logical to any reasonable person that they all would walk over a gunshot victim bleeding profusely and not report it? Just think about this and see if it helps you to better understand why all those people in the Darnell film didn't seem to be to concerned about what was on the sidewalk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You cannot say when the blood/liquid was shed/spilt it may of been there before the shooting started.

You also cannot judge by the Darnell footage what these people may have been thinking about(well you can obviously).

Maybe you'd like to tell us how many of this individuals thought there was a gunmen on the grassy knoll & point us to their testimony too please.

Alan

Edited February 11, 2005 by Alan Healy

[Shanet Clark]

By Golly, if Gordon Arnold said it - then it must be true!

If it was only ten minutes after the shooting and a half an hour

to Ft. Worth - then these must be DALLAS cops!

Well, golly, if nobody testified about the puddle, it couldn't be blood...

Gary mack said ....