The Killing Floor

[Roger Odisio]

Stunning list, Pat.  But there is a bigger lie buried in there.  We now know Vicki Adams never said she saw Lovelady and Shelley on the first floor when she got there.  That was fabricated by the WC to discredit her.  In fact she hadn't know the WR said that and when shown by Ernest, she explicitly said she did *not* she them at that time on the first floor. 

[Roger Odisio]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Love the film, and certainly the WC both manipulated and selected witnesses---on every topic. The WC was a prosecution, not an investigation, and there was no defense counsel. 

That said, I have never been comfortable with the "no one was seen on the stairs" angle to the JFKA.

There are multiple witnesses who saw one or even two people on the Sixth Floor just prior or during the JFKA, and multiple witnesses who saw what appeared to be a rifle barrel extending from the TSBD during the JFKA.

Ergo, I posit someone was on the Sixth Floor (and possibly other floors) of the TSBD during the JFKA, and they played a role in the JFKA. 

So...how did they get down? 

Side note: There were publishers' offices in the TSBD, I believe on the 2nd and/or 4th floors. AFAIK, these offices were never searched. No 11/22 roll calls of their employees.

My guess is the JFKA perps pre-planned their exit route down the stairs, and were young and lithe. They were on the steps within moments. Maybe they wore sneakers. Maybe they stopped at a 4th floor office and hid out (although that is risky). 

Just IMHO....

 

I think you're falling into the trap Salandria explained years ago, Ben:  The WR, flimsy, lie-filled, and contradictory was. *designed* to eventually fall apart, revealing a series of puzzles that we would chase our tail endlessly trying to solve.  For two purposes:  (1) to leave the message that powerful people actually did it, they're in control, and there is nothing anyone can do about it and  (2) more important for our purposes here, to distract people from confronting the real, threshold question the WR claimed to answer:  did Oswald do it from the 6th floor window?

I think not and I think you agree.  But there is work remaining to firm up that answer enough so that even DVP runs out of sophistry, and the public can be convinced so as to allow a real investigation into what happened.

If Oswald didn't do it, we already know someone else did from somewhere at present unknown.  Their trail keeps getting colder.

I suppose it's possible that you will someday prove that others were at the window, beyond the claims of a few witnesses, they did it, and then solve the puzzle of how they got out of there undetected.  Seems awfully unlikely.

Instead I'd like to urge you, and everyone else, to not be distracted by secondary puzzles and use your time and considerable intellect to focus on that threshold question--did Oswald do it from the 6th floor window. 

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

David, they avoid it like the plague. Incredibly Barry Ernest did answer that question and he said perhaps the assassin just remained up there and mingled in with the Dallas Police, Sheriff's Deputies and others. That was particularly amusing answer. 

But hey, let's ignore all the physical evidence, the rifle bag with Oswald's palm print, the rifle with Oswald's print on the barrel (albeit old-verifies he did handle it at some time), the fake Hidell card, the bullets tied to that rifle, his prints on the sniper nest boxes, the Hidell purchase of the rifle/revolver, the Tippit shooting, leaving the TSBD quickly thereafter, etc.

All Oswald had to do is make his descent downstairs BEFORE Adams/Styles. Then duck into the 2nd floor lunchroom where he encountered Truly and Baker. During that encounter, Adams and Styles descended downstairs completely missing Truly and Baker. Now which the Stroud document makes sense that Garner saw Truly and Baker making their way up to the 4th floor, of course after the lunchroom encounter and after Adams/Styles left for the stairs. 

Sorry, it is the Oswald-did-it-crowd that avoids the evidence like the plague. Well, at least the evidence in its proper context. 

1.  "The rifle bag with Oswald's palm print" that was twice the size of the bag described by Buell Frazier, who saw Oswald carrying a bag that morning...and was not photographed in situ nor by the DPD on the day of the shooting, that had an identifiable print in the evidence photos that was not identified, and that was "found" where a number of people had been standing before its discovery without...hmmm...noticing it. And to make matters worse, that was misrepresented by the WC to suggest Oswald had carried it by reversing the location of the supposed Oswald prints. They said the palm print was on the bottom and the fingerprint on the middle when it was the other way around. So, no. Not a solid piece of evidence. Its introduction in a court of law may have led to a reasonable doubt.

2. "The rifle with Oswald's print on the barrel" that had a misaligned scope that had settled in when first tested, meaning it was not accurate and could only have been fired with accuracy at Kennedy by an experienced shooter with lots of practice. So, not Oswald. As far as the print...hmmm...no print was discovered on the barrel by the FBI and the only print seen on the rifle in the first day photos was on the trigger guard, which the FBI repeatedly refused to ID as Oswald's. Making matters worse, the supposed barrel print lift was not mentioned to the FBI or sent to the FBI for days afterward, and was only determined to have come from the rifle after the commission's report was completed, when the FBI reported in unsworn testimony that marks on the lift resembled marks on the rifle...but FAILED to provide clear photos demonstrating as much, or even where this was on the rifle. And then, of course, there's a problem with the trigger guard prints. Prints, plural. A taped off print was visible on the rifle when Lt. Day walked through a field of reporters on the 22nd, that disappeared from the record, and that's not even to mention that the DPD's photos of the other print would eventually become available, and revealed as identifiable, which makes it curious as heck that the FBI refused to ID it as Oswald's print. Hmmm...could it be that it was someone else's print? And wait, oh yeah, good ole Lt. Day mentioned that there was yet another print that he didn't get to before the FBI scooped up the rifle--that he thought was the best print. And this print just disappeared from the record. The FBI said no identifiable prints were found n the rifle...period. So, no, not a solid piece of evidence. Its introduction into evidence could have raised lots of questions that may have led to reasonable doubt. 

3. "His prints on the sniper nest boxes" for which there was no proper chain of custody. Both Det. Studebaker and Lt. Day claimed they'd personally developed a print on box D that they then tore off the box. Amazingly, they failed to take a picture of this box...prior to the 25th. Even more amazingly, they then submitted photos of this box with the torn-off piece back in place to the FBI, without noting that this was a photo taken three days after the shooting. (It took an FBI investigation to clear this up.) Lt. Day then testified that he'd signed his name to the piece of cardboard on the day of the shooting, when the photos with the cardboard back in place--taken on the 25--prove this to be untrue. Even worse, Capt. Fritz's records reflect that there was another print on this box that then went whoosh! Also telling...the FBI was so skeptical of this print--which was supposedly developed without being photographed in situ--and then tore off the box--that they pretended in their reports and testimony that it had been cut off the box--y'know, the way a professional concerned with the evidence would do. As far as the other boxes....the only other Oswald prints were found on Box A, which disappeared from the sniper's nest on the day of the shooting and was replaced by a box made to look like it for the photos taken on the 25th. So where was it? What happened to it? The only innocent explanation I can come up with is that Studebaker or some other numb nuts from the DPD took it home as a trophy. But, failing that, it seems mighty suspicious that the FBI found Oswald's prints on this box--and that this was the only box missing from the 23rd to the 25th. So, no, not a solid piece of evidence. The introduction of these prints would have raised lots of questions that may have led to reasonable doubt. 

 

Edited October 16, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Guest]

My memory is letting me down, what was the reason for Leavelle re-interviewing Vickie Adams in Feb. ?

I vaguely remember something about him suddenly showing up at her house ?

I know the "report" (unsigned, etc) is here  https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340453/m1/1/

I can't remember any other version of this, is there ?

[Pat Speer]

9 minutes ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

My memory is letting me down, what was the reason for Leavelle re-interviewing Vickie Adams in Feb. ?

I vaguely remember something about him suddenly showing up at her house ?

I know the "report" (unsigned, etc) is here  https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth340453/m1/1/

I can't remember any other version of this, is there ?

It's a curiosity for which I'm not sure there's an answer. If I recall the FBI was giving the WC grief at this time. The FBI (essentially Hoover and his suck-ups) was upset that the WC was thinking of using non-FBI experts to confirm the FBI's conclusions regarding the forensic evidence, and they threatened to cut off all assistance to the WC. Then suddenly the DPD goes out and interviews some of the depository witnesses. This may have been at the request of the WC. But, get this, these reports were not sent the WC for months, and at least two of them were not sent at all and can only be found in the Dallas archives. 

So I think there's an untold story there. 

[Guest]

I just remembered Leavelle said something like they had a fire and the doc's where destroyed...

It's in one of the essays I printed over the last months, but wich one... I'll have to take a look.

 

 

 

[Roger Odisio]

Negrete covers this in his doc.  I don't remember all that he says exactly but he talks about Leavelle claiming documents had burned as the reason to reinterview Adams, and everyone else as I remember.

[Guest]

Thanks, stupid me... I should have remembered... it's also in Flip's essay from his website https://www.flipdemey.com/news (at the bottom / downl. pdf).  That's where I got it.   I printed the essay and wrote in the margins : Feb 17, 64 Leavelle interv. Campell at 6 pm and Adams at 8:10 pm.  On the 18th I had Senkel interv. Doris Burns (and wrote Burns wrong date  Feb 18, 1963 s/b 1964).  I remember trying to list all docs dated Feb 17, etc but some were not archived with a date, ... the usual problems...

Negrete also had this interesting topic on Willens : "In a 1964 internal memo, Warren Report co-author Howard P. Willens wrote, “In a discussion, the Commission could rely on some witnesses and reject the testimony of others, such as Victoria Adams.”  

https://thegirlonthestairs.wordpress.com/2019/10/21/mr-willens/

Edited October 16, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Tony Krome]

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

And if LHO wasn't the sixth-floor sniper, then the question needs to be asked --- How, then, did the real 6th-floor assassin(s) manage to avoid being seen by Garner, et al, in the minutes following JFK's murder?

An appropriate question.

A fleeing 6th floor person had to firstly avoid Dougherty who admitted he was in the north/west corner of the 5th floor at the time. In fact he stated he was 10 feet from the west elevator.

Dougherty takes the west elevator down as Truly/Baker ascends the stairs, so Dougherty was at the 5th floor elevator/stairs area for minutes after the assassination.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Here is an example of what I am talking about with hiding exculpatory material and how it can get a case thrown out:

https://rollcall.com/2014/10/28/recalling-the-injustice-done-to-sen-ted-stevens-commentary/

This is the real world.

When I interviewed Bob Tanenbaum, real world prosecutor, this is one of the things that shocked him also.  namely the amount of exculpatory material that the WC discarded.  Coming from real world homicide cases, you just did not do that. Because you ran the risk of getting the case thrown out. But, that's the real world.  The guys on the WC knew they ran no such risk. 

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, the building was not secured for over a half hour after the shooting.

How long did it take for Styles and Adams to run down and Baker and Truly to run up?

And how many elevators were there?

[Pat Speer]

56 minutes ago, Tony Krome said:

An appropriate question.

A fleeing 6th floor person had to firstly avoid Dougherty who admitted he was in the north/west corner of the 5th floor at the time. In fact he stated he was 10 feet from the west elevator.

Dougherty takes the west elevator down as Truly/Baker ascends the stairs, so Dougherty was at the 5th floor elevator/stairs area for minutes after the assassination.

 

Dougherty was downstairs at the time. They twisted his testimony to make it look like he was upstairs. If he was where they said he was, furthermore, he would have been but 15-20 feet from where Oswald was racing past him on an open floor. There was no way he could have missed him. So they left a lot of questions unasked and hoped no one would notice. 

[Tony Krome]

25 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Dougherty was downstairs at the time.

Exactly where do you have Dougherty at the time of the shooting?

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, any criminal lawyer will tell you that the two most serious unethical tactics one can use are 1.) Fraud and 2.) Hiding exculpatory material.

In this case, as the Negrete film shows, they did both with the Styles. Adams, Garner aspect. (And as Rich notes, also with Dolce.)

The reason those categories are so crucial is easy to understand: they go to the fundamental grounding of a criminal case.  As anyone knows, if you have an alibi, that is about as exculpatory as you can get.  

Well, Ball and Belin and Rankin all knew how crucial the quartet of Adams, Styles, Garner and Dorman would be.  Which is why they did what they did.  In the real world, if the prosecution did not give Styles and Garner to the defense, and this was found out later--well, see the Stevens case above for just one example.

But what they did with Adams might have been worse.  As Rich and Barry both describe, they altered her testimony in the WR and attempted  to suborn perjury against her.

This is called consciousness of guilt.  Or, in this instance, consciousness of innocence.

Its the kind of thing over which lawyers get disbarred.  And cases get thrown out.

Oswald was not on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. Therefore he could not have killed Kennedy.

Rich's film is good and I hope in some way JFK Revisited inspired him.

PS, A case of disbarment over hiding exculpatory material https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/ex-prosecutor-disbarred-for-withholding-evidence-in-murder-case

 

Edited October 17, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

I had thought that the elevators were down at the time in question, and the only available path was the stairs. Then I see here and corroborated by LNer DVP, if Garner had been situated in the right place, she could have  heard approaching and seen anyone descending or ascending the steps.

She notes Adam and Styes leave immediately. Since they are all aware of events on the ground , that would make sense, as that is where anybody would want to be. But it does take a little time to realize what the events on the ground truly are and converse as to get a consensus. I would say about a minute could be right.. Though I'm not aware how long it takes to get to the staircase.

So Adams and Styles leave and. Garner did see Baker and Truly,shortly afterward,  but we're not aware if she had seen anybody else in that short time period? Obviously a big problem is that they never sensed the shots were fired from their building, so there was never a reason to pay close attention to monitor the activity.

Regarding Adams and Styles,  they were with each other the entire time in question, right?

It's obvious establishing this timeline and testimony was absolutely critical and has been given very short shrift.

And of course the ending. Yikes! Gotcha!