If you could ask one living witness anything..

[Carrie Gallagher-Driscoll]

As I have posted before, what ought to be done is to have a steering committee prioritize questions to ask living witnesses and then hire a professional investigator (either an attorney with substantial experience cross-examining adverse witnesses or an experienced police investigator) and have the professional interview the witnesses face-to-face.

Tim,

An proffessional investigator? Why not sodium penthonal? That might work? Perhaps we hypnotixe them? Keep in mind, those that go into something assuming people will lie, usually are not disappointed. I can see why you have little personal experience. What happened to the benefit of the doubt? Perhaps respect? We've had many professional commitees with extensive experience. They were the Warren Commission, the HSCA, the AARB and about every researcher that has had the pleasure of a conversation with a witness. Still not good enough? Then the result of a new one would be the same.

As for amateur phone interviews, the only person I have seen on this board that I know for a FACT has the right to make a comment like that is Mr. White. Nic has 6 years under her belt. I have 17. We may be half your age but we have the ambition to go after the answers. We ARE the only comittee these fine people allow. So, to quote a man I have little respect for, "Case Closed."

-C

PS. I have the experience and I have also done the face to face inetrviews. I also believe that "knoll rat Oakes" has most of them on video. Perhaps a shrink could analyze them for signs of distress?

I mean no disrepect but these people are very important to me as human beings. Flesh and blood not 10 point type.

[Stephen Roy]

Just curious as to what everyone would be curious about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would like to ask some of the yet-inidentified witnesses near the knoll what they saw, and I'd like to ask some of the yet-unidentified witnesses near Houston-Elm what they saw. And I'd like to find out what the Oswald note said, from anybody who saw it.

I infer that you might be contemplating contacting people associated with this case. Bravo! It's a tricky thing to do, and memories have faded, but you get a different perspective on things. Not unlike how a jury likes to observe the demeanor of witnesses or defendants in a trial.

Finding them can be tricky, but not impossible. Your approach is all-important. I try to mail an inquiry and follow up with a phone call. Some of the higher-profile people have been approached many times, and some of them have had bad experiences. You need to gain some level of confidence. Coming on too strong will not work. Who wants to be interrogated? I suggest being scholarly, casual, non-threatening, with a sense of humor.

In my Ferrie work, I have contacted many lower profile people, and my educational resume makes it easier. But I have had a few encounters with high-profile types, including a couple mentioned in other lists in this thread. In one case, I recognized a person while attending a friend's wedding! I wangled an introduction, and just chatted him up a bit. I told him that I recognized him and he seemed a bit bothered, but eventually (after a drink or two) opened up.

In another case, I consciously sought another figure, and we played cat and mouse trying to arrange an interview. Surprisingly, he wanted to put his account on the record. I bought him dinner and had a fascinating chat. I ended up looking at him differently, but eventually came to feel he was not a good source for the info I sought.

It is one thing to "know" these people from books and documents; It is a different thing altogether to talk with them or meet them. It dramatically expands the context of your understanding.

Good luck!

[Nic Martin]

Thanks, Stephen. :] I was given contact information by a very special person ( ) and no longer have to tirelessly search through voter registration & tax records to get addresses & phone numbers. Now, I just need to find out where to start.

It is one thing to "know" these people from books and documents; It is a different thing altogether to talk with them or meet them. It dramatically expands the context of your understanding.

That's almost exactly what I said when I first stepped into Dealey Plaza. It's one thing to see it in books, on video, in photographs - but actually standing there and knowing the landmarks, was like being shot in the stomach. It all became more real, somehow.

[John Dolva]

One thing that seems to me to be crucial is the relative positions of Connally and Kennedy, and any observations that might resolve whether Kennedy was shot with the same bullet that struck Connally.

Apart from all that I think Pat goes to the core with a request for exhumation.

[Charles Black]

Jackie Kennedy

I would ask her to compare the way that Jack looked while on the table at Bethesda with the autopsy photos of Jack's head.

I would ask her who who were the "they" who killed her husband.

How many shots were heard and where did they come from.

Why was Jack clutching his throat.

Where on his head did the shot impact.

What was the timing.

Why the Kennedy's supported the coverup and still do.

Does she feel that Hoover and LBJ were parties to the killing.

Charlie Black

[Carrie Gallagher-Driscoll]

Jackie Kennedy

I would ask her to compare the way that Jack looked while on the table at Bethesda with the autopsy photos of Jack's head.

I would ask her who who were the "they" who killed her husband.

How many shots were heard and where did they come from.

Why was Jack clutching his throat.

Where on his head did the shot impact.

What was the timing.

Why the Kennedy's supported the coverup and still do.

Does she feel that Hoover and LBJ were parties to the killing.

Charlie Black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting questions Charlie. I was waiting to see if anyone would bring her up. I feel that the only people that know the truth are Jackie, the otehr Kennedys and of course every President since then with Executive Authority to view them.

-C

[Christopher T. George]

Jackie Kennedy

I would ask her to compare the way that Jack looked while on the table at Bethesda with the autopsy photos of Jack's head.

I would ask her who who were the "they" who killed her husband.

How many shots were heard and where did they come from.

Why was Jack clutching his throat.

Where on his head did the shot impact.

What was the timing.

Why the Kennedy's supported the coverup and still do.

Does she feel that Hoover and LBJ were parties to the killing.

Charlie Black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting questions Charlie. I was waiting to see if anyone would bring her up. I feel that the only people that know the truth are Jackie, the otehr Kennedys and of course every President since then with Executive Authority to view them.

-C

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Carrie and Charles

This might seem like a silly statement but you do both know, don't you, that Jacqueline Bouvier Onassis Kennedy passed away in New York City on May 19, 1994? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacqueline_Kennedy_Onassis

Best regards

Chris George

[Charles Black]

Hi Chris

Not silly at all

Thanks. Am greatly indebted to you.

I knew that she had not been feeling well!

Charlie Black

Edited August 17, 2005 by Charles Black

[Tim Gratz]

I just want to re-iterate that I am serious that I think a professional trained in interrogation might make a lot of head-way in six months. I think it might take an investigator not familiar with the case one month of solid reading to get up to speed. I think it would also be interesting to discover which witnesses refuse to be interviewed.

[Tim Gratz]

Carrie wrote:

Tim,

An proffessional investigator? Why not sodium penthonal? That might work? Perhaps we hypnotixe them? Keep in mind, those that go into something assuming people will lie, usually are not disappointed. I can see why you have little personal experience.

I certainly do not understand your point. I would not be qualified and do not offer myself as the professional but I spent over ten years interrogating hostile witnesses.

Certainly one can learn just from doing. But by a professional investigator I mean a person with formal training, not "seat of the pants" experience.

There is a world of difference between interviewing a witness such as a bystander in Dealey Plaza who sincerely wants to help and interviewing a hostile witness who might even be a member of the conspiracy possibly facing prosecution for a capital crime.

I have great respect for Mr. Blakey and he was working, certainly, under political constraints and limitations, but I think the staff contemplated by the "other Sprague" would have been much more effective.

Does the choice of a questiober change the results! Darn tootin' it does. That's one of the reasons why rich celebrity defendants like Simpson "walk" while other defendants who may very well be innocent are sitting in jail cells.

I am sure you are sincere but (heaven forbid!) if I was ever wrongfully charged with a serious crime, I would want the witnesses against me cross-examined by a Roy Black or a Gerry Spence; not by you.

And by the way most of the attorneys on both the WC and HSCA were very young and few if any had substantial courtroom experience. That is obvious from reading the testimony. It is possible that some avenues were not explored for "sinister" reasons (read "cover-up") but some of the failings of both the WC and the HSCA can be attributed to lack of experience. Without appearing pompous (as I know I sometimes do) I can assure you, for instance, that I would have certainly been far more aggressive, for instance, in cross-examining Santo Trafficante.

Compare, for instance, RFK's grilling of Giancana before the McCellan Committee with the relatively gentle questioning of Trafficante before the HSCA. No idea why; maybe the members of the HSCA were indeed afraid of Trafficante.

So to professional experience I would also add this qualification: irrational experience. Because this indeed could be a "high stakes" game!

Edited August 17, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Tim Gratz]

Should Robert Maheu be included on the "short llist" of still-living potential witnesses?

Pat?

[Pat Speer]

Should Robert Maheu be included on the "short llist" of still-living potential witnesses?

Pat?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Someone on this Forum, knowing of my interest in Maheu, asked me to submit some questions for the man a few months back. While researching the questions, I found a half dozen major gaps in Maheu's story, where his book and his interviews contradict his sworn testimony. If any octogenarian needs to be put on the stand and grilled, it's Maheu.

Now, whether or not his lies and disinfo have anything to do with his involvement in the assassination, it's hard to say.

[Tim Gratz]

A skilled interrogator, possessed of the results of Pat's research, might be able to reach some conclusions re the question Pat raised.

[Mark Knight]

While the term "interrogator" may be correct, in the strict definition of the word, the coercion-related baggage the word has acquired thru usage in the 20th century, e.g., the "interrogators" employed by Stalin's and Hitler's regimes, makes me wonder if there might not be a more appropriate term for such an investigator.

[Tim Gratz]

Let's go the next step.

I wonder if people have any candidates for a--well, let's call him an investigator--just in case we should decide to take this one step further.

Again, I suggest it be an attorney, presumably in criminal law, with years of cross-examination experience, or a police detective, presumably a homicide investigator.

It could be someone you know from personal experience or by reputation only.

I don't watch television much but I am aware of the popularity of a program called "The Cold Case File" I think that deals with the solution by police detectives of older unsolved crimes. One case that comes to mind is the case of the "Green River Killer" where a dedicated police officer spent years tracking down a serial killer.

Perhaps--just perhaps--if we can put our collective wisdom together we can come up with an agreement on a few candidates and then perhaps someone would be inspired to come up with ideas to fund the engagement of an investigator for a period of six to eight months.

I think we all agree that one or both of the Paines probably know something that might at least advance the investigation. And Marina Oswald.