If you could ask one living witness anything..

[Tim Gratz]

See my thread on Cesar Diosdado.

He should answer at least one question:

Who told him to interview Veciana after the assassination?

[Tim Gratz]

Does anyone think Robert Tannenbaum would be a good investigator?

(I have no idea of his current age.)

[James Richards]

Does anyone think Robert Tannenbaum would be a good investigator?

(I have no idea of his current age.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe he is 63.

James

[Tim Gratz]

How about Terry Harris? I believe he now works in security for Federal Expess.

[Tim Gratz]

How about E. Howard Hunt? I can think of a few questions he could probably answer should he so choose.

[Dawn Meredith]

=Tim Gratz,Aug 19 2005, 07:24 AM]

Does anyone think Robert Tannenbaum would be a good investigator?

He would be excellent. Had the press not gotten rid of Sprague he'd have been able to do his job. (With its hatchet jobs, leading to the fued with Gonzalez).

You've read Fonzi, so you know this story, Tim.

I see Tannenbaum on tv as a commentator, on Court tv once in awhile, he's still sharp as a tack.

We need either DA William Hill (of Dallas)

or a Special Prosecutor.

W is never going to appoint a special prosecutor BUT

the present one, Pat Fitzgerald has an excellent record of digging for the truth.

Perhaps we should all write to him. Of course this greatly expands upon what he has been appointed to investigaate (the Plame scandal) BUT he's already moved past that to other issues, from what I have read, and he's keeping his investigation very CLOSED to the press. Something HSCA was not able to do.

This said, however, after WC and HSCA, and ARRB I do not trust our government to give us the truth.

Frank Church et al tried, as did Sprague's team, but soon's Blakey was installed the fix was in, IMHO.

Dawn

[Carrie Gallagher-Driscoll]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Carrie Gallagher-Driscoll]

Tim-

I hate to point this out, but IF these people haven't told the truth by now, do you really think that your Super Interogator could get them too? If he/she did, do you really think you could prove it? Or that you would believe it? I have serious doubts that after all of these years that I would believe the truth if I was shown he evidence. We've seen so many documents that show that Oswald did it, more that say the Mafia did it. We've even seen diagrams that prove beyond a resonable doubt that it was an man with an umbrella and a poisonous flachette. The theories go from realistic to dillusional. It's insane. BUT, if you want to fund something like that, I'd love to watch you get stonewalled. If people don't want to talk to you, they won't. Believe me, I know. They're not hostile. They're silent. And I can't blame them. Forty two years later, jerks like us are STILL calling them. STILL writing them and STILL doubting them. You would want to talk to someone that thought and told people they thought you were lying? I know you respect Blakey, but has he published the truth? All of it? Were his interrogatory tcechniques successful to the point that you aren't still demanding "professional interrogators"? Apparently not, because you're still trying to sell this ludircrous idea that there is some hypnotist/mind reader someone that can force people to tell him/her everything. It's not going to happen but I wish you luck in your fantastical idea.

-C

[Tim Gratz]

Carrie, you raise several interesting points.

First, if any "smoking guns" are produced this late in the game, either through documents or through witness statements, who would necessarily believe them? And unless there was wide consensus on their accuracy, how could there be historical closure in the case?

Second, you are correct that I do respect Blakey and believe he was sincere, I also think there is compelling evidence to support his theory that the "Mafia did it" (including statements made by Marcello while under the influence of drugs years after the HSCA was over and Blakey had written his book). The question is, I think, whether there were additional sponsors or participants, whether (1) the CIA; (2) individual CIA agents; (3) anti-Castro Cubans; (4) Castro; (5) all of the above.

You must understand, as I am sure you do, that Blakey did not personally interrogate all of the witnesses or conduct the investigations. He necessarily relied on his staff members. Many of his staff members, like the staff members of the WC, were attorneys fresh out of law school with little if any courtroom experience (at least that is my impression). I have seen comments re the WC testimony that it often seemed like the questioning attorney just "dropped the ball" and did not follow up on an obvious line of inquiry. (Some assert these "gaps" were conspiratorial in nature; I think a simpler explanation is often more probable. I myself have reread depositions I conducted and kicked myself for not following what seems in retrospect an obvious lead. The more experienced attorney, presumably the less likely he or she will miss something. And of course there are police interrogation techniques that can be very effective but differ in nature from the cross examination like inquiry of a deposition. So do I think there may have been "leads" missed by both the WC and the HSCA.

As I understand it the WC did not even make provision for obtaining information through possible grants of immunity.

Would the living witnesses cooperate with a new interrogator? Maybe yes, maybe no. But if one of the witnesses should refuse to cooperate, that may in itself tell us something. Moreover, we perhaps ought not assume noncooperation. A witness whether or not listed here may, with the passage of time, want to get something off his or her chest, particularly as the passage of time puts them closer to death. It is even possible a witness could give a statement with a provisio it would only be released upon his or her death.

But clearly an official investigation would be preferable. At an official investigation, of course, witness testimony can be compelled. An official investigation should also include the legal authority to grant immunity for testimony.

Dawn has some interesting points in that regard.

[Richard J. Smith]

Just curious as to what everyone would be curious about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Nic,

Long time...

First I'm surprised that so many people chose to ask questions of the dead when you asked for living witnesses. Anywho...

There's a slew of LIVING people I would like to question, starting with E Howard Hunt. Not that he would answer, and I would assume he would probably have a CIA lawyer with him(as he did with the Plausible Denial case).

I would produce photos from Dealey Plaza purporting to show "lookalikes" and ask if it was them, ie Hunt, Duran, DeTorres. I keep having the feeling that when Hunt dies, more info will come out.

I would also like to find out if anyone from the Gawler embalming team is still alive and and if they would be willing to be interviewed. The questions would be obvious about the patching of the rear head wound and plastic cover as described by Thomas Robinson, and whether photos were taken during reconstruction.

[John Simkin]

I would produce photos from Dealey Plaza purporting to show "lookalikes" and ask if it was them, ie Hunt, Duran, DeTorres. I keep having the feeling that when Hunt dies, more info will come out.

I think that should read when "Bernardo de Torres dies". Maybe, like David Atlee Phillips, Hunt has written a unpublished novel about who killed JFK and what Watergate was really all about.

[Richard J. Smith]

I would produce photos from Dealey Plaza purporting to show "lookalikes" and ask if it was them, ie Hunt, Duran, DeTorres. I keep having the feeling that when Hunt dies, more info will come out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that should read when "Bernardo de Torres dies".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True enough John, but Hunt was an official employee of a US government agency. Those types would be protected more so than anyone else. If info on Hunt came out, the government could use plausible deniability, and say he acted on his own without repercussions from a still alive Hunt.

RJS

PS: actually the first question I would ask Mr DeTorres would be "would you please not point that pistol at my head?"

Edited August 20, 2005 by Richard J. Smith

[Tim Gratz]

Richard wrote:

First I'm surprised that so many people chose to ask questions of the dead when you asked for living witnesses

It surprised me, too, Richard. I guess they forgot the old adage about tales tolf by dead men and women.

[Richard J. Smith]

Tim-

  I hate to point this out, but IF these people haven't told the truth by now, do you really think that your Super Interogator could get them too? If he/she did, do you really think you could prove it? Or that you would believe it? I have serious doubts that after all of these years that I would believe the truth if I was shown he evidence.

-C

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Carrie,

I'm very much interested in the statement you made in your bio, specifically that you are personal friends with Marina. In your post above, you mention "if people haven't told the truth by now...". What's your take on Marina? As you know, so many researchers think she feared for her life, was pressured into making statements, etc, yet she has essentially maintained her story over the years, specifically about the Walker shooting, the backyard photos, seeing LHO cleaning the Mannlicher Carcano, taking it out under a raincoat to practice with, etc, etc. She wrote the ARRB when they wanted her permission to get LHO's tax records released, told them that she wanted certain FBI records released, but wouldn't give them what they wanted unless she got what she wanted. Stalemate.

IMO she needs to submit to a polygraph to clear up some very important misconceptions. To coin a phrase, what does she know and when did she know it?

RJS

[Tim Gratz]

As I said before, I do not think the Paines were witting of the entire plot but I think it is clear thay played a role, even after the assassination.

I do not subscribe to the "Hunt did it" scenario and really see little evidence to suggest that he did except for the possibility of his presence in DP that tragic day. It is possible he was sent there not to assist the conspitators but only to muddy the waters. But it is certainly possible Hunt played a role. And if he did not, he may very well have (probably does have) extremely important information. For instance, if Oswald was indeed working for the CIA, I suspect Hunt would be able to confirm that. And if he was not a conspirator, due to his connections he may very well know who the plotters were.

So I think I would jump Hunt to the top of the list of living witnesses, with the Paines the second and third witnesses. I would probably put Maheu in fourth place. Also in prioritizing witnesses we should perhaps give due consideration to their age and health. I'd probably put Diosdado before Marina.

I am far from certain he could--but if anyone living in the United States would know who did it it would be Hunt, in my opinion.

Outside of this country, it would be Rauol. If there was Cuban involvement, it is possible Castro did not know it, but extremely improbable that a Cuban plot could have gone forward without Rauol's knowledge.

Edited August 20, 2005 by Tim Gratz