JFK Facts Top 5: Stories with legs

Grassy knoll aftermath

Cops runs to the grassy knoll

 

Readers responded to Sunshine Week in Washington by making our story about secrecy around JFK records the favorite story of the week. In self-referential twist, last week’s Top 5 Countdown was the second most popular story of the week thus landing in this week’s countdown. And for the 2nd week in a role the story of cops gravitating to the grassy knoll in the aftermath of JFK’s assassination came in at number 5. As we say in the journalism business, that story has legs.

  1. Sunshine on JFK: why the secrecy around assassination-related records? (March 18, 2014)
  2. JFK Facts Top 5: Stories about evidence find favor (March 14, 2014)
  3. Ex-flame says Jack Ruby ‘had no choice’ but to kill Oswald (March 21, 2013)
  4. CIA spying on Congress: ‘Undercover’ officer duped House JFK investigators in ’78 (March 12, 2014)
  5. 21 cops who heard a grassy knoll shot (March 11, 2014)

26 comments

  1. Melvin Fromme says:

    Jeff, it appears the talk about locating & interviewing the C-130 crew that flew JFK’s death car out of Dallas to Andrews AFB has struck a deep nerve within Doug Horne:

    http://forum.assassinationofjfk.net/index.php?/topic/22-how-did-jfks-body-arrive-at-bethesda-naval-hospital-twenty-minutes-prior-to-the-andrews-afb-motorcade/

    ‘Stan, I looked at Mr. Horne’s response to those commenting where your link sent me. My response to his comments are the crew of the C-130 holds the definitive answers to what transpired on their aircraft, when they departed Love Field & landed at Andrews, what radio traffic they heard that is not on the AF-1 tapes & the exact condition of JFK’s parade car. An effort for the MSM & private researchers to locate that crew, their commanders, family & friends should not be underplayed IMO. What they have to say will either bolster Mr. Horne’s thesis or clarify where it is wrong. The public desires factual information over a thesis fiercely guarded like a lion protecting its lioness IMO. A factual accounting of all aircraft that landed and departed Love Field 22 Nov 1963 is not known as of this date. This is an arrow for investigation into areas previously unexplored, something Mr. Horne should welcome as his thesis is exactly that. One can’t insinuate SS agents were involved in removing JFK’s body from his casket at Love Field & transporting his corpse to Bethesda early in one breath and then rely on SS agents written reports to be truthful if such a sordid event truly took place’.

    After reading the entire thread & the several Doug Horne online essays it might appear to the reader that this is exactly where & how those who publish unorthodox theories about the assassination of JFK work themselves into a corner. It seems Mr. Horne takes suggestions on areas of his several thesis that need more investigation as an assault. I’ve seen this happen time & time again over the years & all it earns the author is disrespect & lack of credibility insinuations. The C-130 crew needs to be found & interviewed; their stories are glaringly missing from the historical record. The complete picture of all air traffic in & out of Love Field 22 Nov 1963 also needs to be investigated & reported. Without all the facts it’s difficult to make reasonable & sound conclusions about anything Mr. Horne postulates.

    • Curtis Fenwick says:

      Melvin:
      In your reference to JFK Facts top story #2 & Doug Horne’s online response to commenters I couldn’t help but notice a startling difference between Mr. Horne’s apparent reluctance for new information to be developed (interviewing the C-130 JFK ‘death car’ crew & learning about all aircraft activity at Love Field on ambush day)& the emphasis Jeff Morley & his staff stress here on developing new information (recall the location efforts of the black couple Marilyn Sitzman described in an interview as one example). I find any & all efforts to thwart new information developing in the JFK murder mystery to be almost suicidal to whomever attempts such. The public wants everything laid out on the table with nothing concealed anywhere, not just pieces of information that are shaped into a thesis. By calling the uninterviewed C-130 crew ‘nonsense’ & ‘not worthy of discussion’ Mr. Horne has shot both himself in the foot & the several recent essays he has online IMO. He could learn some lessons about objectiveness & fair analysis by visiting Jeff Morley’s website once in awhile. Authors that refuse constructive criticism steer the public acceptance they are seeking away from them; in the JFK case the public has never accepted any theory shoved down its throat, no matter how much it’s been seasoned & forced down the public ultimately chucks it right back up. After 50 years of this, Doug Horne should know better.

      • Charles Beyer says:

        To the commenters directly above ^:

        I believe Mr. Horne is so defensive because the topic of the phantom, un-interviewed C-130 ‘death car’ crew & the lack of knowledge about all aircraft activity at Love Field exposes his Achilles heel not only in his recent online essays but also his book series ‘Inside The ARRB’. Without having to torture myself & re-read his ARRB series again from the local library I doubt he has anything about either subject in his book series. To an author, this is catastrophic to miss something like this, particularly for Mr. Horne because he was a member of the ARRB; the flight manifest & documentation of the C-130 flight as well as all air traffic at Love Field should have been turned over to the ARRB. That he overlooked the importance of this all & failed to investigate it & include what he should have found in his works makes him look bad as a researcher & author & gives ammo for those who will attack his credibility. This demonstrates clearly to me that Mr. Horne’s intentions are not focused on solving the JFK murder mystery, it’s more on saving face & protecting his product that provides his income. He is not alone on missing the significance of the C-130 crew or any and all air traffic Love Field handled 22 Nov 1963: I’m up to chapter 4 in re-reading William Manchester’s ‘The Death Of A President’ from 1967 and I haven’t read one word yet on the C-130 crew or the complete air traffic handled by Love Field before, during & after the attack on President Kennedy. The news media assembled at DPD headquarters also missed it & as a result the C-130 crew & any & all additional aircraft that landed & departed Love Field ‘slipped thru the cracks’. Also, Horne wants the public to believe there was a hole in the ‘death car’s windshield based on a report from the same agency he claims stole JFK’s body & desecrated it by hiding it in a cargo bay of AF-1. That’s not going to be an easy sell to a global public that has been exposed to a vast multitude of unorthodox theories.

        • Thomas Joseph says:

          In addition to the ‘phantom’ military death car transport plane & crew plus any additional ‘phantom’ aircraft Love Field handled I find it interesting that the Dallas & surrounding cities public did not go to Love Field & watch the murdered President leave Dallas. All I have seen so far is a few snapshots of Clint Hill & Roy Kellerman bringing JFK’s casket onboard AF-1 (with Jackie behind them on the runway) plus a brief video of AF-1 taking off for Andrews AFB. No public visible anywhere in either. I haven’t located any videos or radio broadcasts instructing the public to stay away from Love Field either. I find this extremely odd when people are known to drive hundreds of miles to view Oklahoma tornado damage, the steps where a former athlete’s wife & friend were murdered in California or the spot where a toddler’s body was dumped in Florida. The media didn’t do such a bang up job after all by focusing on Lee Oswald’s arrest & dropping the ball on a murdered President being transported out of Dallas, along with the car he was ambushed in. Jeff Morley’s website has opened up new avenues for the events in Dallas to be investigated & reported. An good & efficient investigative reported simply can’t do any better than that in my book.

          • leslie sharp says:

            As a complete aside and perhaps having no relevance, it has been reported that the private plane carrying future President George HW Bush and his wife Barbara was delayed in landing at Love Field (where they anticipated connecting with a commercial flight to Houston) because Air Force Two was preparing to leave; I believe the time was around 3:32 PM? Clearly some planes were being cleared for landing by then.

  2. Jonathan says:

    The most interesting diaries to me are numbers 1 (secrecy around JFK records) and 5 (21 cops).

    The comments about secrecy around JFK records devolved into food fights about “evidence”. Truth is, if the government had nothing to hide about the JFK assassination, this website would not exist today, and hundreds of books and papers on the assassination would not have been written. Arlen Specter would not have been reviled by many Americans. And “Warren Commission” would not have given rise to the “Parallax View”.

    The 21 cops diary boils down to the law of evidence. Who perceived what, where, when, and how? Truth is the photographic record trumps almost everything else here from an evidentiary standpoint, given that so many of the cops are now dead. The photo record shows cops rushing up the grassy incline. The photo record is for all time.

    John McAdams argues many of the deputies did not have a direct line of sight to the grassy knoll. The Rules of Evidence only require personal apprehension of a sound or whatever. Because the witness testimony is subject to cross-exam, the testimony comes in. The jury weighs it.

    Ultimately, everyone here deals with the requirement that guilt be established beyond a reasonable doubt. Not upon assertions.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Jonathan, the subject of cross-examination is surely a significant issue when bombarded with repetition of facts from the Warren Report. Was anyone present to cross examine any of the witnesses, present to dispute any of the facts introduced as ‘evidence,’ present in the aftermath to officially challenge the results? Was the HSCA that mechanism, and if so, didn’t it also fail in its mandate to resolve the issues.

      I recognize that the Warren Commission was not instituted to substitute as a criminal trial, but were there not legal requirements imposed? Other countries use the term ‘tribunal’ as a means to seek facts and given the weight of said facts, trials might well ensue (somewhat like a Grand Jury). What US laws applied to the WC? Did they make it up as they went along? Was the blur of its role deliberate?

      • Jonathan says:

        Leslie,

        The Commission’s interview of witnesses was a travesty from a truth-seeking standpoint.

        There was no cross-exam of witnesses. The purpose of cross-exam in any trial, civil or criminal, is to test the veracity and foundation of a witness’s statements.

        Leading questions are permitted on cross-exam. Such as, “Is it not true Mrs. Markham that Officer Tippitt was dead when you say you spoke to him?”

        Leading questions are not permitted on direct examination. And yet Joseph Ball, Arlen Specter, and other W.C. lawyers used leading questions to lead witnesses exactly where they wanted ‘em. With no cross exam, the American people are left with bogus transcripts of witness testimony.

        The blur of its role was deliberate, but the role was clear: it was to convict Oswald in the popular mind.

        There were none of the safeguards surrounding witness testimony that one would find in a trial court, today or in 1964. That was a deliberate feature of the lawyer-dominated Warren Commission.

        Here’s something else: None, absolutely none, of the Warren Commission testimony would be admissible into evidence in any trial subsequently. It would be excluded as hearsay. That’s why, for example, Jim Garrison had to call certain W.C. witnesses as witnesses in his prosecution of Clay Shaw. He needed witnesses like Ruth Paine to come into court in New Orleans and testify in accordance with rules of criminal procedure and evidence. Unfortunately for Garrison and the American people, Governors Reagan (California) and Rhodes (Ohio) rejected his requests for extradition of certain witnesses: Jim Braden (California) and Gordon Novel (Ohio).

        • leslie sharp says:

          Tks Jonathan, and I believe that you have encapsulated a number of egregious facts that insist the commission acted fraudulently from the outset; let those who continue to defend the report issued by the Warren Commission stand behind their claims and address these issues, one by one, on this site in concert with the stated goals of jfkfacts that include “dispelling confusion and establishing an accurate historical record.”

          Is this site willing to initiate a fact-check of the Warren Commission Report, beginning with your statement? Will they challenge John McAdams, Photon, Jean Davidson and any other defenders of the report to follow specific guidelines, and begin the arduous task in a methodical fashion? Are there judges following this site that would be willing to weigh in actively in the procedure?

          Otherwise, this is an endless circle – to what benefit.

        • John McAdams says:

          Leading questions are permitted on cross-exam. Such as, “Is it not true Mrs. Markham that Officer Tippitt was dead when you say you spoke to him?”

          I’m not aware that she ever said that Tippit spoke to her (although a lot of conspiracy books say that).

          She said that Tippit tried to speak.

          Frank Cimino is reported saying “the officer moved slightly and groaned, but he never said anything he [Cimino] could understand.”

          http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10408&relPageId=421

          So it would not be absurd if she thought Tippit was trying to talk.

    • John McAdams says:

      The photo record shows cops rushing up the grassy incline. The photo record is for all time.

      The first cop to rush up was Clyde Haygood, and he wasn’t even in the Plaza when the shots rang out.

      • Donald Manning says:

        Hargis got off his bike, pulled his pistol out and ran across the street to the where they Newmans were.
        Something told him to get back on his bike and ride around to the NW to cut anyone off escaping that way.
        Not very much of that was caught on film though.

        Altgens8 that shows Zapruder was actually the newsman’s reaction to HARGIS and where he ran to.
        Little known fact.

        Couch shows Smith heading to the knoll via the Elm St extension after being directed there by a woman who came from that direction screaming “they’ve shot him”.

        Then we have this man on the steps/couple behind the wall running away and Sitzman seemingly watching where they go and Wiegman scaring the Chisms and the two college boys into running back from the curb and toward the pergola by running straight for them.

        God knows where that cop above in Bond4 ends up going to but so much has already happened and Haygood is yet to enter.

  3. Photon says:

    You could have a videotape of Lee Oswald shooting JFK and Tippit and still this and other conspiracy sites would exist. Many if not most CT believers simply cannot accept the fact that a leftist killed JFK.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      No Photon. That’s just spin.

      The real reason is because of the evidence which calls into question the lone assassin conclusion.

    • Jonathan says:

      Photon, whether the person history calls Lee Harvey Oswald was a leftist is open to discussion. To assert Oswald was a leftist is to ignore many markers to the contrary, as you know.

      Let’s review those markers indicating he was not a leftist:

      – He joined the Marines, hardly a leftist organization.

      – He was assigned to a U-2 base in Japan. Hardly the marker of a leftist in the late 1950s. He would have had to undergo a background check to get this assignment.

      – He intersected with Guy Bannister in New Orleans (as you know). Bannister was hardly a leftist.

      – He got a job in Dallas at a photographic facility that processed classified USAF photos. No real leftist gets this job in the early 1960s.

      – He never renounced his U.S. citizenship in the USSR.

      – He and Marina were embraced by the White Russian community in Dallas. The White Russian Community was hardly leftist.

      These are facts. To assert without qualification Oswald was a leftist is either without knowledge or with less than honest intent.

      • John McAdams says:

        Again, a post with a large number of talking points, but just a couple that can be dealt with quickly.

        – He was assigned to a U-2 base in Japan. Hardly the marker of a leftist in the late 1950s. He would have had to undergo a background check to get this assignment.

        He had a “confidential” security clearance. There was nothing on his record (at this age) to prevent that. Doubtless his letter to the Socialist Party was simply not known to the people doing the security check.

        – He intersected with Guy Bannister in New Orleans (as you know). Bannister was hardly a leftist.

        There is no reliable evidence of that. You have only witnesses like Jack Martin and Delphine Roberts.

        – He never renounced his U.S. citizenship in the USSR.

        Which proves what? A genuine leftist might keep his options open, or might simply not bother to come back to the Embassy.

        – He and Marina were embraced by the White Russian community in Dallas. The White Russian Community was hardly leftist.

        No, Marina was embraced, since she was Russian, poor and abused. The White Russians simply put up with Lee (whom they disliked) because of their compassion for Marina.

        Jean Davison has debunked the “photo” stuff on another thread.

        • Jonathan says:

          John McAdams, you miss the point of my comment. Photon asserted without reservation or qualification that Oswald was a “leftist”. I point out merely there’s room for debate on that matter. If you don’t think there’s room for debate, fine.

    • bogman says:

      A ‘leftist’ who NEVER said or wrote a bad word about the president, even in custody. And who the govt claims tried to kill a major JFK foe a few months earlier.

      Makes all the sense in the world. Who could have an iasue with that?

    • leslie sharp says:

      Photon, this quote can be found on the internet: “We are sick at heart. The tales the radio reporters tell of Jackie Kennedy are the bravest I’ve ever heard. The rumors are flying about that horrid assassin. We are hoping that it is not some far right nut, but a “commie” nut. You understand that we know they are both nuts, but just hope that it is not a Texan and not an American at all.”

      Those tilling in a similar vineyard can find comfort in the fact that the future First Lady of the United States had weighed in along side the argument that a “leftist” killed Kennedy. The problem arrises when one discovers the discrepancies and the contradictions in this particular nomenclature. For starters, why did an avowed leftist leave Russia, having defected in a fairly spectacular fashion, and return to the United States. Are you or Barbara suggesting that the Russians sent Oswald back to the States and that he was working for the communists when he murdered the American President?

      • John McAdams says:

        For starters, why did an avowed leftist leave Russia, having defected in a fairly spectacular fashion, and return to the United States.

        His dreams that it was a socialist paradise were shattered by the reality.

        There were perhaps 20 defectors roughly comparable to Oswald during this ear (read the HSCA “Defectors Study”) and it was typical that they redefected.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Are you interested in discussing some of those defectors and the pattern that emerges in line with Oswald’s history? Bill Simpich does a thorough job of that task, and I could only scratch the surface, but there are at least two – stationed in the old Gehlen headquarters in GR – that are highly provocative. Were they recruited for a specific operation that had been in play during the ’50′s and was being updated?

          • Jonathan says:

            Leslie,

            You write about facts. McAdams as usual makes assertions. He writes:

            “His dreams that it was a socialist paradise were shattered by the reality.”

            This is an assertion. It is not truth necessarily. I ask John McAdams to defend his assertion.

          • John McAdams says:

            McAdams as usual makes assertions. He writes:

            “His dreams that it was a socialist paradise were shattered by the reality.”

            This is an assertion. It is not truth necessarily. I ask John McAdams to defend his assertion.

            That’s what Oswald himself said, paraphrased slightly, in his Historic Diary.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      That is not a fact. It is a factoid. Oswald was murdered by jacob rubenstien in front of the dpd protection. That is a FACT.
      The fact is Chief Curry said “we don’t have any proof Oswald fired the rifle and never did.

      “We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.”[4]
      “I think there’s a possibility that one [shot] could have come from in front [of the limousine]. We’ve never, we’ve never been able to prove that, but just in my mind and by the direction of his blood and brain from the president from one of the shots, it would just seem that it would have to been fired from the front rather than behind. I can’t say that I could swear that I believe that it was one man and one man alone. I think there’s a possibility there could have been another man.” [5]

    • Photon says:

      See? Matthews was right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more